On it's surface, that definitely looks like a full NDA: "don't speak of this" (IANAL)
However, I can see Tesla's interpretation/spin: "It just means: we aren't admitting liability, don't sue us for this, and don't say we paid for part of the repairs" -- which doesn't include "don't report a safety issue". Still, it seems rather strongly worded for that...
"In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill." (etc, with similar language concerning talking about incidents.)
in other words: we'll fix your car for you, but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events, oh, and only if you agree not to hold us accountable for any wrongdoing on our part that's in any way "related or leading to" this agreement.
That's absurd, and shameful, especially the excessively broad scope of the incidents and the fact that even actual wrongdoing by Tesla is protected.
The free repair is gracious gesture. But the restrictions imposed in return are nevertheless unreasonable - it's one thing to explicitly note that Tesla is doing you a favor and that the favor is not an admission of guilt, it's quite something else to weasel out of responsibility even if you do turn out to be guilty of something.
It happens a lot. You could have just Googled. Manufacturer would pay for the repair, warranty or no warranty, if there was a defect. For example almost all of those 690000 cars were out-of-warranty at the time of the recall:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/toyota-recalls-690-000...
Tesla using NDA to prevent such situation is so childish. I hope Musk would fire that a-hole who came up with the idea (i really hope it wasn't Musk itself).
Simple Google search brings this by the way, so there are definitely issues:
https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-le...
What important here is that it is not the issues itself that are main risk to the company - after all it is a young car company - it is how the company reacts to them, and such rotten actions like NDA is a really bad style which would cost a lot in the long run. `
Not entirely sure what your definition of "not a recognised defect" is if the Tesla fixes aren't one. Nevertheless, many manufactures do similar things:
Chrysler minivan owners may notice that the front wheel bearings on models from 2008 to 2010 are subject to premature wear, so dealers will replace them for free during a vehicle’s first five years or 90,000 miles.
Honda, however, and its upscale Acura division stand out with a half-dozen or more. Because CR’s survey data show that Honda and Acura vehicles, in general, are among the most reliable on the road, the company’s high number of service campaigns suggests it’s been unusually generous to customers
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/11/get-your...
Many defects before becoming recognized are just some accidental occurrences. Like Tesla suspension issues.
>If you really think that every car manufacturer does it
of course i don't think every car manufacturer does it. Good ones do though.
>it should be trivial for you to find some source where a single car was repaired for free after 100k km for something that was not a recognised defect.
my wife's Honda had paint unusually strongly faded (no rust or any corrosion nor surface damage, just paint itself) at some spot which was repaired for free at low 60K miles (the car was 6 years old at the time, so well out-of-warranty anyway). There is a reason Honda is a top dog in reliability and quality. Such standing behind their own product is a big part of it.
Pete didn't want to return the car. He didn't want to sue Ford. He kept getting non-answers for months.
If you were the customer in the absence of the agreement, after everything that Tesla had done at no cost, would you have taken them to court? In this case it's arguable that they would gone to court: the troll took to social media only because the agreement disallowed legal action. The troll used every possible tactic to his advantage, including an extreme degree of omission.
This whole ordeal has inadvertently proven exactly why Tesla has this agreement. Lose when you do; lose when you don't. The agreement isn't there for people like me and you, it's there for people like Niedermayer.
It's way too broad.
"The Goodwill is being provided to you without any admission of liability or wrongdoing or acceptance of any facts by Tesla, and shall not be treated as or considered evidence of Tesla’s liability with respect to any claim or incidents. You agree to keep confidential our provision of the Goodwill, the terms of this agreement and the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. You further agree that you will not commence, participate or voluntarily aid in any action at law or in equity or any legal proceeding against Tesla or related persons or entities based upon facts related to the claims or incidents leading to or related to this Goodwill."
Which could easily be interpreted by a consumer as barring them from discussing the whole affair, even with the authorities.
Which led to:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/safety-agency-chides-tesla-...
There's the kicker: it was written by a lawyer for legal purposes. I could interpret that as Tesla promising me 5 cars; that doesn't change what it legally says.
> You agree to keep confidential
I agree that this is bad. I assume it's there to prevent all of their customers expecting this treatment (which they might not be able to do forever), as well as carefully constructed half-truths appearing on social media (which occurred in this case anyway). Maybe a "full disclosure agreement" would be more appropriate: where you agree that you must disclose all details if you decide to disclose.
Speaking of sleazy and dishonest, this part of the Tesla blogpost is both: "this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars" It doesn't mention either because it's a blanket ban on talking about the failure. If Tesla hadn't wanted to make people think they couldn't talk to the government, they'd have specifically permitted it. This is a common enough issue that I doubt their lawyers would've missed it when drafting the NDA.
The intent of the document was clearly to prevent the document itself from being used as a weapon against the company. Nevertheless it was used for that purpose.
This is also why this sentence from Tesla is incredibly dishonest:
"It is deeply ironic that the only customer who apparently believes that this document prevents him from talking to NHTSA is also the same one who talked to NHTSA. If our agreement was meant to prevent that, it obviously wasn’t very good."
Of course it didn't prevent him from going to the NHTSA, because he refused to sign it in order to preserve his ability to talk about it, paying an extra $1,500 to Tesla for the privilege. Anyone who did sign it in the belief that it prevented them from going to the NHTSA is also forbidden from talking about that by the NDA, so we're obviously not going to hear anything from them. Really sleazy, and seemingly par for the course for Tesla PR these days.
I think you're confused about the meaning of 'claims' which in this context means a legal claim; it's not referring to a blog or freedom of speech in any way preventing you from claiming things, just that you won't sue them over it.
> but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events
Where are you reading that?
*for free. The customer can always choose to pay the standard repair cost and not sign any Goodwill waiver.
So by using this excessively broad disclaimer, they gain the flexibility to escape liability not just where they're in the right, but also where they may have made costly mistakes - since clearly the it's in the best self-interest of the customer to accept the deal usually, and by the time they find out Tesla may have tricked them, they've already signed.
This is specifically to avoid court arguments that the free repair is an admission of guilt (which, yes, is the kind of thing that happens in civil cases).
There have been quite a few commenters that haven't bothered to read even my short comment, let alone the (also rather short) agreement, yet still felt qualified to determine that the NDA clauses aren't present. They are.
Personally, due to the overbroad scope I find these liability limiting clauses at least as objectionable as the NDA clauses.