Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 12:15 AM
Tue Dec 1
29 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
06/11/09
"I'm shocked...SHOCKED!...that Tesla is being sued..."
(I knew I was going to eff that up...)
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
Some claims are baseless, and are discredited elsewhere in the document. The BOD severance agreement signed by Eberhard clearly states that the 250,000 shares of common stock are to be granted pending board approval.
Other claims are chronologically dependent, and based on the claim brought forth by Eberhard, he initiated the breach of contract, specifically the anti-defamation stipulation of the separation agreement. Whether or not claims are valid has no bearing on whether or not they legally constitute derogatory and/or defamatory statements. And the dates specified indicate that his blog posting constitutes a breach of contract, thereby releasing Tesla Motors from further liability pertaining to further compensation as stipulated in the separation agreement signed by Eberhard.
Elon Musk having a more favorable separation agreement with Paypal is irrelevant to the conditions set forth in Eberhard's separation agreement with Tesla Motors.
Elon Musk my be liable for damages resulting from slander and/or libel, but is free from liability for defamatory and/or derogatory statements that can be proven factual, due to Eberhard's initial breach of the contract. Musk may be held liable for statements signifying Eberhard as the primary cause for Tesla's woes, due to an inherent inability to prove adequately such claims.
Martin Eberhard can be due damages resulting from negligent misrepresentation of Musk pertaining to both Musk's falsely represented role as a founder of Tesla motors, and the willful omission of credit due to Martin Eberhard as a founder.
Any statements pertaining to Musk's role as financier, or investor of Tesla Motors have no place in the claims brought forth by Eberhard, due to the validity of such claims.
Musk's educational background is irrelevant as pertains to the claims. Eberhard has no claim to damages brought forth by these allegations. These allegations, as well as Musk's misrepresentation of himself as founder of Tesla Motors may be sufficient grounds for a criminal case of fraud, but the educational credentials have no bearing on any liability that Musk may have toward Eberhard.
Musk does appear to be in violation of the written agreement pertaining to delivery of the second production Roadster, however the terms outlined relating to the value of said vehicle are purely speculative, and liability will likely be capped at the actual monetary value of the agreement, and will result in Eberhard having the option of returning the vehicle delivered in exchange for the return of the $100,000 paid.
Is Elon Musk an asshole, and a fraud?
Yes, and maybe.
All I know for certain is that, while I feel for Martin Eberhard in all of this, this filing by his attorneys on his behalf doesn't have him smelling like a rose either.
06/11/09
Now I'm disappointed.
I'm just not impressed with the Tesla. I do like the Fisker though, and I would definitely drive one.
06/11/09
06/11/09