Tesla handed in the car and pinduoduo didn’t win

Sina Finance and economics reported that on the night of August 18, the Wuhan car owner who was refused to pick up the car successfully picked up the car with the help of pinduoduo and yibuyi (the actual sales subject of group purchase Tesla), and was on insurance. However, immediately after the incident reversed, the vice president of foreign affairs of Tesla China forwarded a Tesla employee, saying: “it’s false news that Wuhan car owners pick up their cars.” In the early hours of the morning, Wuhan car owners said through other media that they had successfully picked up the car, using a subsidy of 20000 yuan from pinduoduo, but they bought the car with their family accounts. Tesla didn’t “soften up”, and pinduoduo successfully subsidized the car. It seems that the contradiction between the two sides has not been solved behind the happy ending. Does this mark the loss of Tesla’s iron fist pricing power? no Is this the victory of multi subsidy marketing? Not necessarily. as we all know, Tesla has become a special case in the auto industry with 100% self-supporting channels, breaking the interest chain of manufacturers, regional dealers and 4S stores all the year round, and has obtained a firm grasp of the pricing power of its own products – until the occurrence of the pinduoduo incident. the reason is simple: it’s a matter of business rules, but it doesn’t involve violations. Many public opinions have also pointed out this point: without authorization, it does not mean that sales are not allowed. “Authorized dealer” is equivalent to a plaque issued by the manufacturer to prove that the dealer is a “friend” recognized by the manufacturer; but without this plaque and without the approval of “friend”, you can still sell its products “without authorization”. The law has never stipulated that only “friends” of the brand side can sell its goods. it’s not illegal to sell Tesla cars on their own platforms, even if they are not authorized by Tesla, as long as they don’t cheat consumers “they can represent Tesla”. Of course, their own platforms can set their own prices, and there is no violation of the law and regulations to subsidize 20000 yuan. As long as pinduoduo is willing to subsidize 270000 yuan, the whole payment is OK. this is also the reason for the first time that the government has encountered a real setback since its subsidy of 10 billion yuan. In the past, pinduoduo sold iPhones, mysteries of navy blue and AMD CPUs. Despite repeated boycotts from the brand, they still sold as they were. Because those pinduoduo platform businesses with pinduoduo subsidies (like this time, it’s better to buy cars) have channels to get iPhones, la mer and AMD. The iPhone is not only available in Apple’s own stores. No matter how anxious the brand side is, there is no other way but to warn consumers, and to sell their products at a low price with billions of subsidies. however, this time, when pinduoduo started selling Tesla, there was a problem: no one could get a car except Tesla itself. Every model 3 from the Shanghai factory is sent to Tesla stores all over the country, and none of them can be leaked out. How to subsidize pinduoduo? When it comes to collecting the car, we still have to find Tesla company. What’s the way around? No, If pinduoduo / Yibin first buys the model 3 (and then transfers it to the real consumer) with his own identity (or find a third-party individual), the first delivery of the car will be smooth, but for real consumers, it will become a second-hand car. At the beginning, it was a new car (default). Even if this “second-hand car” didn’t run for a kilometer, it also constituted serious consumer fraud. consumers and pinduoduo are not the community of interests. They only have a common will on the details of “subsidizing 20000 yuan”. The potential benefits of “used car fraud” to consumers are much higher than the 20000 yuan. What’s more, there are countless eyes on the outside world. Therefore, even if consumers are willing to do so, pinduoduo will not and cannot take this risk according to the assumption of “rational economic man” of consumer participants. it is precisely because Tesla’s sales channels are all self-supporting and do not give the outside world a little opportunity, which hinders pinduoduo’s 10 billion subsidy. Otherwise, it will not happen at all. in the whole incident, the most unfavorable side for Tesla is: objectively speaking, pinduoduo, Tesla and consumers are three independent interest individuals. However, pinduoduo has won over consumers to their own side. therefore, we can see that in the initial statement issued by Tesla, it stressed that “we will support consumers who are misled by pinduoduo’s group buying activities and are unable to collect their cars. We will do our best to provide consumers with the legal aid they need.”. Safeguarding rights refers to letting consumers go to pinduoduo to protect their rights. The intention of this move is clear: Tesla hopes to pull the “third-party” consumers from pinduoduo to its own, and it is pinduoduo, not Tesla, who is hurting you. but the thigh didn’t twist its arm, and everyone noticed that Tesla didn’t deliver the car to consumers, but ignored that consumers paid pinduoduo. Don’t interrupt. Everyone knows that Tesla will eventually get the 250000 yuan from consumers, plus 20000 yuan from pinduoduo. However, it is pinduoduo that collects the money from consumers. Therefore, pinduoduo and consumers can not be bound into a community at this time. “Whoever takes your money is responsible,” it seems reasonable. but from the perspective of contract? It is true that the money in consumers’ wallets is not directly put into Tesla’s bank account, but the sales contract is signed by both parties. The Wuhan owner himself said that he was “directly contracted with Tesla”, so “it is Tesla’s responsibility”. There is nothing wrong with this saying, “Whoever receives the money shall be responsible” is a common sense in society, while “Whoever signs the contract shall be responsible” has a higher priority. From the beginning to the end, Tesla’s theoretical basis is the “no resale” clause in the sales contract. According to common sense, when I buy a car, it’s reasonable for someone to help me pay. However, if there is sufficient objective evidence and social consensus to show that the party paying on behalf of me has no personal relationship with me, and the act of paying on behalf of me is obviously for commercial interests, is this “de facto resale”? In the past understanding, resale must be the third party between the buyer and the seller, who first bought and then sold. But in this case, pinduoduo has no private relationship with the consumer himself. And pinduoduo identity is a sales service agency, the motivation of payment on behalf of consumers is for their own commercial interests. Pinduoduo also has no intention and possibility to use the car first and then deliver it to consumers (otherwise it will become a second-hand car problem). To say that it is not resale, it is equivalent to omitting the two-step process of “buy first and then sell” into “payment on behalf of others”; to say that this is resale does not conform to the traditional definition of “resale” in the past. If there is a chance to go to court, this should be the focus of the debate. if you spell more than 2 If the subsidy of ten thousand yuan is transferred to the consumer, and the consumer finds Tesla to pay and sign the contract, Tesla will not take any account of it (but pinduoduo is unlikely to do so because the subsidy is given to the consumer, pinduoduo may not be binding on the purpose, and consumers will buy what they like); if pinduoduo signs a subsidy agreement with the consumer first, the consumer will pay the full amount and then hold the certificate Come to find pinduoduo “reimbursement” 2 Tesla also doesn’t make sense (but pinduoduo doesn’t do this either, because the subsidy is directly deducted when paying, which means different to consumers, and the marketing effect will be discounted for pinduoduo); if the payment is not pinduoduo, but the relatives and friends of the consumer, there are sufficient reasons to show that there is no interest exchange between the two sides If the payer is not a commercial organization, and the act of paying on behalf of others is not for sale, then this kind of payment can be easily interpreted as a gift, and it can never constitute a resale. Naturally, Tesla has nothing to say (pinduoduo is obviously not…). although pinduoduo is true for Tesla, pinduoduo may not fulfill its obligations to consumers: it promises things that it can’t guarantee in fact, and the car will eventually be in the hands of Tesla, which will need to be handled by consumers themselves, which indirectly leads to the failure of the transaction. The whole incident, please do not forget that this is a tripartite relationship, not the contradiction between “pinduoduo + consumer” and “Tesla”. in pinduoduo’s opinion, it should be unimpeded in Tesla to subsidize consumers. Pinduoduo seems to have ignored the prohibition of resale in Tesla’s sales contract, or is too confident that Tesla can be easily persuaded in legal theory. assuming Tesla really has to deliver the vehicle to consumers, what does pinduoduo get? Is Tesla’s actions these days really due to his full confidence in his own legitimate rights and interests? Although we believe that Tesla’s refusal to deliver the car can represent the norms of modern commercial society, the “resale” clause in the contract is not clear enough, and the relevant judicial interpretation is not enough to provide support. If we really go to court, Tesla won’t win much. even if Tesla is ultimately defeated, the more actions it has now and the longer it struggles, the more consumers will murmur about going shopping for more cars in the future. Not to mention, for a self-supporting channel like Tesla, it is not a difficult change to add various restrictions after the incident to prevent the pinduoduo incident from happening again.