An Auckland man who bought a "new" Tesla sedan suffering a range of interior and exterior defects has won a Pyrrhic victory against the American electric car giant.
Tesla has been ordered to fix the problems with the $70,000 Model 3, including a damaged bumper, worn seat and stained interior.
But the owner failed in his bid for an award of costs after spending more than $10,000 preparing a claim in the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.
The tribunal found the defects were of a "substantial character" and met the threshold under consumer law to make Tesla liable to replace the vehicle.
But given the shortage of stock amid huge demand and a months-long waiting list for Model 3s, the man had to settle for repairs.
Details of the saga emerged in a recently published Tribunal decision following a hearing earlier this year before adjudicator Brett Carter.
The man test-drove a Model 3 last year and decided to purchase one.
The decision said he considered Tesla to be a "reputable and honourable brand representing a revolutionary new approach to sustainable transport and using precision robots in Gigafactories around the world to produce a unique and engineering genius, the Model 3".
He took possession in March and found a slew of problems.
They included dirt and a coffee stain on the driver side footwell carpet, scrapes on the bumper, a scratched wheel cover, marks on the interior roof and boot linings, creased leather on the driver's side seat and scratched wing mirrors.
The man contacted Tesla with pictures of the damage. Tesla offered to assess the vehicle but the man said he did not want repairs to a damaged car and instead sought a replacement. The company declined.
In addition to the damage, the man said the battery range indicator showed a reading when fully charged of 439km, less than the advertised maximum range of 491km.
He therefore questioned whether the vehicle was in fact new, the decision said.
Tesla submitted evidence that it had tested the vehicle and found no battery fault.
David Robertson, a store leader at Tesla, also said the 491km range representation is based on a standard used by most electric vehicle manufacturers and similar to the fuel economy representations used when marketing electric vehicles.
The range indicator uses a different standard, Robertson told the tribunal.
"I understood Mr Robertson to say that the 491km range is technically achievable, but not under normal conditions of use," Carter's decision said.
As a result, Carter found Tesla had not engaged in misleading conduct regarding the battery range.
However, he found the vehicle was not acceptable in either its appearance or its finish.
"A reasonable consumer purchasing a new $70,643 vehicle would expect that vehicle to be in pristine condition," the decision said.
As a result, he was entitled under the Consumer Guarantees Act to reject the vehicle.
His desire for a replacement Model 3 hit a road block when it emerged the company had none in stock and a waiting list extending to February 2023.
The only options for a swift remedy were therefore repair or refund.
The man said his preference was to have the Tesla repaired and receive financial compensation.
He sought between $8830 and $14,126 for the reduction in value caused by the vehicle's defects, $3555 for the estimated cost of using another vehicle and $150 per week for storing the vehicle.
The tribunal said he was not entitled to compensation for storing the Tesla or using another vehicle because the car remained driveable.
It found that once the vehicle was repaired, he had not proven its value would still be diminished.
The man also wanted an award of costs for preparing the claim which he estimated as exceeding $10,000.
That claim was dismissed, because the tribunal can only award costs where a party does not attend a hearing without good cause or refused to take part in pre-hearing discussions.
The tribunal concluded the case by ordering Tesla to remove the stain from the driver side footwell, replace the damaged bumper and under tray and replace the driver's seat.
Decisions of the tribunal can be appealed to the District Court.