No Resale Agreement?

[slomo]

Given that the (now retired) F-111 fighter bomber's zero altitude ejection seats were tested not with humans but with drugged black bears...

I am strongly inclined to vote for using drugged sea lions in testing the Cybertruck's ejection seats; however, caution is in order; the larger sea lions getting ten feet long and weighing a ton would not do.

Perhaps baby sea lions?

As for the concept of restricting resale? That's an infringement on property rights - essentially, you do not own the property 100% during the period of time the restriction is in force. I would grant though, that abuse of resale could occur; in some nightmarishish future scenarios abuse of resale rights could excess non-abusive early resale. But how would such cases be arbitrated? there would have to be a National Panel on Cybertruck Early Resale and of course, appeals boards. One might have to pursue an appeal all the way to the International Codified Cybertruck Transfer Authority.

May I suggest a moratorium on CT resales until the legal community is schooled in this new form of jurisprudence? Perhaps until 2032?

The fact that Tesla has stated their resale policy seems to be ignored.

Almost certainly Tesla will simply not sell multiple units and not worry about individual resales. Restrictive contracts would need to be enforced by state law. I'm not sure if Canada would be by province. But provinces in Canada have a lot of autonomy. Tesla is not even going to consider entering into such enforcement nonsense. Tesla doesn't benefit from attempting to prevent fast resales.

Sponsored

 

[Ogre]

The fact that Tesla has stated their resale policy seems to be ignored.

Almost certainly Tesla will simply not sell multiple units and not worry about individual resales. Restrictive contracts would need to be enforced by state law. I'm not sure if Canada would be by province. But provinces in Canada have a lot of autonomy. Tesla is not even going to consider entering into such enforcement nonsense. Tesla doesn't benefit from attempting to prevent fast resales.

Tesla does not use courts or legal actions to enforce their no resale policy. They simply black list you.

Running things through the legal system is expensive and time consuming and often doesn’t get the results you want. Blacklisting people is free. There is no burden of proof and very little recourse.

 

[Arctic_White]

When Tesla increases prices, they increase them for new orders not existing reservations.

Increasing prices on existing reservations only sows bad-will and does not affect demand. Unless you consider the effect of large amounts of cancellations affecting demand.

Reservations do not = orders though, right?

I hope that we all can lock-in the price as soon as it's announced!!!

 

[Ogre]

Reservations do not = orders though, right?

I hope that we all can lock-in the price as soon as it's announced!!!

I was pretty explicit separating the two above.

 

[cvalue13]

yep, cool… how will that effect the guy that has three reservations? One to own, two to sell after the third arrives. Don’t forget the wait for anyone not in the queue is quite long…

you understand the difference between a reservation and an "order deposit," yeah?

 

[cvalue13]

As for the concept of restricting resale? That's an infringement on property rights - essentially, you do not own the property 100% during the period of time the restriction is in force.

May I suggest a moratorium on CT resales until the legal community is schooled in this new form of jurisprudence? Perhaps until 2032?

don't worry, moratorium is lifted - ROFR/O's are freely contractable under law for many classes of personal property. for example, when you purchase real property (eg a house or parcel of land), you almost never purchase all rights to the property - you only purchase what the seller can or is willing to sell you.

Put differently: it's not an "infringement on property rights" if Tesla never sells you the right in the first place.

(side note: anyone with a loan on their vehicle doesn't really "own" the vehicle unincumbered, either.)

In any event, the challenge isn't whether you can legally contract for a ROFR/O, nor whether a court would enforce one drafted sufficiently (they do all day).

the challenge instead is that they are difficult to draft sufficiently, and even then whether they are functionally worthwhile to attempt to pursue judgment much less enforce judgment.

In real property, they are ubiquitous and easy - because of the nature of the property. On the other end of the spectrum would be drafting a ROFR/O on a soap bubble - less easy, due to the nature of the property.

And if the legal answer doesn't ease your concerns, I'd say: rest your worries, Tesla understands all this and wouldn't bother with such an inefficient and ineffective approach - regardless of being legal.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Given that the (now retired) F-111 fighter bomber's zero altitude ejection seats were tested not with humans but with drugged black bears...

I am strongly inclined to vote for using drugged sea lions in testing the Cybertruck's ejection seats; however, caution is in order; the larger sea lions getting ten feet long and weighing a ton would not do.

Perhaps baby sea lions?

As for the concept of restricting resale? That's an infringement on property rights - essentially, you do not own the property 100% during the period of time the restriction is in force. I would grant though, that abuse of resale could occur; in some nightmarishish future scenarios abuse of resale rights could excess non-abusive early resale. But how would such cases be arbitrated? there would have to be a National Panel on Cybertruck Early Resale and of course, appeals boards. One might have to pursue an appeal all the way to the International Codified Cybertruck Transfer Authority.

May I suggest a moratorium on CT resales until the legal community is schooled in this new form of jurisprudence? Perhaps until 2032?

Have you heard of a market mechanism called a lease?

I’m suggesting if you don’t want a restriction on your capacity to on sell your Cybertruck then you are welcome to purchase it outright at market clearing price…

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Tesla doesn't benefit from attempting to prevent fast resales.

That’s quite debatable as it depends on the market strategy they are using. Fast resales isn’t currently an issue for Tesla because they have a market clearing pricing strategy. That is the current mechanism to inhibit profit loss from scalping.

Any genuine customer interested in Tesla honouring the reveal pricing could benefit from a resale restriction. Like a lease to buy.

We all would benefit (genuine owners, not parasitic profiteers) from a resale restriction because it would enable Tesla to sell at a lower price. Coupled with a market clearing mechanism like an auction, the two tiered mechanism even negates the arbitrage of selling a reservation account. Simultaneously it would minimise depreciation after the lease period.

What’s not to love, but some misguided sense of objection that ignoring the existence queue jumping means it doesn’t happen.

 

[cvalue13]

What’s not to love, but some misguided sense of objection that ignoring the existence queue jumping means it doesn’t happen.

if only someone had a plan

 

[Cyberman]

The even fairer alternative is for tesla to just auction the vehicles. Forget all this reservation nonsense. Why should you - who have contributed absolutely nothing to the vehicle's design, engineering, manufacturer, etc. - profit from its popularity? Just auction the vehicles. The end.

This just in, Jan. 2024: Based on your policy, the cheapest of the first 220,000 CT's was auctioned for $114,000. The cheapest. Thanks Bob!

 

[Deleted member 3316]

This just in, Jan. 2024: Based on your policy, the cheapest of the first 220,000 CT's was auctioned for $114,000. The cheapest. Thanks Bob!

Yep, that would be pretty suboptimal if there wasn’t also another mechanism to sell to reservation holders at reveal prices.

There’s a good chance quite a few Cybertruck might fetch that price. I’d rather that profit go to Tesla.

 

[BayouCityBob]

This just in, Jan. 2024: Based on your policy, the cheapest of the first 220,000 CT's was auctioned for $114,000. The cheapest. Thanks Bob!

Of course I only said this to point out the hypocrisy of people who oppose a Tesla buy-back option to prevent scalping (my original proposal) and those who would equally oppose Tesla auctioning the vehicles. The buy-back right is a contractually simple and workable system for preventing scalping. Methinks people who do no like it are wannabe scalpers.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

To ensure your complete satisfaction, I will reply to all of your questions and comments fully and completely.

1. Do you honestly think anyone would care that much about a ban?
No. Criminals don't care about jail...at least, until they get caught. The ban is not about deterrence as much as preventing repeat offenders.

2. How easily is that ban enforced?
Very easily. Unless, of course, someone chooses to create a false identity or enter WITSEC. I suppose a determined profiteer could steal them directly from the factory. 100% profit!

3. How easily can that blacklist be circumvented?
Anyone on the banned list can happily buy a used Tesla on the secondary market. Or they could use a straw buyer, but then that person risks banishment.

- solarwizard has said they will hold their extra vehicles for a few months to make a ban difficult.
That's allot of carrying costs that will eat into profits. Also, there's no specific timeframe for a ban, so there's no way to know when it's "safe" to resell.

soooooo….. you’re saying the ban is completely ineffectual considering the reservation list… and the main mechanism to limit scalping is market clearing prices…

If only there was a way to have low prices AND minimise the proliferation of one time scalpers selling at market clearance.

 

[CyberGus]

soooooo….. you’re saying the ban is completely ineffectual considering the reservation list…

No, I’m not saying that at all.

and the main mechanism to limit scalping is market clearing prices…

Your words, not mine.

If only there was a way to have low prices AND minimise the proliferation of one time scalpers selling at market clearance.

I really DGAF what anyone does with their Cybertruck after purchase. Maybe Tesla can mitigate scalpers more than they do currently, I just don’t believe they will.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

No, I’m not saying that at all.


Your words, not mine.


I really DGAF what anyone does with their Cybertruck after purchase. Maybe Tesla can mitigate scalpers more than they do currently, I just don’t believe they will.

My priority isn’t scalpers. It’s the price. Scalpers are a consequence of pricing below market clearance rates.

Remembering that a linear decrease in price results in an exponential increase in demand.
What’s your solution to have a low price when Tesla is supply constrained?

You should care what other people do with their truck after purchase because it’s costing you more money.

Sponsored