News
Details Behind the Tesla Model 3 Reservation Agreement
The Tesla Model 3 Reservation Agreement is available at the company website. It makes it clear that people who reserve a Model 3 are not buying a car. They are reserving a ride on the road to the future.
Prospective Model 3 reservation holders will need to agree to the Tesla Model 3 Reservation Agreement come Thursday, regardless of whether they plan on placing a deposit in stores or online later in the evening. That agreement will then be submitted to the company along with your deposit. The one page document is written in standard English rather than impenetrable legalese, so congratulations to Tesla for doing that. Here are a couple of significant points contained in the agreement you should be aware of.
The Agreement is not a sales contract
The Model 3 Reservation Agreement makes it clear that it is not a sales contract. It is nothing more than an opportunity to enter into a sales contract at some point in the future. It says the reservation fee, which is $1,000 in the United States, is fully refundable if the prospective purchaser decides to cancel or abandon the reservation. It also says Tesla may “decline to maintain you as a reservation holder.” You may want to refrain from saying negative things about Tesla publicly to keep that from happening. If and when Tesla decides it is time for you to enter into a validly binding sales contract, it will notify you.
Deferral and non-transferability
If and when the time comes to place an order for a Model 3, and the reservation holder decides not to proceed with signing a sales contract, they will be permitted to defer reservation until a later time. Only one deferral is permitted. Those looking to make a quick profit by selling their early reservation should take note that it is not transferable.
Priority
There has been much discussion in the past few weeks about getting a low reservation number. People are fanatically interested in getting their Model 3 before the federal tax credit for Tesla vehicles begins to expire. Others just want to be the first on their block to own one. Either way, just being first in line at your local Tesla store on March 31 won’t necessarily determine your place in the Model 3 reservation queue. The Reservation Agreement makes that crystal clear.
“We will establish your reservation sequence position in our sole discretion. We may decline reservations to avoid over-subscription or as we deem appropriate in our sole discretion. If your reservation is declined or we decide to cancel your reservation, you will be notified and your Reservation Payment will be refunded.”
Limitation of liability
Tesla anticipates that a few customers may become annoyed with the Model 3 ordering process at some point in the future. There may be delays. Specifications for the car may change. Any number of things could happen that could be contrary to a buyer’s expectations at the time the reservation was made. Can you sue Tesla for disappointing you? No, you cannot. Forget about it.
Acknowledgements when you sign a Reservation Agreement
When you sign your Reservation Agreement and hand it to a Tesla representative or transmit it electronically, Tesla wants you to know a few more things.
“You understand that Tesla may not have completed the development of Model 3 or begun manufacturing Model 3 at the time of your reservation. You also acknowledge that, if you purchase a Model 3, the Model 3 may not be delivered to you until the end of 2017 or later. You also agree that we will not hold your Reservation Payment separately or in an escrow or trust fund or pay any interest on Reservation Payments.”
In other words, when you sign on the dotted line on March 31 or any later date, you should be aware that the Model 3 is still a work in process. What you see at the official reveal may or may not be the car that will be built for you in the future. It could have more or less doors. It could look substantially different. What you see may not be what you get.
Summary
Make no mistake about it, Tesla intends to build the Model 3 and lots of them. It just wants you to understand that by reserving one now, you are only getting the right to purchase something in the future. What that something is remains totally up to Tesla to decide. Since all reservations fees are fully refundable, you have nothing to lose. You are reserving a ride on the road to the future. Enjoy your journey but be prepared for some twists and turns along the way.
More Tesla Model 3 News
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
