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

[Coolbreeze704]

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

How far apart our your reservation numbers?

Sponsored

 

[kdiggz]

I certainly do intend to keep 1 of my reservations, but the plan was always to try and capitalize on the first one to help pay for the 2nd. I'm not someone who needs to be first to have the cool newest thing and if it's worth more to someone else then I don't see how that's a problem. I actually think it would be a detriment to be the first in town with a Cybertruck. Good luck running errands and not getting stopped to answer questions and show it off. I don't need that kind of attention.

I think the best idea I've seen is a private lease agreement with $100k down and 12 payments of $X per month followed by an option to buy at lease end. You could require the lessee to carry their own insurance as well. Others have mentioned Turo but I don't want anything short term and I don't want a company taking any of the profits.

 

[Cybertruck Tampa]

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a taco today!

That dude was always just on here trollin. He’s a Toyota Tacoma fan with nothing better to do. Just one of those guys that just want to make people miserable and argue everything. I don’t get what his problem was.

 

[BayouCityBob]

As much as I like doing the I told you so dance.... something looks a little out of place here.

The agreement posted is a 2022 vintage document v 20220720

The most recent Tesla MVPA is v20230201 when I bought our Model S in September. (No CT language there.)

 

[SlegMD]

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.

To date I’ve always really looked forward to your posts are typically very credible, and you often support your information intelligibly for people like me that are not in the engineering realm. Your posts does not convince me this time, fact I’m confused as to the tone you are using comparing those whom support the opposite end of the discussion to unintelligible children.

If this stipulation is in the buyer agreement, it will have minimal impact on me, and has minimal impact on my “freedom” as I am keeping the truck. Because like some people in this forum, I am a CT enthusiast.

Your example of the widow in a dire situation is interesting. I would imagine the loan company giving her the biggest problem, not Tesla. I think Tesla is offering her a service, to take the vehicle back no questions for the value of the vehicle.

In my non representative subgroup of associates that I know are interested in cybertruck, 3/3 have stated they are will immediately sell the truck after “playing around with it for a week-month” and sell it for profit. These are all Tesla owners who have long used market scarcity to their advantage. I think the number participating in this scheme is ore than “1k”.

Anyway, as a CT enthusiast, I am sure your freedoms will remain intact, for the 99% that aren’t scalping. For the scalpers, their unscrupulous behavior is simply halted.

Perhaps you can convince me that that this contract, if accurate infringes “on muh freedom” besides sounding like Fox News trying to rile it’s base, I’ll bite.

Sorry in advance my German shepherd has been licking my ear to get me to take her on her Sunday walk, I may be incoherent.

 

[Cybergirl]

The intention is to discourage what otherwise could effectively lead to what happened to the Lightning at Ford dealerships. Ford sells a Lightning to a dealership who then marks it up $20,000 for sale to someone willing to pay extra (jumping the line). It pissed a lot of people off and damaged Ford. Tesla is smart to do everything possible to prevent this from happening. If demand for Cybertruck is as strong as I think it is, I have no doubt a lot of early reservation holders will consider reselling at a nice profit. If you don't like the purchase agreement, it's simple, don't sign it.

 

[Red61224]

***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.

And the minions lined up quickly to give up their rights. That has not ended up so well in certain parts of the world history has proven many times. Just ask the good people in Jonestown how they liked the taste of the kool-aide. They were promised one thing like a dangling carrot and then something comes up out of the fine-print like a Dave Chappelle phrase. Gotcha .............

 

[Koalaintree]

I believe Ford has this "guideline or term" on the Ford GT but that is another animal. Plus you apply for that car and then get picked to buy it. People sold the C8 Vet for a premium after purchase and no one seem to care.

 

[cvalue13]

Your posts does not convince me this time, fact I’m confused as to the tone you are using comparing those whom support the opposite end of the discussion to unintelligible children.

I wouldn’t want to suggest that everyone who ‘supports’ this provision is, to the man, an unintelligible child.

But they are among that group.

And their hyperbole works to galvanize the rest of that group.

I think Tesla is offering her a service, to take the vehicle back no questions for the value of the vehicle.

Disagree.

First, nobody here knows what values Tesla is going to offer - the only thing that is clear is that the amount they offer will be deductions from MSRP.

But if the “value” of the vehicle is below MARP, it will because there is in fact no secondary market value for the vehicle and so no flippers.

If instead the CT would demand a premium over MSRP, that is the free market value of the truck. That is what the widow would be owed, but for Tesla having artificially constructed the market through the contractual term.

So what Tesla is paying the widow is not the value of the vehicle.

What Tesla is paying is an artificially reduced value.



From there, folks have yet to ask themself what Tesla does with such a ‘used’ truck. What price does Tesla sell the used truck for? To whom does Tesla sell it?


At the end of the day, people are content with their platitudes that “Tesla can do what they want.” And “if you don’t like it don’t buy it.” Like they’re saying something that is non-obvious to anyone.

Tesla could sell only trucks painted pink, with a contractual term that they can only be driven on Tuesdays.

Question is, who wants to buy a pink truck you can only drive on Tuesday, or what would you pay for it.



Meanwhile, folks likening this to the Ford GT, or Porsche GT3s, etc., are clueless - and a good example of how the babies have convened them of something irrelevant.

 

[cyberwulf]

I will not be willing to agree to that. Period.

I have no intention of "flipping" however things happen, change / circumstances usually happens unexpectedly and quickly.
Death would be worst case scenario - who would want to leave their family with this to deal with, on top of everything else?

If it's don't sign no truck, so be it.

would be a nightmare for Tesla if it were repoed by the lender, and the lender sells at more than purchase price, after all the lenders hold the title until fully paid off.

 

[Dirt Worker]

Someone shared this on the Cybertruck Reddit page claiming it was found in a recent Model Y purchase agreement. No insight into validity but I’ve heard of other manufacturers doing similar before so not out of the realm of possibilities. Thoughts?

Personally it would be good news to me because I don’t intend to resell mine after purchase. Maybe this will help slim down the line a bit.

The several multiple orders of two to two hundred will have a more difficult time coming up with the cash. The possible loop hole could be rental. Good news with the possibility that we may see delivery sooner. At 44,000th and Tri-Motor option ordered, I may actually have one in the garage before I die of old age. I should have ordered FSD at the discounted price.

Sponsored