Lucid Lemon Law

[WildRide47]

No but you expect them to be honest. If Lucid said only half of what is posted above, they should be ashamed. Simply appalling.

Don't understand gas killers comment. If the car meets the the lemon law criteria, why in the world would Lucid fight this in arbitration. In fact why go to arbitration to begin with. Lucid has the history of the car and knows if it is a lemon law car or not, so all it does is just make bad press for Lucid. Lucid knows whether their car is a lemon or not based on their ability to try to fix it multiple times but could not, so I just don't understand the logic of fighting a case you know you are going lose which is terrible image for the brand . Take the back, apologize, give him or her a new car and they may yet salvage some good will. Why fight a case you know you are going to lose. Where is the common sense here.

 

[socktucker]

If the car meets the the lemon law criteria, why in the world would Lucid fight this in arbitration. In fact why go to arbitration to begin with. Lucid has the history of the car and knows if it is a lemon law car or not, so all it does is just make bad press for Lucid.

Spite? Narcissism? Refusal to accept reality? Being so caught up in their own ego that they can’t accept anything short of total acceptance of what they want? Forcing the customer to fight them on every level to get what the law entitles them to?

 

[prgarg]

Spite? Narcissism? Refusal to accept reality? Being so caught up in their own ego that they can’t accept anything short of total acceptance of what they want? Forcing the customer to fight them on every level to get what the law entitles them to?

They want the owner to feel discouraged and take a low goodwill offer they extend to them, as they did to you.

 

[WildRide47]

They want the owner to feel discouraged and take a low goodwill offer they extend to them, as they did to you.

Not worthy of the brand. Most people are not going to accept a low good will offer on an expensive car. In the end, all that accomplishes is bad good will and another bad press story for Lucid to contend with. Again, which is the better strategy on a car that you know is a lemon car. The high road or the low road for your long term image. All this does is hurt future sales. Is that worth it for the company to employ this way?

 

[L-Dude]

...All this does is hurt future sales. Is that worth it for the company to employ this way?

Only if people find out about it, and I would guess that most people don't hear about the process/details of most car buy backs.

 

[WildRide47]

Only if people find out about it, and I would guess that most people don't hear about the process/details of most car buy backs.

True.

 

[WildRide47]

True.

True except for word of mouth to friends, relatives etc. Not a good strategy for the company. Bad faith especially when you know the car meets the lemon law requirements. Doing the right thing is always better for your image in the long run. Lucid hardly gains by putting barriers up when most people are going to win their case anyway. The majority of people who can afford to buy this car are those kind of people who will fight this if they do get a lemon. Lucid may win very few, but again its a bad vibe and word of mouth will hurt them more in the long.

 

[gaskiller]

No but you expect them to be honest. If Lucid said only half of what is posted above, they should be ashamed. Simply appalling.

Opinions can differ, doesn’t mean they are dishonest. And which company is perfectly straightforward with everything? None! You are living in a dream.

 

[gaskiller]

Don't understand gas killers comment. If the car meets the the lemon law criteria, why in the world would Lucid fight this in arbitration. In fact why go to arbitration to begin with. Lucid has the history of the car and knows if it is a lemon law car or not, so all it does is just make bad press for Lucid. Lucid knows whether their car is a lemon or not based on their ability to try to fix it multiple times but could not, so I just don't understand the logic of fighting a case you know you are going lose which is terrible image for the brand . Take the back, apologize, give him or her a new car and they may yet salvage some good will. Why fight a case you know you are going to lose. Where is the common sense here.

Who knows, maybe car software wasn’t updated in a timely fashion, or some other misuse by consumer.

 

[borski]

Or you can just make note of who won the arbitration and give the benefit of the doubt to that person, rather than wonder about the “real story”.

I am not doubting his evidence or his win, at all. I fully believe that the evidence was on their side and have no qualms with it at all.

That does not, in turn, mean that everything they say and/or recall is the whole entirety of the truth, either. For example, one simple reason is perspective; it is rare that anyone puts themselves in anyone else’s shoes.

That doesn’t take anything away from the facts of the case. And it doesn’t mean they’re being untruthful.

 

[WildRide47]

Who knows, maybe car software wasn’t updated in a timely fashion, or some other misuse by consumer.

I'm not talking about a case where Lucid may have a valid reason to dispute the owner. I'm talking about the cases where Lucid knows the car is a lemon, has tried to fix the problems multiple times and has not been able to, knows that the owner is not at fault and yet Lucid continues to fight and obstruct a valid buy back whether in arbitration or not. A number of cases described previously in this thread fall into this category. So why is Lucid going into self-destruct mode, wasting lawyers fees, creating bad press and bad word of mouth when they are going to lose in arbitration anyway. I find it amazing that someone in the organization feels that this strategy will improve the image and help propel sales. Recognizing that some of its cars inevitably are going to be lemons and going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for either buy back or substituting a new car would go very far in reversing a bad situation and turning it into a positive. Its called turning lemons into lemonade.

 

[L-Dude]

Opinions can differ, doesn’t mean they are dishonest. And which company is perfectly straightforward with everything? None! You are living in a dream.

Okay you can spin this anyway you want, but my personal value system is definitely NOT comfortable with Lucid's purported responses.

 

[TahoeMichael]

I'm not talking about a case where Lucid may have a valid reason to dispute the owner. I'm talking about the cases where Lucid knows the car is a lemon, has tried to fix the problems multiple times and has not been able to, knows that the owner is not at fault and yet Lucid continues to fight and obstruct a valid buy back whether in arbitration or not. A number of cases described previously in this thread fall into this category. So why is Lucid going into self-destruct mode, wasting lawyers fees, creating bad press and bad word of mouth when they are going to lose in arbitration anyway. I find it amazing that someone in the organization feels that this strategy will improve the image and help propel sales. Recognizing that some of its cars inevitably are going to be lemons and going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for either buy back or substituting a new car would go very far in reversing a bad situation and turning it into a positive. Its called turning lemons into lemonade.

I agree that it's bad practice to fight a losing case, as was apparently done here. But having spent way too much of my life sitting in conference rooms with corporate lawyers, I can imagine multiple reasons why they'd make the decision. They could have worried about disastrous impacts if it became known that dissatisfied owners could readily get buy-backs after 30 days in the backlogged service centers. They could have had a naive optimism that an OTA fix was about to convert a lot of unhappy owners to happy owners. It could have just been a disconnect between corporate and a hired-gun independent Canadian lawyer about the case's prospects. Or any of a number of other reasons.

 

[WildRide47]

I agree that it's bad practice to fight a losing case, as was apparently done here. But having spent way too much of my life sitting in conference rooms with corporate lawyers, I can imagine multiple reasons why they'd make the decision. They could have worried about disastrous impacts if it became known that dissatisfied owners could readily get buy-backs after 30 days in the backlogged service centers. They could have had a naive optimism that an OTA fix was about to convert a lot of unhappy owners to happy owners. It could have just been a disconnect between corporate and a hired-gun independent Canadian lawyer about the case's prospects. Or any of a number of other reasons.

I hear you. l Let me tell you about what I went through when I bought my present home seven years ago. It came with a sub zero refrigerator, wolf range, and wolf microwave oven. The microwave was not working properly so I called them and they sent somebody over to replace it. The second microwave was having the same problems the plate was not spinning, you couldn't set the timer properly and the power delivery was off.. I called them back. They replaced it with a third microwave. This microwave had similar problems. When I called them up this time they said that they had never had this in their entire history. Three bad microwaves in a row. They suggested that maybe my electrical wiring in the house was responsible. Instead of having me get electrician they sent their own electrician to check out the wiring in my house. The electrician said my electrical wiring was correct so they sent my third microwave back and replaced it and installed a fourth one which now has worked correctly for the last 7 years. They examined the three previous microwaves and indeed they admitted they were all faulty. which they said had never happened before(3 bad ones in a row.) As A goodwill gesture they said I could pick any of their other small appliances free of charge to make up for what I have gone through. So I asked for a $550 wolf toaster which they promptly sent us free of charge (which I never would've bought on my own for that price). They didn't take me to arbitration. They didn't hire a lawyer to go after me and yet they hired their own electrician on their own dime. What a difference between what I experienced and what some of the Lucid owners have experienced. I hear the reasons you're saying, and I can see why you stated them, but what it comes down to it that practice just creates bad will, bad word of mouth and it hurts the brand image in the long run. Doing the right thing is always the best way forward. Knowing you are purposely obstructing someone who has a legitimate lemon on their hands is something to be a embarrassed about. I don't care it is so called good business practice. I do have some experience. I ran my own businesses for 22 years. My father ran his own business for 40 years and my two brothers (one a Harvard MBA)who was a fixer for a Wall Street company would never have condoned such a practice. Bad products happen. It's a given. If you can't fix it then buy back the product or replace it. Word gets around when a company is perceived as unethical and it is unethical when someone meets the criteria of a lemon law and the company refuses to abide by the law or fights it when they know the owner is right.

 

[ME2U]

They want the owner to feel discouraged and take a low goodwill offer they extend to them, as they did to you.

Actually I saw that as a lawyer cheap shot if it's the case. it also looks like the law department doesn't talk to advertising and/or image dept. I don't think you can save money on the reputation's back. All the good efforts from all dept vanished for what ? But hey I'm not a ceo neither a bean counter.

 

[tmichael]

I hear you. l Let me tell you about what I went through when I bought my present home seven years ago. It came with a sub zero refrigerator, wolf range, and wolf microwave oven. The microwave was not working properly so I called them and they sent somebody over to replace it. The second microwave was having the same problems the plate was not spinning, you couldn't set the timer properly and the power delivery was off.. I called them back. They replaced it with a third microwave. This microwave had similar problems. When I called them up this time they said that they had never had this in their entire history. Three bad microwaves in a row. They suggested that maybe my electrical wiring in the house was responsible. Instead of having me get electrician they sent their own electrician to check out the wiring in my house. The electrician said my electrical wiring was correct so they sent my third microwave back and replaced it and installed a fourth one which now has worked correctly for the last 7 years. They examined the three previous microwaves and indeed they admitted they were all faulty. which they said had never happened before(3 bad ones in a row.) As A goodwill gesture they said I could pick any of their other small appliances free of charge to make up for what I have gone through. So I asked for a $550 wolf toaster which they promptly sent us free of charge (which I never would've bought on my own for that price). They didn't take me to arbitration. They didn't hire a lawyer to go after me and yet they hired their own electrician on their own dime. What a difference between what I experienced and what some of the Lucid owners have experienced. I hear the reasons you're saying, and I can see why you stated them, but what it comes down to it that practice just creates bad will, bad word of mouth and it hurts the brand image in the long run. Doing the right thing is always the best way forward. Knowing you are purposely obstructing someone who has a legitimate lemon on their hands is something to be a embarrassed about. I don't care it is so called good business practice. I do have some experience. I ran my own businesses for 22 years. My father ran his own business for 40 years and my two brothers (one a Harvard MBA)who was a fixer for a Wall Street company would never have condoned such a practice. Bad products happen. It's a given. If you can't fix it then buy back the product or replace it. Word gets around when a company is perceived as unethical and it is unethical when someone meets the criteria of a lemon law and the company refuses to abide by the law or fights it when they know the owner is right.

I agree with you 100%! There are better ways to handle faulty vehicles and arbitration should be Lucid's last ditch effort to right a wrong.

However, to put your story in perspective, we have to adjust your scenario. You bought 20 GGTs and one of them didn't charge past 50% and wouldn't go into reverse. It was unusable for it's intended purpose.

I'm of the belief you would have gotten a new Gravity, had that one replaced, then had that one replaced and finally received one that worked. As a goodwill gesture, they would give you a brand new wall charger, for which they would have paid for installation.

Now, we have dollars a little more balanced to your scenario.

Yes, I agree 100% with your premise that a happy customer is 10 times more beneficial than an unhappy one, but sometimes economic reality has to be taken into. account. This forum has really happy customers (me, for one) and unhappy customers who have legitimate problems - and, if everyone in arbitration would withdraw their lemon law request for the equivalent of a toaster, Lucid would be in a better position.

But, these aren't microwaves... and, Lucid loses money on each and every one of them. Banks used to give away free toasters when you opened a CD account. It would be a pretty large CD account (or terrible renewal terms) nowadays for them to give you a $500 toaster...

We're experiencing the birth of a new car company - there are problems that I would never diminish - Apple had their Newton - but Lucid seems to think differently and I, personally, believe they will get this infinitely confounding and complex industry right.

Of course, I'm not always right - just ask my wife...

Dream Ahead!

 

[Steveinarizona]

Well its always easy to take pot shots at lawyers, but my take away from reading about others' experiences was that lawyers who specialized in lemon laws brought a lot of experience and expertise to the table. I don't care either way--I'm just relating what I read.

Lawyers wouldn't be needed if car companies actually obeyed the lemon laws.

 

[tmichael]

Lawyers wouldn't be needed if car companies actually obeyed the lemon laws.

... and Lemon Laws wouldn't be needed if manufacturing, assembly and quality control were perfect!

 

[WildRide47]

I agree with you 100%! There are better ways to handle faulty vehicles and arbitration should be Lucid's last ditch effort to right a wrong.

However, to put your story in perspective, we have to adjust your scenario. You bought 20 GGTs and one of them didn't charge past 50% and wouldn't go into reverse. It was unusable for it's intended purpose.

I'm of the belief you would have gotten a new Gravity, had that one replaced, then had that one replaced and finally received one that worked. As a goodwill gesture, they would give you a brand new wall charger, for which they would have paid for installation.

Now, we have dollars a little more balanced to your scenario.

Yes, I agree 100% with your premise that a happy customer is 10 times more beneficial than an unhappy one, but sometimes economic reality has to be taken into. account. This forum has really happy customers (me, for one) and unhappy customers who have legitimate problems - and, if everyone in arbitration would withdraw their lemon law request for the equivalent of a toaster, Lucid would be in a better position.

But, these aren't microwaves... and, Lucid loses money on each and every one of them. Banks used to give away free toasters when you opened a CD account. It would be a pretty large CD account (or terrible renewal terms) nowadays for them to give you a $500 toaster...

We're experiencing the birth of a new car company - there are problems that I would never diminish - Apple had their Newton - but Lucid seems to think differently and I, personally, believe they will get this infinitely confounding and complex industry right.

Of course, I'm not always right - just ask my wife...

Dream Ahead!

I also have a 22 AGT and I'm lucky that mine has had very few problems and I've been generally very happy with it except for some minor critiques which I have mentioned previously. I feel there are other better ways that Lucid could have approached the problems of a lemon car. One of the things mentioned above is that Lucid fighting back may be a stalling tactic because they're working on a software fix, which hopefully will correct the problem. If that is the case then why don't they simply contact the customer tell them that they think they may have a fix coming soon and ask them to give them some extra time before invoking the lemon law. In return for the extra time perhaps they can give them a winter wheel set or if that's too expensive for the company then simply ask the owner if they would accept an extension of the normal warranty from four years to five.(this costs the company very little). I think that they may have some takers for this as I believe most people really don't want to give up their car if they feel there's an actual chance the car could be fixed. If they can't fix it with the extra time given(putting the lemon law on hold) then they should immediately not even go to arbitration, but simply buy back the car. This approach may give them some extra time to fix things in exchange for an additional year of warranty. I just think instead of taking a confrontational approach there are better ways that they could have gone about. And hiring an attorney who does not even know that the Pure does not weigh 6000 pounds and other nonsense he spouted at arbitration is just a disgrace and a black eye for Lucid. I know the company is better than that or should be. I am rooting that Lucid gets back on track. I just want them to act better than that. After the lease return fiasco, the company finally did the right thing about the faulty lease returns and I have not heard anything about any more dissatisfaction in that area. How about the same with an obvious lemon law return.

 

[gaskiller]

I hear you. l Let me tell you about what I went through when I bought my present home seven years ago. It came with a sub zero refrigerator, wolf range, and wolf microwave oven. The microwave was not working properly so I called them and they sent somebody over to replace it. The second microwave was having the same problems the plate was not spinning, you couldn't set the timer properly and the power delivery was off.. I called them back. They replaced it with a third microwave. This microwave had similar problems. When I called them up this time they said that they had never had this in their entire history. Three bad microwaves in a row. They suggested that maybe my electrical wiring in the house was responsible. Instead of having me get electrician they sent their own electrician to check out the wiring in my house. The electrician said my electrical wiring was correct so they sent my third microwave back and replaced it and installed a fourth one which now has worked correctly for the last 7 years. They examined the three previous microwaves and indeed they admitted they were all faulty. which they said had never happened before(3 bad ones in a row.) As A goodwill gesture they said I could pick any of their other small appliances free of charge to make up for what I have gone through. So I asked for a $550 wolf toaster which they promptly sent us free of charge (which I never would've bought on my own for that price). They didn't take me to arbitration. They didn't hire a lawyer to go after me and yet they hired their own electrician on their own dime. What a difference between what I experienced and what some of the Lucid owners have experienced. I hear the reasons you're saying, and I can see why you stated them, but what it comes down to it that practice just creates bad will, bad word of mouth and it hurts the brand image in the long run. Doing the right thing is always the best way forward. Knowing you are purposely obstructing someone who has a legitimate lemon on their hands is something to be a embarrassed about. I don't care it is so called good business practice. I do have some experience. I ran my own businesses for 22 years. My father ran his own business for 40 years and my two brothers (one a Harvard MBA)who was a fixer for a Wall Street company would never have condoned such a practice. Bad products happen. It's a given. If you can't fix it then buy back the product or replace it. Word gets around when a company is perceived as unethical and it is unethical when someone meets the criteria of a lemon law and the company refuses to abide by the law or fights it when they know the owner is right.

Microwave costs $500, maybe, Lucid costs 100k….not the same at all. You cannot extrapolate kitchen appliance to 100k vehicles.