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

[jookyone]

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

What a ridiculous statement. By definition, the people who ordered to flip have also waited 4 years, hence why they will take delivery sooner, hence why that has value. Just because you or anyone else thinks you deserve special treatment from Tesla because "I really want it" is insanity. If someone believes their desire to own the truck has more value than those that saw the value immediately and put down a reservation ASAP, is a psychopathic delusion. It's like everyone is on crazy pills.
If the first reservation holders and the last reservation holders all end up waiting four years from the time of reservation, then there is nothing lost.
This isn't Taylor Swift tickets, scalpers aren't given any more advantage when ordering open than anyone else, and unlike Taylor Swift tickets, they have no intention of limiting production.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Ford and GM has done the same.

Tell that to John Cena.

let’s set aside the irony of many folks who around here lambast Ford/GM for terrible customer relations now using Ford/GM as precedent that this is ok

meanwhile, even those companies with purportedly terrible customer relations have never done “the same” as Tesla is proposing


The only vehicle Ford *attempted* this with, the GT, were extremely low production specialty vehicles, which a person could only have an opportunity to buy if selected by Ford in the first place. (This is also the posture with Fararri, Porsche, etc.)

With the Lightning, Ford didn’t do anything like this. Instead all Ford did is say publicly that it would not prohibit a dealership for asking for terms like these. Myself being active on the Lightning forum, I can tell you there wasn’t a single documented instance of a Ford dealership actually getting such a term. My dealership said it would ask for it, with one of the first trucks ever sold, I told them to find another buyer, and they never mentioned it again. Customer backlash was swift.

Meanwhile, what GM proposed with eg the C8 wasn’t anything like this, either. GM instead basically said it would void the warranty and that a person would be blackballed from buying another - which features Tesla basically already had in place.



The CyberTruck is a supposedly mass-produced consumer vehicle, and it’s Tesla itself - not dealerships - threatening a $50K lawsuit and injunction if someone doesn’t want to sell vehicle back to Tesla, for an unknown/take-or-leave price.

That, is unprecedented.



Meanwhile, it’s worth mentioning that some members around here have for a year stamped their feet like babies at the suggestion that the original reservation agreement may not be substantive or ‘honored’ by Tesla. Now you don’t hear any complaints from those exact same people that Tesla is proposing new and expanded terms to that original agreement. No surprise that these folks, at bottom, aren’t actually consistent in their principles.


If Tesla felt so strongly, it could instead have a perfectly reasonable program of only leasing Cybertrucks for the first few years. It’s not doing that because that strategy would too obviously show what this provision actually is: a restriction on legitimate ownership. They’ll get away with it because their fan base are gullible.

 

[cyberwulf]

The Ford Gt was sold to approved buyers,
and Dodge Demon/Demon 170 was also essentially sold to approved buyers - I tried to get one in 2017 and this year, unsuccessfully,
not only approved but with heavy dealer mark up, again I know, someone local who was invited to purchase paid + $$$$$ over sticker to the dealer.

The Bronco was "high demand" the first few hundred (or more) were selling over sticker at dealer AND being flipped for silly money.

With Elon being (he said) a "free speech absolutist" and the US of A being based on free market capitalist principles. It's absurd in my opinion. If you were the one sitting there, when the order now opened up, got your order. I have no problem with you flipping it, nor should Elon

Maybe a "one per customer" would be a better idea?

 

[Startreknerd]

let’s set aside the irony of many folks who around here lambast Ford/GM for terrible customer relations now using Ford/GM as precedent that this is ok

meanwhile, even those companies with purportedly terrible customer relations have never done “the same” as Tesla is proposing


The only vehicle Ford *attempted* this with, the GT, were extremely low production specialty vehicles, which a person could only have an opportunity to buy if selected by Ford in the first place. (This is also the posture with Fararri, Porsche, etc.)

With the Lightning, Ford didn’t do anything like this. Instead all Ford did is say publicly that it would not prohibit a dealership for asking for terms like these. Myself being active on the Lightning forum, I can tell you there wasn’t a single documented instance of a Ford dealership actually getting such a term. My dealership said it would ask for it, with one of the first trucks ever sold, I told them to find another buyer, and they never mentioned it again. Customer backlash was swift.

Meanwhile, what GM proposed with eg the C8 wasn’t anything like this, either. GM instead basically said it would void the warranty and that a person would be blackballed from buying another - which features Tesla basically already had in place.



The CyberTruck is a supposedly mass-produced consumer vehicle, and it’s Tesla itself - not dealerships - threatening a $50K lawsuit and injunction if someone doesn’t want to sell vehicle back to Tesla, for an unknown/take-or-leave price.

That, is unprecedented.



Meanwhile, it’s worth mentioning that some members around here have for a year stamped their feet like babies at the suggestion that the original reservation agreement may not be substantive or ‘honored’ by Tesla. Now you don’t hear any complaints from those exact same people that Tesla is proposing new and expanded terms to that original agreement. No surprise that these folks, at bottom, aren’t actually consistent in their principles.


If Tesla felt so strongly, it could instead have a perfectly reasonable program of only leasing Cybertrucks for the first few years. It’s not doing that because that strategy would too obviously show what this provision actually is: a restriction on legitimate ownership. They’ll get away with it because their fan base are gullible.

The Lightning and the Hummer EV have had similar restrictions. I'm for this for any manufacturer. It has nothing to do with customer services also being bad at Ford and GM. This benefits the brand.

 

[cvalue13]

The Lightning and the Hummer EV have had similar restrictions.

they do not

I just explained that

you’re mistaken

 

[Startreknerd]

they do not

I just explained that

you’re mistaken

https://www.engadget.com/gm-limit-warranty-transfers-ban-buyers-flipping-hummer-ev-151155610.html

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-f-150-lightning-customers-reselling-trucks-scalpers/

Not just their EVs either.

 

[cvalue13]

https://www.engadget.com/gm-limit-warranty-transfers-ban-buyers-flipping-hummer-ev-151155610.html

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-f-150-lightning-customers-reselling-trucks-scalpers/

Not just their EVs either.

thank you for taking 3 minutes to google incorrect information and regurgitate it here

but you’re still wrong

 

[HaulingAss]

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 .

I actually think that, going forward, Tesla will be hesitant to take reservations that are actually associated with a particular price for at least a year. I think you might still be able to reserve a place in line, but it will probably not be associated with any particular price until Tesla can see the light at the end of the tunnel (in terms of catching up to reservation backlog).

It's really difficult for Tesla to project prices accurately more than a year out.

 

[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.

As it’s better to segment these points, the next one I’ll offer you

People are not looking around the corner as to how this plays out in the real world.

back to and expanding on my earlier point about Tesla paying “the value” of the truck:

notice that these 1 year periods will be rolling

so here’s just a cartoon level sketch of how part of this plays out:



Person 1 buys on January 1, 2024, for $[60]k

Person 2 buys on June 1, 2024, for $[60]K

Then…

Person 1 on January 2, 2025, sells the used truck, with 15k miles and , on the secondary market for $80K

Person 2’s recent widow, on January 2, 2025, needs to sell her husband’s truck with 6k miles in pristine condition, and Tesla offers: “take $55K or we’ll sue you”

 

[cvalue13]

What a ridiculous statement.

to say nothing of the fact that for years nobody bats an eye around here when someone here says eg “I’m buying a CyberTruck to start a rental business where people pay me $700/day to drive it”

Like a flipper, that is ALSO a person “ahead in line” who is buying the Cybertruck purely for financial gain


are there differences? Sure. are the differences so great that it suggests people have consistent principles. No.

 

[HaulingAss]

Ford and GM has done the same.

Yeah, but that's different!

Why you ask? Wait for it.....


Because their name is not Tesla or Elon.

 

[Startreknerd]

thank you for taking 3 minutes to google incorrect information and regurgitate it here

but you’re still wrong

And your only source is "you're wrong".

Why don't you go counsel John Cena.

 

[AustroTom]

As it’s better to segment these points, the next one I’ll offer you

People are not looking around the corner as to how this plays out in the real world.

back to and expanding on my earlier point about Tesla paying “the value” of the truck:

notice that these 1 year periods will be rolling

so here’s just a cartoon level sketch of how part of this plays out:



Person 1 buys on January 1, 2024, for $[60]k

Person 2 buys on June 1, 2024, for $[60]K

Then…

Person 1 on January 2, 2025, sells the used truck, with 15k miles and , on the secondary market for $80K

Person 2’s recent widow, on January 2, 2025, needs to sell her husband’s truck with 6k miles in pristine condition, and Tesla offers: “take $55K or we’ll sue you”

As it’s better to segment these points, the next one I’ll offer you

People are not looking around the corner as to how this plays out in the real world.

back to and expanding on my earlier point about Tesla paying “the value” of the truck:

notice that these 1 year periods will be rolling

so here’s just a cartoon level sketch of how part of this plays out:



Person 1 buys on January 1, 2024, for $[60]k

Person 2 buys on June 1, 2024, for $[60]K

Then…

Person 1 on January 2, 2025, sells the used truck, with 15k miles and , on the secondary market for $80K

Person 2’s recent widow, on January 2, 2025, needs to sell her husband’s truck with 6k miles in pristine condition, and Tesla offers: “take $55K or we’ll sue you”

Good point. No real solution to the problem

 

[cvalue13]

And your only source is "you're wrong".

my “source” is explained in a post above

the Ford GT is irrelevant (as is the John Cena case about the Ford GT)

You had to be ~John Cena to get offered a Gt in the first place. Ford made 1,350 total GTs in SIX years. It cost $500,000. After the 2 years re-sale restriction, they sold in market for $1,500,000

It’s beyond me what the f*ck that has to do with a publically available, mass-production, $[80]K pickup truck that is SUPPOSEDLY intended to help attract ICE truck buyers into BEV

All this before the ironic point that the blow-hard here spend all their time talk not about how Tesla doesn’t and shouldn’t do things like traditional OEMs



But have it your way: Tesla is even MORE petty and nearsighted than Ford/GM, about an $[80]K pickup truck, and Tesla doesn’t actually have an interest in improving the world by attracting ICE truck buyers to BEV

You “win” only by demonstrating the point

 

[cvalue13]

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

I’m guessing they wouldn’t need this language if anytime in the next few years they’re going to build enough trucks to temper the secondary market

people here acting like 9 out of 10 aren’t still years away from this provisions having anything to do with them

Now they’re maybe a couple of months closer to their 2027 delivery date

By which point, there’ll be two plus years of secondary sales of used Cybertruck’s (post the 1 year restriction), at above MSRP - each one “jumping the line” in front of them, still

Sponsored