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

[Tinker71]

My analysis, without even knowing what the prices are at the initial release, is that Cybertruck is more likely to go up in price after the reservations with prices locked in are fulfilled, then it is to go down. Eventually, like in 4-6 years, the price might go down, but I think that time is quite a ways off.

Please remind me how I did on this call in three years.

With exception of FSD reservations, the price will fluctuate even during the reservation fulfillment period as required to maintain a healthy backlog of 3-6 months of real orders with larger deposits.

I am going to guess that Tesla will try to convert 5000 reservations a week until they have that desired backlog. They will analyze the weekly take rate and adjust the price a little from there after the first 3 months or so.

The psychology of pricing is interesting. Sometimes a little price hike like they are doing now with the current line up sends a strong signal to get in now. Was there really a jump in backlog or was it a game to signal the price floor has been reached?

Unless the price starts off really high we won't see big fluctuations like the SX. I can guarantee that the price on Nov 30 will not stay the same after the first year.

Please remind me in 1 year if I am wrong .

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

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.

I should say, if I assume this provision is legit, I’m really not trying to convince anyone of anything that would change whether it’s in the contract.

Instead, I’d be merely explaining why some legitimate buyers such as myself will find this maneuver repugnant. To the point of reconsidering purchasing the vehicle. Myself included.**

There’s no doubt this provision will shorten the line, by both flippers, but also legit buyers - who are every bit an enthusiast as others - but who have reasonable opinions that make this provision an objectionable maneuver by Tesla. Nobody has to agree with either side.

And while I forever assume on these matters of opinion that I could be wrong, I think people are here throwing the baby out with the bath water.

At the end of the day, this reduces to matters of values. People have different values. This provision will deter legit buyers, and work to screw over legit buyers. And I value that over the personal satisfaction of having thwarted a distasteful (true) ‘flipper.’




**truth is, I’m in a rare sub-group who deals with provisions like this for a living, and would have relatively low barrier to working around it; so full disclosure, my personal objections reduce to more one of principle, and values.

 

[cvalue13]

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.

Being unable to list every practical issue with this maneuver by Tesla, you’re right that this is another one people aren’t thinking through.

Almost nobody here will hold title to their vehicle.

Unclear how lenders will respond to this mass produced vehicle being subject to a ROFR by the manufacturer.

 

[jookyone]

Just bought a Model X on Thursday and can confirm the language is there about the Cybertruck. I have two reservations that the crowd sourced data "line" claims is in the 100s and in the 110k range. I had contemplated selling the first to bankroll the second after demand changed from the triangle memes of the launch but I want and need the truck. The Ferrari F50 was "lease only" with an option to buy after 2 years when it first launched, so maybe Tesla should take a page from that book.

What about the Cybertruck sold at the Petersen Auto Museum for $400k (allegedly) for their own benefit? Direct quote: "... supporting the museum and its education initiatives."
If I decide to resell, it will definitely be to support my home and its education initiatives.

 

[Tinker71]

REALLY, blow up the line? To hell with all of us people that put $100 in Tesla's account 4 years ago? Are you telling everyone on this forum to F-Off?

With the exception of the first ~10,000 units or so, the line won't change much regardless. There are too many transaction costs and compelling competition to make flipping viable. Ask some of the Lightning flippers.

 

[Tinker71]

Just bought a Model X on Thursday and can confirm the language is there about the Cybertruck. I have two reservations that the crowd sourced data "line" claims is in the 100s and in the 110k range. I had contemplated selling the first to bankroll the second after demand changed from the triangle memes of the launch. The Ferrari F50 was "lease only" with an option to buy after 2 years when it first launched, so maybe Tesla should take a page from that book.

What about the Cybertruck sold at the Petersen Auto Museum for $400k (allegedly) for their own benefit? Direct quote: "... supporting the museum and its education initiatives."
If I decide to resell, it will definitely be to support my home and its education initiatives.

The lease deal would be really interesting and would solve the problem.

I did my first lease ever on my M3. If the purchase price on a replacement M3 goes down (or the M2 is available) then I made the right call. This price depreciation rarely happens, but it will need to be more that the large milage penalty I will be paying lump sum at the end of the lease to be the best financial option.

 

[cvalue13]

With the exception of the first ~10,000 units or so, the line won't change much regardless. There are too many transaction costs and compelling competition to make flipping viable. Ask some of the Lightning flippers.

and again, can’t over-emphasize this enough:

the notion that there’s some concrete “line” in the first place, is wrong

Meanwhile, that there *is* some concrete line to begin with, is a fundamental assumption of many who support the existence of this provision

Tesla has never once strictly followed such a line, in the best of cases. In the worst cases, Tesla has completely ignored the line - and in cases where people had down REAL deposits and stood in physical lines outside stores to secure their place in the “line.” All out the window.

So to the extent people support this provision because they think it protects their place in “line,” it’s unclear they’re correctly valuing the reality of that line.

 

[jookyone]

So to the extent people support this provision because they think it protects their place in “line,” it’s unclear they’re correctly valuing the reality of that line.

So you're saying there's a chance...

 

[cvalue13]

So you're saying there's a chance...

for sure - just have a *real* deposit (eg $5K) set aside and ready to pull the trigger any minute Tesla opens up the site to all comers

 

[AustroTom]

***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.

I agree

 

[CostcoSamples]

There will be a huge gap between market demand and supply for some time. Scalpers will seek to balance that gap. Tesla is likely trying to manage the problem.

 

[HaulingAss]

When Ford offered the ground-breaking Ford GT to the public, they only offered it to people who agreed not to sell it in the first year in order to protect those who were patiently waiting in line. No one called people supporting the anti-flipping agreement "Mark Fields blowhards". Because sensible people understand that when you own something, you have the right to determine who you sell it to, and what the terms are. A person who contributed nothing to the creation of the product, has no say in how the owner sells it.

It seems some people have their panties in a wad because, not only is Cybertruck real, but Tesla is willing to protect those of us who have waited patiently for almost four years from those who want to use the product for financial enrichment at the expense of the rest of us who just want to buy the most amazing pickup truck ever built!

People who are upset by this are more threatened by Cybertruck than ever and hate the fact that Elon is winning. Elon makes them look foolish.

Any contract can be taken to court, be my guest, let us know what a real court of law thinks about your interpretation that the contract is harmful to consumers, LOL! You will get an expensive schooling on contract law. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, then don't buy a Cybertruck.

Pretty simple really.

 

[AustroTom]

Tesla could offer three options to reservation holders:

1) lease for 12 mths w option to buy
2) test drive for 3 days to sign the paper or return (Tesla sells as demo or puts back in line)
3) in case of "special" circumstance i.e. death or other, sell back to Tesla or keep within family, (in case of title with lender, option to sell without personal profit, if that's legally possibe).

I think everybody should have the right to make their money the way they want, but in a case were there is a mile long "wait list" for a product, it's just not fair to those who are waiting because their pockets are not deep enough.
Look, there are people out there that wounldn't mind to pay a Million dollars for the "first" product, but a line is a line. We all have the option to drop out of the line, but that option should be ours

 

[Startreknerd]

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!”

Ford and GM has done the same.

 

[Startreknerd]

When I sign the check the vehicle is mine and ALL mine and I will do with it as I please. I can run it off a cliff which I have heard is a popular trend and Tesla can pack sand. When MY name is on the title and no one else's it's MINE, not sorta mine but ALL mine.

What other appliance do you have in "your" home that you do not have complete control over. Washer, dryer, stove, furniture, dogs/cats....etc.

What if your spouse came with a 30 year no divorce clause and they were a drug using, abusive drunk that would not repent. Nope sorry, you are stuck with them till the end of the contract.

Tell that to John Cena.

Sponsored