|
|
|
|
|
|
by Mz
4451 days ago
|
|
|
Just because I feel this response is not the right response does not mean I am suggesting they shouldn't respond at all. But some of the points they make and the way it is framed look pretty bad to me. I understand they feel defensive and unfairly attacked but there are better ways to handle things. Edit: I will add that when I worked for an insurance company, some of the letters I had to write had to be reviewed by the legal department. So I have firsthand experience with writing PC pieces that need to stand up in a court of law, notify the customer of important info, admit no wrong-doing, etc. This is not just someone talking out their butt. |
|
|
I'm not sure I see why. I understand you're thinking about the legal ramifications, but reading between the lines of Tesla's blog post tells me two key things:
(1) They have logs of everything that has happened to the car. That means they have evidence to back up every factual statement in their blog post.
(2) They have records of all communications with the customer. That means they have evidence that shows that at least some of the factual claims made by the Lemon King lawyer (for example, the claim that three buyback requests were made prior to the lawsuit being filed) are false.
In other words, they believe that everything they said in the blog post will stand up in a court of law, should it ever come to that. They're just willing to make an effort to not have it come to that. (If the Lemon King lawyer had half a brain, he'd be tripping over himself to get his client to withdraw the suit after reading this post. Somehow I doubt that will happen.)