Mr. Han bought a used Tesla car on 20 19, which was officially bought by Tesla. Originally, Mr. Han thought that buying an officially designated second-hand car would have certain protection, but this is not the case, because during the use, Mr. Han learned that this car was originally an accident car, and the fender of this car has been repaired, but Tesla officially did not inform consumers. After that, Mr. Han proposed a compensation of one refund and three compensations to Tesla, but Tesla did not recognize it, because they thought it was normal for used cars to have these conditions, so they went to court because of this incident. The end result is that the court sentenced Tesla to one refund and three losses.
Later, I thought it would be over when the compensation was finished, but later Tesla said that they provided Mr. Han with a scooter when they were raising a car. It was originally agreed to return the car one month later, but Mr. Han refused to return it after the deadline. Mr. Han totally dismissed Tesla's description, because he said that he had never received a scooter provided by Tesla. The two hold their own words, and the content is completely opposite. And Mr. Han also believes that Tesla still has things that insult its reputation, so Mr. Han can only sue Tesla again in a helpless situation.
Mr. Han and Tesla hold their own words. Outsiders don't know which one is true, but my feeling tells me that it is Tesla's fault, because Mr. Han dares to sue in court. If it's really Mr. Han's fault, isn't it equivalent to? Turn yourself in? Do you know that?/You know what? One more thing, the cause of this incident is that Tesla sold Mr. Han a used car with quality problems.