The last couple days I’ve noticed every post that shows Tesla not looking good, has been removed from some higher directive. Not deleted by OP.

and yesterday an OP tried at least twice to post an article about Tesla factory ordering $16,000 worth of pies from a small independently-owned Silicon Valley bakery, owned by a sweet hard-working lady who worked overtime all night and had to go out and buy more ingredients to get the order finished in time, only for Tesla to call up the next morning and cancel the order just as the pies were about to be delivered to Tesla. As of press time, that lady lost $16,000 on that order but hopefully Tesla came back and made up for it.

The OP posted that article twice because the first one had been removed, then I tried to comment on the second one and it had been removed also.

There seems to be some Tesla brigade working hard to remove everything from the internet that makes them look bad.

Edit: Update:

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      4·
      9 months ago

      Just go directly after the person who made the order and take them to small claims court. She could only recoup $10,000 that way, but I believe the person would have to show. Not some lawyer on their behalf. I believe in California, lawyers are not allowed to represent anyone in small claims. Chances are the tesla person wouldn’t even show and several months later the baker would eventually end up with a check.

      • Mycroft@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        What’s stopping anyone from going to small claims with elon musk or any other high profile Californian? Just curious, I’m not from the US.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      21·
      9 months ago

      But like, what’s your point?

      Setting aside all the practical ways this suit could be handled affordably (e.g., her actual damages were a much smaller monetary sum compared to that invoiced amount and probably eligible for small claims)…

      Having a policy around cancellations in the invoices would not materially effect anything here. While it might be helpful to ensure a good-faith customer behaves in a professional and appropriate way, such policies have little effect on a bad-faith customer.

      Even without an explicit policy, this is fairly straightforward promissory estoppel, or at least something very much like it. If she had a policy, she would have a very strong case. Without, I still reckon she has a very strong case – pretty much just as strong. Either way, the recourse is the courts.