I'm no where near as experienced as you and your team, but that is what I was thinking as I read this. Tesla rather quickly went from the expensive sensors to the camera based setup they have now and it'll be interesting to watch how all this unfolds, safely from my 2006 vehicle with nearly no computers.
There's absolutely nothing stopping Tesla from adding back lidar/other sensors if the technology becomes cheaper or it turns out visual-only isn't accurate enough; Elon has other advantages that no other company is anywhere near competing with though too, and he clearly understands this, he understands his position well - and it's strong. He's also a very agile entrepreneur/engineer and not afraid to pull the trigger on whatever ideas come to his attention as being the best decision. He's also already succeeded in Tesla's mission - which was to get other vehicle manufacturers to transition to EV, so anything else after that is really just icing on the cake; Tesla stock holders however still believe strongly in him - and I'd argue rightfully so.
For now by using the cheapest technology he's arguably selling more EVs and/or making more profit per vehicle. If the market's competition requires a course change, then I don't see why he wouldn't take it - I don't think he'd fall pray to sunk cost fallacy; the reason for decisions may not be obvious to the public either, as we likely don't know details of his nuanced master plan.
A promise isn't a contract, so whether it's actually guaranteed in the language in whatever agreements may be signed, will be the determining factor.
And how the automative industry has functioned since its existence is risk-benefit-cost analysis, so if the cost of a future fallout is less than the short-term benefit then they tend to decide for the short-term benefit; most disgustingly in regards to known problems of vehicles, where only recalls happen if the potential harm/death rate and the cost of that is lower than the cost of replacing whatever needs to be replaced; I'd hope that practice has greatly improved, but who knows - most of our government agencies seem captured by industrial complexes.
No, courts look at the spirit of the language and the letter of the law. The letter takes precedent only when it is clear that the two parties are not intending to defraud each other and there is just a misunderstanding. If the court decides both parties had a different understanding of the contract than the letter, then what they understand is what is used. As a lawyer in court your jobs it to make the court believe what you understood the contract was about is what they use - if the letter supports you then you yell that, and since the letter is a easy to prove while a shared understanding that is different from the letter is impossible the letter normally wins.
Marketing is admissible in court as evidence of intended contract. Since marketing is generally easier to understand the legalese, if the court decides the marketing is misleading they will tend to punish you for that and accept the marketing as the shared understanding over whatever the letter of the contract is.
Note that I used a lot of wishey-washy words like tend... Each court case is different, and there is no real rule of what courts will do in any given situation. Consult a lawyer for legal advice about your specific situation.
