DDP and SSP on Secondhand Purchase

[zakster]

I disagree with the Sirius XM example being thrown around. No car that I purchased with Sirius XM was listed with a price for that feature separately and listed as included. Say if they list it as Sirius XM - $1500 then it is an apples to apples comparison.

Furthermore, while I was searching for my touring Moroney sticker I found the 3 other cars I bought last year all listing SIRIUSXM* w/Free 3-Mo. Subscription* in the included features section. If lucid were to add the line that DDP and SSP were included free 3 months then it will be clear to a second hand buyer.

 

[Drendino]

Further, try purchasing a used car with the Sirius XM hardware already installed. It likely came with a free trial. It's the same with SSP and DDPro.

Lucid sold your vehicle to the previous owner not you. Other than warranty obligations, Lucid has no other obligations to you. Your issue with the dealer who sold you the car and frankly yourself for not double checking the Vin with Lucid prior to selling and your purchasing the car.

I think you are probably right about Lucid’s liability. It still seems nuanced and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did have some exposure.

I guess the moral of the story is to do more research before purchasing a used vehicle. I’m pretty sure I would have relied on the sticker and what was in the car at the time, as I have always done when purchasing used. This whole subscription model is flawed and the concept of “what you see is not necessarily here” begs for litigation and further regulations.

 

[zakster]

THANK YOU. This is my point exactly. But don't worry Babyrocko1908 will find a way to tell you you're wrong and an idiot. He probably is in-house counsel for Lucid.

If you look at my post history, I came to this forum when I took delivery this same question as my monroney sticker was showing $128k and if it was a mistake, someone else replied that theirs shows the same and I need to contact sales to get the “updated” sticker specific to my car. Obviously, I didn’t care to do that.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

I think you are probably right about Lucid’s liability. It still seems nuanced and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did have some exposure.

I guess the moral of the story is to do more research before purchasing a used vehicle. I’m pretty sure I would have relied on the sticker and what was in the car at the time, as I have always done when purchasing used. This whole subscription model is flawed and the concept of “what you see is not necessarily here” begs for litigation and further regulations.

Exposure how? The Monoroney Label isn't a legal document to sell a car to you. Further, it's not an offer nor is it a contract. It's essentially a disclosure required by law. The maker of this thread's issue is with the dealer he bought the car from.

This is the danger with purchasing used cars. You never know what your getting absent the original vehicle sales agreement.

 

[piyer1710]

First of all, SHE isn't in house counsel for Lucid. Second, when did she call you an idiot? Perhaps, the idiot label applies simply because YOU failed to do YOUR due diligence before purchasing YOUR car used. This is what "reasonable" prospective buyers normally do!

If it walks like a duck....

First of all, my apologies for the pronoun assumption. Mea-cupla.

Second, I think we have different definitions of reasonable, and I still dont think your SiriusXM analogy is a good one for the reasons above.

But I think Drendino said it well regarding the moral of this story and ultimately this debate isn't going to solve anything. Thanks for listening.

 

[zakster]

First of all, my apologies for the pronoun assumption. Mea-cupla.

Second, I think we have different definitions of reasonable, and I still dont think your SiriusXM analogy is a good one for the reasons above.

But I think Drendino said it well regarding the moral of this story and ultimately this debate isn't going to solve anything. Thanks for listening.

May I ask how much you paid for this car assuming this was worth $14k?

 

[piyer1710]

$14k more than I should have .

Thanks all I will see what options I have with Lucid and the dealer.

 

[zakster]

$14k more than I should have .

Thanks all I will see what options I have with Lucid and the dealer.

I don’t think the dealer is responsible especially being a Chevy. If you bought from Lucid direct as a pre owned then you may have a claim.

 

[piyer1710]

I don’t think the dealer is responsible especially being a Chevy. If you bought from Lucid direct as a pre owned then you may have a claim.

They weren't being purposefully deceitful (I think) but they did explicitly present the car as having both DDP and SSP on their online listing.

 

[zakster]

They weren't being purposefully deceitful (I think) but they did explicitly present the car as having both DDP and SSP on their online listing.

When even lucid fans like us in this forum can’t decipher the sticker how can a Chevy dealer do it. Lucid failed to provide full disclosure on the free trial for 90 days wording thereby causing you loss will be your claim here.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

They weren't being purposefully deceitful (I think) but they did explicitly present the car as having both DDP and SSP on their online listing.

The hardware, which is required by law, is listed on the label. Might I suggest you reach out to the Chevy dealer you bought the car from and request a refund to offset which they mislead you (by mistake as I understand) to thinking the software was there. Ignorance and the dealer's failure to do their due diligence should provide you with the argument to help you in requesting a refund.

Lucid owes you no other duty here. Your sales agreement is with the Chevy folks.

 

[zakster]

The hardware, which is required by law, is listed on the label. Might I suggest you reach out to the Chevy dealer you bought the car from and request a refund to offset which they mislead you (by mistake as I understand) to thinking the software was there. Ignorance and the dealer's failure to do their due diligence should provide you with the argument to help you in requesting a refund.

Lucid owes you no other duty here. Your sales agreement is with the Chevy folks.

Isn’t Lucid open to a claim as well for not providing full disclosure. Per the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 that you referred in the other thread, they are in violation of the 2nd statement below. If DDP software was optional and not included in the price or for failure to state that it was a 3 month free trial similar to Sirius XM wording.

(2) the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery to such dealer, which is not included within the price of such automobile as stated pursuant to paragraph (1);

 

[Coltonw011]

Isn’t Lucid open to a claim as well for not providing full disclosure. Per the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 that you referred in the other thread, they are in violation of the 2nd statement below. If DDP software was optional and not included in the price or for failure to state that it was a 3 month free trial similar to Sirius XM wording.

(2) the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery to such dealer, which is not included within the price of such automobile as stated pursuant to paragraph (1);

I think the difference is, lucid doesn’t have “dealers,” technically. They are a direct to consumer sales company. They didn’t sell this vehicle to a dealer, it was brought in by the original purchaser to the Chevy dealer. I do believe the OP is owed something, not from Lucid, but from the dealer in which the vehicle was purchased. While the hardware is definitely included in the vehicle (lucid was not building vehicles without SSP or DDP) the software wasn’t purchased by the original owner. This may not be Chevys fault, they may not have known, but they did sell the vehicle to the OP under that pretense. If the Chevy dealer wanted to instill goodwill in the buyer, they would refund accordingly. It’s a weird situation, but I do agree Lucid isn’t at fault here, neither is the OP, and Chevy should be the unfortunate casualty here.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Isn’t Lucid open to a claim as well for not providing full disclosure. Per the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 that you referred in the other thread, they are in violation of the 2nd statement below. If DDP software was optional and not included in the price or for failure to state that it was a 3 month free trial similar to Sirius XM wording.

(2) the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery to such dealer, which is not included within the price of such automobile as stated pursuant to paragraph (1);

No. Software isn't likely considered "equipment." It's standard practice in the automotive industry to sell features via software to consumers. I have to return to my SiriusXM example as the easiest to follow. Most cars have the satellite hardware (antenna) installed in their cars both of my Jags have the antenna. When I trial ran out, I paid for the subscription. DDPro and SSP software is not different.

 

[Tâm]

...the OP is owed something, not from Lucid, but from the dealer in which the vehicle was purchased. While the hardware is definitely included in the vehicle (lucid was not building vehicles without SSP or DDP) the software wasn’t purchased by the original owner...

I am not a lawyer but I don't see how it's the dealer's fault.

If the sticker says it comes with 21" Aero Blade for $2,000 and when the dealer sold it off 2 weeks ago, those 21" tires were on the car and the buyer took the car home fine for 2 weeks.

Imagine that after 2 weeks, Lucid would sneak in the private home garage took the wheels back because the original buyer didn't pay for the 21" and only paid for the 20" Aero Lite.

The one who "steals" without notifying the owner is the one responsible.

The sticker still says DreamDrive Pro $10,000.

The dealer didn't take DreamDrive Pro back and there's no way the dealer could steal the DreamDrive Pro from the customer due to a lack of Lucid technology

Just because it's software, that doesn't mean Lucid can repossess its software without due process.

Ideally, Lucid should notify the current owner that DreamDrive Pro in that car is not paid, and it will take it back. It then needs to follow a repossession process through the court to obtain permission before taking the DreamDrive Pro away.

That car belongs to the new owner in a private home garage. Just because it can use wi-fi to get into that garage, that doesn't mean it's an illegal break-in during the zeal of repossession.

 

[joec]

I am not a lawyer but I don't see how it's the dealer's fault.

If the sticker says it comes with 21" Aero Blade for $2,000 and when the dealer sold it off 2 weeks ago, those 21" tires were on the car and the buyer took the car home fine for 2 weeks.

Imagine that after 2 weeks, Lucid would sneak in the private home garage took the wheels back because the original buyer didn't pay for the 21" and only paid for the 20" Aero Lite.

The one who "steals" without notifying the owner is the one responsible.

The sticker still says DreamDrive Pro $10,000.

The dealer didn't take DreamDrive Pro back and there's no way the dealer could steal the DreamDrive Pro from the customer due to a lack of Lucid technology

Just because it's software, that doesn't mean Lucid can repossess its software without due process.

Ideally, Lucid should notify the current owner that DreamDrive Pro in that car is not paid, and it will take it back. It then needs to follow a repossession process through the court to obtain permission before taking the DreamDrive Pro away.

That car belongs to the new owner in a private home garage. Just because it can use wi-fi to get into that garage, that doesn't mean it's an illegal break-in during the zeal of repossession.

You really went a long way there to portray Lucid as a thief, didn’t you?

We have no idea what the deal is with this car. Because we don’t have the original sales agreement. That’s the only place where we could show with any clarity whether or not the pro features were paid for by the original owner.

If the dealer took the original owner on their word that they had paid for these features without verifying that fact via the sales agreement, they screwed up. If the new owner didn’t ask for the original sales agreement from the dealer, they screwed up.

If the original owner did indeed pay for these features and Lucid’s latest update mistakenly deactivated those features, then Lucid screwed up.

Only Lucid or the OG owner can get to the bottom of what happened on the original sale. The OG owner is unlikely to talk, so that leaves Lucid.

Lucid has zero motivation to lie about what features had been paid for by the original owner. Despite what you might think, stealing features from a paying customer would be idiotic for any company.

My guess is this is either a software glitch, causing the features to be removed by mistake (unlikely) or the original owner failed to disclose that they never paid for DDPro and SSPro (much more likely).

In that case, the dealership was duped, and they should cover the difference in price to the new owner. This is not the new buyer’s fault. Though it is a good cautionary tale for anyone looking to buy a used Air. Always demand to see the sales agreement, or at least get it in writing from the seller that these features were paid for and are not in any sort of trial.

Meanwhile, Lucid should make this easier to track. The software should state clearly when any feature is in trial mode. Given they are just now releasing an update that even understands the concept of a trial, it’s not surprising this hasn’t been done yet. Remember, the entire trial situation was sprung on the software team as marketing was announcing it.

Lucid, could of course, take pity on this new owner and the dealership and grant the software for free. But they are under no obligation to do so.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

I am not a lawyer but I don't see how it's the dealer's fault.

If the sticker says it comes with 21" Aero Blade for $2,000 and when the dealer sold it off 2 weeks ago, those 21" tires were on the car and the buyer took the car home fine for 2 weeks.

Imagine that after 2 weeks, Lucid would sneak in the private home garage took the wheels back because the original buyer didn't pay for the 21" and only paid for the 20" Aero Lite.

The one who "steals" without notifying the owner is the one responsible.

The sticker still says DreamDrive Pro $10,000.

The dealer didn't take DreamDrive Pro back and there's no way the dealer could steal the DreamDrive Pro from the customer due to a lack of Lucid technology

Just because it's software, that doesn't mean Lucid can repossess its software without due process.

Ideally, Lucid should notify the current owner that DreamDrive Pro in that car is not paid, and it will take it back. It then needs to follow a repossession process through the court to obtain permission before taking the DreamDrive Pro away.

That car belongs to the new owner in a private home garage. Just because it can use wi-fi to get into that garage, that doesn't mean it's an illegal break-in during the zeal of repossession.

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm actually kinda speechless.

I really should caution folks reading this forum against takes like this. There's so much wrong here it's difficult to know where to start.

 

[AustinAir]

Personally I’m shocked anyone is taking Lucids side here. Unless that sticker is doctored by the Chevy dealer, it is clear that $10k was paid for the option. It is not a subscription or a trial (what trial is $10k?)

If they don’t comply I would threaten to sue, and I’m a lucid shareholder saying that.

 

[borski]

Personally I’m shocked anyone is taking Lucids side here. Unless that sticker is doctored by the Chevy dealer, it is clear that $10k was paid for the option. It is not a subscription or a trial (what trial is $10k?)

If they don’t comply I would threaten to sue, and I’m a lucid shareholder saying that.

That sticker is not what the original buyer bought. What they bought was laid out in their sales agreement. This sticker shows what the options are, because the hardware exists in the car. It is not a bill of sale. It is a disclosure of hardware in the car. That is literally it.

The dealer who bought the car did not read or ask for the original sales agreement, and instead assumed that every option had been paid for. That is completely the dealer’s fault. When buying a car, you do your due diligence; check carfax, inspect it for mechanical and cosmetic issues, and so on. One of those things is also ensuring it isn’t stolen, has a free and clear title, and has the feature you think it does *and that they work.*

That is all the dealer’s job. They failed to do that here, and then sold the car after advertising it as having features it didn’t, due to a mistake they made.

I’m not sure how to make that any clearer.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

You really went a long way there to portray Lucid as a thief, didn’t you?

We have no idea what the deal is with this car. Because we don’t have the original sales agreement. That’s the only place where we could show with any clarity whether or not the pro features were paid for by the original owner.

If the dealer took the original owner on their word that they had paid for these features without verifying that fact via the sales agreement, they screwed up. If the new owner didn’t ask for the original sales agreement from the dealer, they screwed up.

If the original owner did indeed pay for these features and Lucid’s latest update mistakenly deactivated those features, then Lucid screwed up.

Only Lucid or the OG owner can get to the bottom of what happened on the original sale. The OG owner is unlikely to talk, so that leaves Lucid.

Lucid has zero motivation to lie about what features had been paid for by the original owner. Despite what you might think, stealing features from a paying customer would be idiotic for any company.

My guess is this is either a software glitch, causing the features to be removed by mistake (unlikely) or the original owner failed to disclose that they never paid for DDPro and SSPro (much more likely).

In that case, the dealership was duped, and they should cover the difference in price to the new owner. This is not the new buyer’s fault. Though it is a good cautionary tale for anyone looking to buy a used Air. Always demand to see the sales agreement, or at least get it in writing from the seller that these features were paid for and are not in any sort of trial.

Meanwhile, Lucid should make this easier to track. The software should state clearly when any feature is in trial mode. Given they are just now releasing an update that even understands the concept of a trial, it’s not surprising this hasn’t been done yet. Remember, the entire trial situation was sprung on the software team as marketing was announcing it.

Lucid, could of course, take pity on this new owner and the dealership and grant the software for free. But they are under no obligation to do so.

Joe,

Lucid doesn't owe this new customer anything outside of the what's left of the original manufacturers warranty and the software updates that's it. Although, I agree if the original owner paid for DDPRO and SSP and Lucid shut it off, there might be a claim but as you noted, it's unlikely. The dealer was likely duped or didn't ask the previous owner for the purchase agreement to verify whether there was a 90 day trial or not and what came with the car. If the Monroney showed the car came with 21's but the previous owner swapped to 19's, is Lucid still liable? The answer is no because Lucid didn't sell the subsequent owner the car and the Monroney lable isn't a contract.

What I would be interested in knowing is when did the new owner take possession of the car? Was DDPRO and SSP active when he bought it, test drove it, etc.

This whole thing should be taken as a cautionary tale when purchasing a used car especially this one. Always do your due diligence before you sign on that dotted line.