One of the articles I read said they wanted to make it up to her by letting her do some of their other events. She cancelled other orders, got staff working long hours, and bought a shit ton of ingredients so she could make 4000 pies for them, and they just said “Never mind” like it’s no big deal.
Is it unheard of for a bakery to establish arbitration agreements to avoid this exact situation? From my understanding, courts are reticent to insert themselves in arbitration unless the agreements made were invalid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tesla isn’t going to call their lawyers for $4k. The phone call would cost more than just paying her. If she filed in small claims, chances are good they wouldn’t even show up.
You would think tesla would, but who knows what they’ll do if Musk decides he doesn’t like her.
$16k is too much for small claims, but I believe she could get $10,000 from small claims and lawyers aren’t allowed in small claims court in San Fran, so she should be able to just go directly after the person who placed and canceled the order.
Sounds an awful lot like detrimental reliance to me…
Why is this getting downvoted?
Detrimental reliance is the legal principle that would allow the bakery to recover damages from Tesla. In summary: “You promised to pay me for this, and I acted accordingly, but you didn’t follow through, so pay up.”
One of the articles I read said they wanted to make it up to her by letting her do some of their other events. She cancelled other orders, got staff working long hours, and bought a shit ton of ingredients so she could make 4000 pies for them, and they just said “Never mind” like it’s no big deal.
I think they need a better contract for large orders like that.
Eh…having been on both sides of contracts like this… typically a kill clause is sided heavily toward the one with money.
And even if it wasn’t, Tesla has more money to drag out the fight in court long enough that the pie company won’t be able to survive.
Is it unheard of for a bakery to establish arbitration agreements to avoid this exact situation? From my understanding, courts are reticent to insert themselves in arbitration unless the agreements made were invalid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tesla isn’t going to call their lawyers for $4k. The phone call would cost more than just paying her. If she filed in small claims, chances are good they wouldn’t even show up.
The order was $16,000. The amount of mini pies was 4k. You confused yourself.
You’re right, my bad. That’s likely a bit too much for small claims, so they might send in an intern or something.
But, Tesla’s PR department will probably be giving her the $16k and apologizing for the “miscommunication” before too long.
You would think tesla would, but who knows what they’ll do if Musk decides he doesn’t like her.
$16k is too much for small claims, but I believe she could get $10,000 from small claims and lawyers aren’t allowed in small claims court in San Fran, so she should be able to just go directly after the person who placed and canceled the order.
You would usually charge enough to break even in case of cancellation and only charge the “profit” part upon delivery…
deleted by creator
Sounds an awful lot like detrimental reliance to me…
Why is this getting downvoted?
Detrimental reliance is the legal principle that would allow the bakery to recover damages from Tesla. In summary: “You promised to pay me for this, and I acted accordingly, but you didn’t follow through, so pay up.”
Yes because god forbid someone have the audacity to believe a corporation will behave in a professional manner.
Look up the legal definition of detrimental reliance.
I mean yeah, I don’t know why anyone would legitimately expect this
A corporation Musk is involved with?