41–50 of 154 posts
>totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket losses, Walmart said in the lawsuit. This amount is immaterial for each party involved.
Why would Tesla allow this to go to suit, given it’s likely press coverage? Surely there was opportunity to settle.
> Tesla is also facing a federal field investigation by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board after several Model X and Model S owners across the globe said their cars burst into flames yawn Are other automakers suffering the same investigations? https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=812639 > Each year, from 2014 to 2016, an estimated 171,500 highway vehicle fires occurred in the United States, resulting in an annua…
Yeah, but relatively speaking there aren't that many Tesla's on the road. What you'd need to do is compare the number of Tesla fires (per 1000 cars) versus other new IC cars (per 1000).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you saying they staged seven fires, or that after 7 of 240 installations caught fire they only sued because of their conflicting interests? Tesla installed 29 MW of solar last quarter, compared to a peak of 253 MW at Solar City before the acquisition. First Solar, which isn't an apples to apples competitor since it specializes in utility scale, is on track to produce 1375 MW per quarter of panels this year. Te…
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. The original comment merely points out an interesting note in that both parties have their own interest in solar. You make so many specific counter-claims to a simple sentence that it seems like you're responding to the wrong comment.
The Walton Family also happens to own much of First Solar, a competing provider of photovoltaic cells.
So are you saying they staged seven fires, or that after 7 of 240 installations caught fire they only sued because of their conflicting interests? Tesla installed 29 MW of solar last quarter, compared to a peak of 253 MW at Solar City before the acquisition. First Solar, which isn't an apples to apples competitor since it specializes in utility scale, is on track to produce 1375 MW per quarter of panels this year. Te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you saying they staged seven fires, or that after 7 of 240 installations caught fire they only sued because of their conflicting interests? Tesla installed 29 MW of solar last quarter, compared to a peak of 253 MW at Solar City before the acquisition. First Solar, which isn't an apples to apples competitor since it specializes in utility scale, is on track to produce 1375 MW per quarter of panels this year. Te…
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. The original comment merely points out an interesting note in that both parties have their own interest in solar. You make so many specific counter-claims to a simple sentence that it seems like you're responding to the wrong comment.
Wasn’t this work done during the SolarCity years?
I found that interesting as well. The article is trying to link solar panel failures to Tesla vehicle failures. They were not born from the same company nor process. It seems whatever generated the story was looking for some segue into how the price is down. The stock price was affected by the market's new knowledge. They both contain words for fire but are otherwise independent and distant events in Tesla's history.…
The surviving entity was Tesla, so Walmart sued Tesla.
(SolarCity's debts actually represent the majority part of Tesla's debt load and is part of why Tesla has been struggling financially despite 19%+ margin on each car sold.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found that interesting as well. The article is trying to link solar panel failures to Tesla vehicle failures. They were not born from the same company nor process. It seems whatever generated the story was looking for some segue into how the price is down. The stock price was affected by the market's new knowledge. They both contain words for fire but are otherwise independent and distant events in Tesla's history.…
My friends at SolarCity never had to work 70h in a week before Tesla acquired them (nor work weekends installing solar panels on Musk mansion in L.A.) So it might very well be the result of the same company and processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found that interesting as well. The article is trying to link solar panel failures to Tesla vehicle failures. They were not born from the same company nor process. It seems whatever generated the story was looking for some segue into how the price is down. The stock price was affected by the market's new knowledge. They both contain words for fire but are otherwise independent and distant events in Tesla's history.…
My friends at SolarCity never had to work 70h in a week before Tesla acquired them (nor work weekends installing solar panels on Musk mansion in L.A.) So it might very well be the result of the same company and processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. The original comment merely points out an interesting note in that both parties have their own interest in solar. You make so many specific counter-claims to a simple sentence that it seems like you're responding to the wrong comment.
If I misinterpreted the parent, I'm genuinely happy to delete my post and apologize. But I don't think I did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This is a breach of contract action arising from years of gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards by Tesla with respect to solar panels that Tesla designed, installed, and promised to operate and maintain safely on the roofs of hundreds of Walmart stores,” Tesla seems to be the operator and maintainer. I would expect a contract has maintenance as a flat fee per year if it is anything like other…
As alleged by Walmart. Failure due to rushed, shoddy work is definitely Tesla's M.O., but Walmart is also not exactly the most credible source, given their history.