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

[FarAway]

What if you sold a cyber whistle for $150k and gifted a Cybertruck to the buyer? It says you can't sell but it doesn't say anything about giving it as a "gift." Just thinking out loud here!

The transfer of the title is what constitutes the sale.

You could certainly loan the truck, as the owner, to someone else, but you would still have to provide the insurance and be responsible for the tickets and taxes. It would be like having a new teenage driver in your life. Lots of fun. ( )

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

I'm guessing they wouldn't need language like this if MSRP was north of $100,000 as some have predicted

 

[JBee]

The transfer of the title is what constitutes the sale.

You could certainly loan the truck as the owner to someone else, but you would still have to provide the insurance and be responsible for the tickets and taxes. It would be like having a new teenage driver in your life. Lots of fun. ( )

What about renting them out on Turo?

That's probably more profitable than flipping anyway.

 

[fhteagle]

***EDIT***, Electrek has a link directly to a Tesla URL now...

https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale


This really gives me pause about actually converting my res to an order. Not because I intend to flip the vehicle, but because I do not want to be stuck with it for a year if there is something seriously amiss. I am going to not just want to see it on the net, see it from the outside, but actually drive the thing for longer than 3 minutes to make sure it doesn't set off my sciatica. Which means my order just got delayed until they have some available for no kidding test drives. Probably no skin off of Tesla's teeth, there's plenty of other who will order sight unseen, and that's their choice.

In my opinion, agreeing that Tesla gets to choose what is a legitimate reason for a sale AND set the buyback price is about as dumb as signing a contract with a confession of judgement in it.

This would have have far better worded as something like "if you sell within 12 months for a price above MVPA price plus reasonable expenses, the profit goes to Tesla". That I could live with, agree to, and order tomorrow under.

 

[cvalue13]

By and large though, most people, lawyers and attorneys included, are good people who try to do good things.

after 15 years of practice, one glaring theme:

people “dislike” lawyers right up to the exact moment they themselves need one

typically, for either one or two things: for some terrible situation where they truly need help, or instead for some petty BS they “need”

in the latter case, for example: the folks here championing how much they appreciate this Tesla no-resale contract provision




so, for me, what’s disappointing about it isn’t that they actually feel that way - because I know that they don’t, if only when it’s about self-interest. Instead what’s disappointing is how hypocritical they are.

 

[cvalue13]

Having digested that this looks to be legit from Tesla, I suppose I’ll stare my peace on two main reasons why I dislike it.

One reason is essentially moral, the other one is more … corporate.



As for the moral:

I understand and agree with the desire to deter flippers. I empathize that people want their truck legitimately, and dislike the idea someone will buy one that’s “in line.” Ahead of them.

The problem for me is this: when one imposes an obligation, they should weigh not just the benefits (deterring flippers etc.), but also the costs.

Among the costs here is that this provision will negatively impact hood intentioned buyers, most likely finding themselves in already troubling times. For example, let’s say a guy buys the truck for all the right reasons, maybe such a big fan, wanted it so bad, he stretched the family budget a bit too far. Then two months later he dies. Now the wife at home with three kids needs to liquidate the estate. She now, at that time in her life, has to write Tesla for permission to sell, and then wait for corporate to get back with a “take it or leave it” offer, or else risk being sued by Tesla?

To me, this single instance “cost” of the prohibition would outweigh the benefits of deterring - how many flippers? 10? 100? 1000?

Meanwhile, on an all-in basis, I don’t find it so likely that flipping - even if allowed- is going to so materially move almost anyone here back in line so materially. There won’t be that many flippers, total, and not for so long that effects much of the line. And even then Tesla has never fully followed “the line.” More people will be “skipped” in line because of the geography in which they live, than by flippers.

But every single good-intentioned buyer will be subject toprohibition. And some of them will decide they don’t like the truck enough afterall, lose their jobs and can’t afford it afterall, have a tragedy that resets their priorities, get a divorce, etc.

And waiting for them will be Tesla with a take-it-or-leave it sales price below MSRP.




Which brings me to the less important “corporate” reason I don’t like this, for Tesla.
There’s too great a chance of blow-back.

It just takes one such unfortunate buyer, maybe one slip-up inside Tesla to low-ball say the widow of a recently deceased spouse, and this thing is a PR nightmare.

All - the moral cost and the corporate risk - because people (a) have an unfounded view that there’s a meaningful “line” in the first place, and (b) they are under the delusion that it’s them Tesla is watching out for with this provision.

If I were GC of Tesla, I’d be pushing back hard on this (and likely be the next in a long line of fired GCs).



People always interpret obligations with a view that it’s intended to work in their favor, forgetting or not understanding that facts change, and then it’s themselves who Tesla is protecting others against.

Been around here long enough that I know I won’t change the minds of the ones who stamp their feet and say “bwut I wawnt my twuck!”

And some of them won’t change their minds even when this thing backfires on one of our members, then sends blow-back on Tesla.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

So the first official Cybertruck literature found since the reveal comes as a legal threat.

I don't think so.

In a way it is a threat to those who want to buy and sell immediately, but a promise to those that don’t. My guess is that Tesla doesn’t care about these viewpoints and just wants to have the option to protect their business. If it is in the purchase agreement they have the option. Otherwise they don’t.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

after 15 years of practice, one glaring theme:

people “dislike” lawyers right up to the exact moment they themselves need one

typically, for either one or two things: for some terrible situation where they truly need help, or instead for some petty BS they “need”

in the latter case, for example: the folks here championing how much they appreciate this Tesla no-resale contract provision




so, for me, what’s disappointing about it isn’t that they actually feel that way - because I know that they don’t, if only when it’s about self-interest. Instead what’s disappointing is how hypocritical they are.

Many people do eventually need a lawyer for something, but I for one would distrust them before, during, and after the action, just like they don’t trust me. That said, the older I get the less I trust anyone - and the less anyone deserves my trust.

That said, this discussion isn’t about lawyers, except for the ocean snip (which had been applied to everyone), but about a purchase agreement. Lawyers may be responsible for drawing up such agreements, and for enforcing the terms, but it is people that decide whether to purchase a vehicle under those terms, and to risk the consequences of violating them. I thought the discussion was about choice, not about lawyers.

 

[2DVS4U]

If the whole thing works out like it was with the Bronco's and your number comes up it line, and let's say you decided not to take yours then the dealer still took delivery and was able to mark it up $10-30K and put it on the show room floor to make a bigger profit. So, in reality the line doesn't necessarily get shorter, (or you don't get moved up) when someone backs out at the last minute, some lucky person walks in with no reservation and buys it, and the dealer makes more money.

 

[JBee]

Having digested that this looks to be legit from Tesla, I suppose I’ll stare my peace on two main reasons why I dislike it.

One reason is essentially moral, the other one is more … corporate.



As for the moral:

I understand and agree with the desire to deter flippers. I empathize that people want their truck legitimately, and dislike the idea someone will buy one that’s “in line.” Ahead of them.

The problem for me is this: when one imposes an obligation, they should weigh not just the benefits (deterring flippers etc.), but also the costs.

Among the costs here is that this provision will negatively impact hood intentioned buyers, most likely finding themselves in already troubling times. For example, let’s say a guy buys the truck for all the right reasons, maybe such a big fan, wanted it so bad, he stretched the family budget a bit too far. Then two months later he dies. Now the wife at home with three kids needs to liquidate the estate. She now, at that time in her life, has to write Tesla for permission to sell, and then wait for corporate to get back with a “take it or leave it” offer, or else risk being sued by Tesla?

To me, this single instance “cost” of the prohibition would outweigh the benefits of deterring - how many flippers? 10? 100? 1000?

Meanwhile, on an all-in basis, I don’t find it so likely that flipping - even if allowed- is going to so materially move almost anyone here back in line so materially. There won’t be that many flippers, total, and not for so long that effects much of the line. And even then Tesla has never fully followed “the line.” More people will be “skipped” in line because of the geography in which they live, than by flippers.

But every single good-intentioned buyer will be subject toprohibition. And some of them will decide they don’t like the truck enough afterall, lose their jobs and can’t afford it afterall, have a tragedy that resets their priorities, get a divorce, etc.

And waiting for them will be Tesla with a take-it-or-leave it sales price below MSRP.




Which brings me to the less important “corporate” reason I don’t like this, for Tesla.
There’s too great a chance of blow-back.

It just takes one such unfortunate buyer, maybe one slip-up inside Tesla to low-ball say the widow of a recently deceased spouse, and this thing is a PR nightmare.

All - the moral cost and the corporate risk - because people (a) have an unfounded view that there’s a meaningful “line” in the first place, and (b) they are under the delusion that it’s them Tesla is watching out for with this provision.

If I were GC of Tesla, I’d be pushing back hard on this (and likely be the next in a long line of fired GCs).



People always interpret obligations with a view that it’s intended to work in their favor, forgetting or not understanding that facts change, and then it’s themselves who Tesla is protecting others against.

Been around here long enough that I know I won’t change the minds of the ones who stamp their feet and say “bwut I wawnt my twuck!”

And some of them won’t change their minds even when this thing backfires on one of our members, then sends blow-back on Tesla.

I think the wording indicates that the Tesla buyback will be the vehicle at list price minus the mileage rate, plus/minus state of repair and associated costs.

Quote:
For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards.

If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla.

You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles.

To me this doesn't sound like they will try to squeeze you on a sale them, rather that they know there will be a healthy "refurbished" Cybertruck demand if they facilitate the used market transactions themselves, and are just taking the variability out of the pricing equation that excessive demand introduces.

In my view this would be yet another indicator that the CT will be more affordable, which is a good thing overall, but also presents even greater opportunity for resellers, even of those that are not yet "scalpers" per se. So in the same argument of unintended consequences, a low price CT might actually increase the number of people wanting to convert their CT's for profit in a high demand environment.

Now overall, and I've made this argument before, from the side of Tesla, they shouldn't really have to care about who buys them and what they do with them at all...but if they are perceived to create a "scalpers market" without a way to manage it at all, it could cost them in the long run in reputation.

So the question is, like all good contracts, is how to compromise in the contract in such a way that they are not holding the bag for things that other people do.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

If you log into your tesla profile and click on Cybertruck then click on documents your order agreement is in there and Mine doesn't have this wording at all. I am not going to be in the first couple years anyway but my bet is they won't be able to legally enforce this since the one you signed doesn't have it. They can still cancel your order if they think you are going to resale but I don't belive they can take action against you for selling since the origional order agreement did not have that clause. Maybe they will ask you to agree to the new conditions first... should be interesting to watch.

 

[Gurule92]

Thanks, Pete! I reported him earlier and I assume others did, as well. Thanks for PMing the bosses.

I think I missed it... Darn

 

[Gurule92]

If you log into your tesla profile and click on Cybertruck then click on documents your order agreement is in there and Mine doesn't have this wording at all. I am not going to be in the first couple years anyway but my bet is they won't be able to legally enforce this since the one you signed doesn't have it. They can still cancel your order if they think you are going to resale but I don't belive they can take action against you for selling since the origional order agreement did not have that clause. Maybe they will ask you to agree to the new conditions first... should be interesting to watch.

That's not where it is. They can't go back and change old papers. You'll have to agree when you configure. If you want the truck

If not a new order agreement. In the MVPA

https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale

 

[alcstarheel]

So to get around it and sell for a markup you need to damage your CT just enough that Tesla doesn't want to buy it back and therefore gives you "consent" to sell. So long as there is no sale cost ceiling stipulation in the "consent agreement" that I'm sure hasn't been written up yet.

 

[Crissa]

Well, it seems you might be a little premature with your judgement that it is illegal. The two cases outstanding Lambrix v Tesla and Orendian v. Tesla, don't appear to have judgements entered quite yet. So, as they say, the jury is quite literally, still out on that one.

I would point out that the language on this particular contract seems worded to exclude the angles the court cases are trying to exploit.

There goes my plan, my early dual motor was going to finance my later tri motor. Oh well, say la vee.

Well, after a year, the Cybertruck will still be pretty hot on the resale market - because there will still be demand.

So it might still work. Just... Slower.

So to get around it and sell for a markup you need to damage your CT just enough that Tesla doesn't want to buy it back and therefore gives you "consent" to sell. So long as there is no sale cost ceiling stipulation in the "consent agreement" that I'm sure hasn't been written up yet.

Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater.

The agreement says that they'll offer less cash if it's damaged... and seek as damages how much you sold it for.

-Crissa

Sponsored