Cybertruck NO RESALE Restriction (1 Year) Spotted in Purchase Agreement Language

[Jthelmsdeep]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

Couldn’t agree more!!!

Sponsored

 

[John K]

The verbiage used is suspect. Just a few more weeks and all will be known.

 

[ÆCIII]

I think it would be a perfectly reasonable condition if indeed it is part of a Cybertruck MVPA. For those who don't like it, then they don't have to agree to buy it in the first place. That's why it's called a Motor Vehicle Purchase "Agreement".

Tesla is in sort of a precarious position attempting to scale a new innovative product design, with a lot of false narratives about it already being spread. Thus Tesla needs to assure that legitimate customers are helping to promote the Cybertruck and evaluate it fairly. If a lot of flipping, scalping, and shenanigans are allowed to go on, Tesla cannot maintain support integrity to the flipped vehicles which are also subject to abuse, illegal modifications, and false accusations of defects from disingenuous 'owners' promoting toxicity to the Tesla brand.

I think Tesla has every right to put conditions in an MVPA for a new product which they are attempting to ramp and scale, in order to protect the early reputation and also allow focus on genuine support to the genuine customers. There are a lot of scamming people who are losing stakeholders with sheep followers who would scam or falsely represent the Cybertruck in any negative way they could.

Tesla, if putting such language in an MVPA, is being Up Front with conditions to protect their ability to support the new product optimally as possible to genuine customers. If anyone doesn't like it, then they don't have to agree or buy, but it helps to assure Tesla's ability to support genuine customers who have bought the new product.

I think it would be a great paragraph and in fact I would almost insist on it being in there so that I know that Tesla's support would not be eroded by outside scammers and scalpers.

In fact, I'd be happy to pay $1k more if Tesla could assure this clause was in All Cybertruck MVPAs.

- ÆCIII

 

[MoondustCoversYou]

I had to sign an agreement not to resell my Jaguar f-type until it was at least a year old. From what I understand Porsche makes their buyers sign something as well. If they catch you flipping your new car you are banned for life from buying another car of their brand.

 

[BillyGee]

My Tesla insurance has a provision about nuclear bombs. This is less far fetched.

 

[RandyS]

Well, I reserved my CT on unveiling night, and I just looked in the "Documents" section on the Tesla website under my CT reservation, and my document there is still the one dated 11/21/2019 and it doesn't have this new language...

 

[FarAway]

It has happened before and precedent is set. John Cena lost a well-publicized lawsuit to FORD when he sold his Ford GT before the TWO years of ownership (per the agreement) had passed.

John Cena Taps Out, Settles Lawsuit with Ford After Selling His Ford GT
Always remember to read the buyer’s agreement.​

 

[Klaxon]

One year goes so fast.
I only will finish reading the manual.


And less flippers in front of me will bring the end of restriction even sooner

 

[rizvend]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

How does blowing up the line solve anything??

 

[SlegMD]

Within my social circle, 3/3 of my “buddies” interested in the CT have intentions of riding the Tesla wave and flipping.

If this contract stipulation is accurate, which I hope, it may speed up everyone’s wait for the CT. Tesla has a right to protect their products. (Lol at the “pound sand dude”)

As for the reservation list, if it is ineffective or has below whatever threshold of retention Tesla needs it to be, then sure blow it up. Otherwise MANY individuals have loyally proclaimed their interest in their reservation, and I would say it is un-American to remove the list, without good reason, as everyone has an equal opportunity to obtain this lovely item without having to deal with the highest bidders. And the most loyal Teslites are going to the back of the line if this happens.

 

[pricedm]

Google Ford GT for one possible outcome: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...-john-cena-and-ford-settle-gt-resale-lawsuit/

I am buying a Cybertruck for my enjoyment. Can't wait!

 

[rudedawg78]

I am happy that this is real. If someone really believes that it will be "rare" to see early reservation holders to not want to flip the Cybertruck for a huge gain, then you are living in lala land. I can go on forever and list many high demand items that flippers/scalpers/whatever you want to call them try to buy and sell for double/triple/even more the original price.

Example... I just received my Tesla CyberBeer + CyberStein Limited Edition Set that I paid for $150 and is currently sold out. If you look on eBay, people are selling these for $500 and up (the ones that don't have empty beer bottles). That is a 3+x markup.

I just have to giggle a bit when some people on here believe it will be a rarity that people will want to sell their CTs soon after taking delivery and attempt to receive a major profit.

Addition: Back in my early days serving in the Air Force, I had a part time job at Toys R Us (I was 19 years old). I worked there during the release of the N64, Playstation, Furby, Game Boy Advance, and other very popular christmas gift item. There were literally hundreds of people offering me a ton of money above sell price to stash one of these away for them. Fortunately there were a ton of security protocols to prevent people from purchasing them. For those lucky few, many of them literally stood outside Toys R Us in future days/weeks selling these to desperate parents in upwards of 10X markup.

So... yeah... In the early release days, Cybertruck is going to be like a Furby. lol

 

[newwave1331]

Do you think Tesla needs a PR team? This is how things go out.

I do think its interesting that it could be fake (or dated/old format). The v20220720 at the bottom tells me this is old. My 2023 MYP (purchased 9/2023) has a MVOA v20230201. Wouldn't it just be v20231111?

 

[ÆCIII]

Do you think Tesla needs a PR team? This is how things go out.

I do think its interesting that is could be fake (or dated/old format). The v20220720 at the bottom tells me this is old. My 2023 MYP (purchased 9/2023) has a MVOA v20230201. Wouldn't it just be v20231111?

No. Each customer gets an MVPA emailed or given to them at purchase.

If a customer reads some copy of a different MVPA instead of reading their own, in the words of Jerry Ingvall, Travis Tritt, or Jeff Foxworthy, "...Here's your sign!"

- ÆCIII

 

[TacoTuesday]

If the Cybertruck is so great, why does Tesla care about flippers?

Sponsored