Elio Erks Me To No End

[eliothegreat]

To all those screaming breech, specially (at the moment) Eliothegreat:

"At some point, if/when the vehicle is actually offered for sale and a binding contract is signed, there should be clear specifications on that agreement. If those specs are not met at time of delivery, I think both of us agree that that would constitute a breach."

What an interesting idea! Has anyone sued Ford or GM or Mazda because one of their models was a couple of horsepower or a couple of MPG off of spec? Does anyone NOT buy a Camry Hybrid because it only delivers 39-45 mpg instead of the 45 they advertise?

MPG ratings are NEVER 100% accurate because real-life driving isn't simulated driving. These days you can get pretty close, but as the advertisers say, "your mileage may vary."

And no one has ever gotten away with suing a start-up company because their price had to fluctuate.

Eliothegreat, you need to understand that a goal is not a contract. There is no breech. There may be failure to attain 100% of the anticipated results, but that is not a breech of any sort of contract, and in real life, nothing more than a variance. Yes, because Elio has been so loud and so steadfast in advertising "84mpg / $6800" they have built a real expectation with fans and the small part of the public that's actually aware of the project. That's why I think as soon as they're to about 98-99% they should change the line a bit -- maybe "more miles for your money than any car in the world." Or even just start stressing that 84/6800 is a goal.

But expectations aren't contracts. Expectations are feelings. Yours are hurt. And if you can't live without those extra couple of hundred dollars or miles per gallon, if the targets just can't be met, then you should make a decision -- is 98% going to give me a cool car that saves a ton of money, or is it more important to stamp my feet and yowl about my disappointment?

That's a choice every one of us may have to make. Me, I figure my tricked-out Elio will cost about 10K including tax and delivery fee, and worth every dime -- even if they're at a miserably inefficient 80 mpg.

So tantrum over expectations, or delight in something wonderful, you take your pick. I've made mine.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think that I may not have communicated well, because you indicate that you disagree with me, while expressing a great deal of what I was trying to say. Let us suppose three snapshots in time: R - date of reservation. K - signing of binding delivery contract. P - delivery of vehicle. For now, I am ignoring the scenario of someone who purchases without a reservation, and/or a delivery contract.

We both agree that R does not create a contract. Only K creates a contract. We both seem to agree that differences is specs between K and R do not constitute a breach. I believe that differences between K and P would, or at least could possibly, create a breach. It would depend on the exact provisions in the contract K, and the materiality of the discrepancies.

As far as suing for mpg claims, you might want to read up on the Hyundai class action settlement. Suit was filed, the manufacturer lost. So having a difference between K/P and actual results could have consequences.

Right now we are only in the R stage. No one has signed K. Therefore, elio motors cannot be in breach of contract, because not contract exists. They could be in violation of truth in advertising laws already, but the burden of proof would be upon the reservationist or the state to show that elio motors has knowingly made, or continue to make false claims or claims they reasonably know they cannot fulfill. The same would be true of laws regarding taking money under false pretenses.

I'm no attorney, but I believe that sufficient evidence exists to file such a lawsuit. I am not firmly convinced that such a lawsuit would prevail. I am not advocating that such a lawsuit be filed. Since the reservations were made primarily, if not exclusively, via credit / debit cards, I believe that a credit card holder could present sufficient evidence to get a refund if they chose to do so, as the card companies seem to have a lower standard for proof that the courts.

If/when the vehicle comes to production, and the P specs match the R specs, it would seem to be impossible to enforce a claim against elio for any breach, false advertising, false pretenses, etc because they delivered on their advertising. Of course, every one reserving prior to January 15, 2015, has had at least one point of advertising that will not be fulfilled: the production date.

It is my opinion that elio has not been truthful in their advertising. Again, not being an attorney, nor expert in the law, I do not know if their actions are sufficient to file a legal claim, or win upon filing. Their actions are sufficient for me to not trust their word. My feelings are not hurt. My sense of integrity is offended. I think that this would be the easiest claim to prove in court. I could be wrong there, as I have presented in this forum a fair amount of evidence of this, and it does not appear that anyone has changed their minds as a result. Those who questioned elio's truthfulness already continue to do so, and those we believe elio's advertising either continue to believe, or accept the discrepancies as normal advertising practices.

I believe that proving that elio has taken money under false pretenses would be harder to prove. It would entail not only proving that elio had not internally achieved or simulated their claims, but also that they knew, or had reason to know, that they would never be able to achieve those claims. The second point would be much more difficult to prove than the first.

What I truly do fail to understand about this whole process is: Why all the lies and deception? The trike concept is a great idea. The truth and reality is sufficient to stand boldly on its own. There is, as far as I can see, no justification for the spin, the exaggeration, and the deception. They might have lost 15-25% of the reservations, but (IMHO) would have been much more likely to win over the government and potential investors with the truth.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think that I may not have communicated well, because you indicate that you disagree with me, while expressing a great deal of what I was trying to say. Let us suppose three snapshots in time: R - date of reservation. K - signing of binding delivery contract. P - delivery of vehicle. For now, I am ignoring the scenario of someone who purchases without a reservation, and/or a delivery contract.

We both agree that R does not create a contract. Only K creates a contract. We both seem to agree that differences is specs between K and R do not constitute a breach. I believe that differences between K and P would, or at least could possibly, create a breach. It would depend on the exact provisions in the contract K, and the materiality of the discrepancies.

As far as suing for mpg claims, you might want to read up on the Hyundai class action settlement. Suit was filed, the manufacturer lost. So having a difference between K/P and actual results could have consequences.

Right now we are only in the R stage. No one has signed K. Therefore, elio motors cannot be in breach of contract, because not contract exists. They could be in violation of truth in advertising laws already, but the burden of proof would be upon the reservationist or the state to show that elio motors has knowingly made, or continue to make false claims or claims they reasonably know they cannot fulfill. The same would be true of laws regarding taking money under false pretenses.

I'm no attorney, but I believe that sufficient evidence exists to file such a lawsuit. I am not firmly convinced that such a lawsuit would prevail. I am not advocating that such a lawsuit be filed. Since the reservations were made primarily, if not exclusively, via credit / debit cards, I believe that a credit card holder could present sufficient evidence to get a refund if they chose to do so, as the card companies seem to have a lower standard for proof that the courts.

If/when the vehicle comes to production, and the P specs match the R specs, it would seem to be impossible to enforce a claim against elio for any breach, false advertising, false pretenses, etc because they delivered on their advertising. Of course, every one reserving prior to January 15, 2015, has had at least one point of advertising that will not be fulfilled: the production date.

It is my opinion that elio has not been truthful in their advertising. Again, not being an attorney, nor expert in the law, I do not know if their actions are sufficient to file a legal claim, or win upon filing. Their actions are sufficient for me to not trust their word. My feelings are not hurt. My sense of integrity is offended. I think that this would be the easiest claim to prove in court. I could be wrong there, as I have presented in this forum a fair amount of evidence of this, and it does not appear that anyone has changed their minds as a result. Those who questioned elio's truthfulness already continue to do so, and those we believe elio's advertising either continue to believe, or accept the discrepancies as normal advertising practices.

I believe that proving that elio has taken money under false pretenses would be harder to prove. It would entail not only proving that elio had not internally achieved or simulated their claims, but also that they knew, or had reason to know, that they would never be able to achieve those claims. The second point would be much more difficult to prove than the first.

What I truly do fail to understand about this whole process is: Why all the lies and deception? The trike concept is a great idea. The truth and reality is sufficient to stand boldly on its own. There is, as far as I can see, no justification for the spin, the exaggeration, and the deception. They might have lost 15-25% of the reservations, but (IMHO) would have been much more likely to win over the government and potential investors with the truth.

Hey big thanks for more B.S.-can't get enough

 

[JEBar]

Let us suppose three snapshots in time: R - date of reservation. K - signing of binding delivery contract. P - delivery of vehicle. For now, I am ignoring the scenario of someone who purchases without a reservation, and/or a delivery contract.

We both agree that R does not create a contract. Only K creates a contract. We both seem to agree that differences is specs between K and R do not constitute a breach. I believe that differences between K and P would, or at least could possibly, create a breach. It would depend on the exact provisions in the contract K, and the materiality of the discrepancies.

As far as suing for mpg claims, you might want to read up on the Hyundai class action settlement. Suit was filed, the manufacturer lost. So having a difference between K/P and actual results could have consequences.

based on a response last night and the comment above, I had hope that you'd considered the facts at hand and modified your position on 'R' to one that is based in reality .... the last part of the above post once again calls that into question .... you might need to read up and include the facts in the Hyundai class action law suit ....

"The Hyundai/Kia mileage issue was uncovered during an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency that found widespread discrepancies between the window stickers on Hyundai and Kia vehicles and EPA testing. Most vehicles were receiving an average fuel economy of 1 mpg less than advertised, while others, such as the Kia Soul, were getting 6 mpg less than advertised." .... taken from this link

in short Hyundai deliberately altered EPA findings .... because of its classification as a motorcycle, there will be no EPA mileage testing of an Elio .... without that testing, there will be no governmental jurisdiction .... the issue with Hyundai has no coloration with EM

 

[karl]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erks?s=t
Not all investments make money.

 

[Ekh]

Indeed, the guy's a total engineering wonk. That's no guarantee they will be in production or won't be. I do believe after observing his behavior for some time, he sincerely believes he will be producing the vehicle. That anyone else believes, well that's another matter.

IMO, unless the stars align perfectly, Paul's going to have to give up some things -- a mile or two per gallon, a hundred or two in price, but, most difficult for him, a significant share of the company. Paul and people close to him currently control an overwhelming majority of the stock, and he doesn't want to give up any of it. Other investors of course, want ownership and control. So there's the rub.

 

[eliothegreat]

based on a response last night and the comment above, I had hope that you'd considered the facts at hand and modified your position on 'R' to one that is based in reality .... the last part of the above post once again calls that into question .... you might need to read up and include the facts in the Hyundai class action law suit ....

"The Hyundai/Kia mileage issue was uncovered during an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency that found widespread discrepancies between the window stickers on Hyundai and Kia vehicles and EPA testing. Most vehicles were receiving an average fuel economy of 1 mpg less than advertised, while others, such as the Kia Soul, were getting 6 mpg less than advertised." .... taken from this link

in short Hyundai deliberately altered EPA findings .... because of its classification as a motorcycle, there will be no EPA mileage testing of an Elio .... without that testing, there will be no governmental jurisdiction .... the issue with Hyundai has no coloration with EM

While I enjoy the playful banter, it is clear that we see things differently. It's a minor thing, but many motorcycles now include EPA-base testing MPG numbers in their advertising. My point is that consumers complained about actual vs advertised mpg, a suit was filed, and the manufacturer lost. I did not say that anyone had sued elio. I even stated that I did not expect anyone to sue them over advertised mpg vs actual mpg.

What I see as clear, documented information is perceived as, and called, BS by some members of this forum. What I see as making excuses for elio's false and misleading claims, some on this forum regard as refutation of my pointing out what elio said. I do not take anything coming from elio motors at face value any more, because everything I've seen and heard from them is shaded, spun, and twisted. In spite of all the protestations, I don't think very many people who have followed elio for more that a year and a half take them at face value. There is just too much to explain away.

Next week is busier for me. Hope it will be a good one for you (all).

http://powersports.honda.com/2015/gold-wing/specifications.aspx
Miles Per Gallon 35 MPG - Miles per gallon values are calculated estimates of fuel consumed during laboratory exhaust emissions tests specified by the EPA, not during on road riding. Use for comparison purposes only. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you ride and maintain your vehicle, weather, road conditions, tire pressure, cargo and accessories, rider and passenger weight, and other factors.

 

[Ekh]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think that I may not have communicated well, because you indicate that you disagree with me, while expressing a great deal of what I was trying to say. Let us suppose three snapshots in time: R - date of reservation. K - signing of binding delivery contract. P - delivery of vehicle. For now, I am ignoring the scenario of someone who purchases without a reservation, and/or a delivery contract.

We both agree that R does not create a contract. Only K creates a contract. We both seem to agree that differences is specs between K and R do not constitute a breach. I believe that differences between K and P would, or at least could possibly, create a breach. It would depend on the exact provisions in the contract K, and the materiality of the discrepancies.

As far as suing for mpg claims, you might want to read up on the Hyundai class action settlement. Suit was filed, the manufacturer lost. So having a difference between K/P and actual results could have consequences.

Right now we are only in the R stage. No one has signed K. Therefore, elio motors cannot be in breach of contract, because not contract exists. They could be in violation of truth in advertising laws already, but the burden of proof would be upon the reservationist or the state to show that elio motors has knowingly made, or continue to make false claims or claims they reasonably know they cannot fulfill. The same would be true of laws regarding taking money under false pretenses.

I'm no attorney, but I believe that sufficient evidence exists to file such a lawsuit. I am not firmly convinced that such a lawsuit would prevail. I am not advocating that such a lawsuit be filed. Since the reservations were made primarily, if not exclusively, via credit / debit cards, I believe that a credit card holder could present sufficient evidence to get a refund if they chose to do so, as the card companies seem to have a lower standard for proof that the courts.

If/when the vehicle comes to production, and the P specs match the R specs, it would seem to be impossible to enforce a claim against elio for any breach, false advertising, false pretenses, etc because they delivered on their advertising. Of course, every one reserving prior to January 15, 2015, has had at least one point of advertising that will not be fulfilled: the production date.

It is my opinion that elio has not been truthful in their advertising. Again, not being an attorney, nor expert in the law, I do not know if their actions are sufficient to file a legal claim, or win upon filing. Their actions are sufficient for me to not trust their word. My feelings are not hurt. My sense of integrity is offended. I think that this would be the easiest claim to prove in court. I could be wrong there, as I have presented in this forum a fair amount of evidence of this, and it does not appear that anyone has changed their minds as a result. Those who questioned elio's truthfulness already continue to do so, and those we believe elio's advertising either continue to believe, or accept the discrepancies as normal advertising practices.

I believe that proving that elio has taken money under false pretenses would be harder to prove. It would entail not only proving that elio had not internally achieved or simulated their claims, but also that they knew, or had reason to know, that they would never be able to achieve those claims. The second point would be much more difficult to prove than the first.

What I truly do fail to understand about this whole process is: Why all the lies and deception? The trike concept is a great idea. The truth and reality is sufficient to stand boldly on its own. There is, as far as I can see, no justification for the spin, the exaggeration, and the deception. They might have lost 15-25% of the reservations, but (IMHO) would have been much more likely to win over the government and potential investors with the truth.

You should find my post on the psychology of engineering organizations and their stance towards PR -- a field in which I have 10 years high level experience.

 

[Horn]

84/6800 is a goal. Some members on here freaked out on me when I said screw that goal. If he's at 75/7500, he should roll with it. Taking the time to tweak that little bit costs money. The car just needs to be in the market.

Where ETG has issues with is that they keep using the 84/6800 in advertising to draw in funding. There is usually an * behind it. It's marketing. Imo its no different than a weight loss pill that says you have to work out in the small print, or when a big car maker shows a nice model and says the price is x, when really that is base price.

Its deceptive marketing IMO. Many companies use it.

I am not defending Elio. Hell, i dont think it will be made, but they can't change their numbers. It will hurt their image. If I were them, i'd do the same. When/if the car is being produced, or closer to it, change the numbers.

Again, i dont like this practice, but thats the way it is....

 

[Norahsbed]

I do like the additional $500.00 bonus to my deposit and a lower reservation #, but chancing $1,000.00 it not an easy decision. I'm not really cashed strapped, but I usually don't give away $1,000 either. I do agree with the concept and providing more jobs for America.

Jim H - a very interesting look at your reservation deposit. $1,000 worth of entertainment and educational value from new experiences.

I feel now, I will wait. Once I see the motor prototype on display and some hiring at the production plan I will reserve.

Thank you all for the warm welcomes and advice.

Just keep in mind the $500 bonus, is only a bonus, if the vehicle goes into production. The lower reservation # just means we get our Elio a little sooner, again, if it goes into production. I believe it will, I just don't know when. I think you have made a wise decision for your peace of mind.

 

[John Painter]

While I enjoy the playful banter, it is clear that we see things differently. It's a minor thing, but many motorcycles now include EPA-base testing MPG numbers in their advertising. My point is that consumers complained about actual vs advertised mpg, a suit was filed, and the manufacturer lost. I did not say that anyone had sued elio. I even stated that I did not expect anyone to sue them over advertised mpg vs actual mpg.

What I see as clear, documented information is perceived as, and called, BS by some members of this forum. What I see as making excuses for elio's false and misleading claims, some on this forum regard as refutation of my pointing out what elio said. I do not take anything coming from elio motors at face value any more, because everything I've seen and heard from them is shaded, spun, and twisted. In spite of all the protestations, I don't think very many people who have followed elio for more that a year and a half take them at face value. There is just too much to explain away.

Next week is busier for me. Hope it will be a good one for you (all).

http://powersports.honda.com/2015/gold-wing/specifications.aspx
Miles Per Gallon 35 MPG - Miles per gallon values are calculated estimates of fuel consumed during laboratory exhaust emissions tests specified by the EPA, not during on road riding. Use for comparison purposes only. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you ride and maintain your vehicle, weather, road conditions, tire pressure, cargo and accessories, rider and passenger weight, and other factors.

Good point. VW advertised the Jetta TDI I used to have would get 45 mpg highway, that's what's on the sticker. I always used to tell the guys at the shop when I went in for service I was going to complain about false advertising because I was actually getting 47 to 53mpg highway when I was driving to Boston weekly. Of course now I have my wife's old V70 waiting for my Elio.