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

[Startreknerd]

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

I have no clue what you're complaining about.

Facts are facts.

The Lightning and Hummer EV had the same restrictions as CT purports to have in this post.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Facts are facts.

The Lightning and Hummer EV had the same restrictions as CT purports to have in this post.

Not because I think you’re redeemable, but as a last salvo for anyone you may have moderately confused

He’s entirely incorrect - feel free to look into it

 

[FarAway]

read the next few posts .....

So, for the second time today, I will quote Shakespeare to CV13. ?

FWIW, the one early this morning came at the very end of a long discussion about lawyers. I believe it was deleted by moderators with numerous other posts (all way off topic of course, lol). Mine was one of the very last ones in that string and concerned Shakespeare's Henry the 6th and lawyers (I was defending the attorneys, BTW).

CV13, I have to ask, why all the angst about the 1 year no resale clause? You have posted way over a thousand words and logged many hours on the keyboard railing against Tesla's desired anti-flip policy. Ready for the Shakespeare? Now, I am quoting "Hamlet", "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Is it this just the scales of justice working in you, or do you have a financial interest in flipping? Have you reserved CTs to flip? Totally rhetorical question, but you can answer if you like.

Maybe it is my inner Ayn Rand speaking (or my inner Libra) but I think in a capitalist society, Tesla is free to sell their vehicles any damn way they want. If they desire to restrict what the buyer does after the sell, so be it.

The buyer still is the ultimate arbiter and has two three choices:
1) Sign the Tesla contract and honor the vehicle ownership with the NO re-sale restrictions
2) Refuse to sign the contract because you choose not to honor the NO re-sale restriction and don't purchase the CT
3) Sign the Tesla contract, all the while knowing you will NOT honor the NO re-sale restrictions and fight it out in the courts.

Personally, I want the CT, I plan to keep and drive the truck. If situations change, IMHO, the contract has ALL the necessary and reasonable escape provisions without being 24 pages long. The problem with common sense, it is not too common. Bottom line, I am not worried about signing the contract for either me or my loved ones.

Cheers!

 

[fritter63]

Seems unconstitutional.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law?

 

[rudedawg78]

Seems unconstitutional.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law?

Yeah, the 1/10th clicks in if you try to sell the truck within the first 12 months.

 

[Startreknerd]

Not because I think you’re redeemable, but as a last salvo for anyone you may have moderately confused

He’s entirely incorrect - feel free to look into it

That's not how proof works. You made a claim. You prove it.

No one should listen to this guy.

 

[cybertruck808]

I honestly don’t see the outrage here. It’s Tesla’s product and if they don’t want it immediately resold for a profit then that is their prerogative. Buyers can agree to their (Tesla’s) terms for purchase (contract) or recognize the limitations that the terms (contract) imposes on their ownership/rights (for a brief period) and choose not to go through with the purchase. Seems pretty straightforward to me? If you don’t agree/like the terms then you are not obligated to complete the purchase and can get your reservation refunded.

I agree. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a truck here. These are voluntary contract terms. If they are too abhorrent to you, then don't sign and buy another vehicle. One of the many things that I appreciate about Tesla is the standard car price. Yes, they'll go up and down based on Tesla-specific pricing, but there is no dealer network with individual dealers completing ignoring manufacturer guidance and jacking the price up on their own. I really wouldn't care if there was not such big demand for this (or any other high in-demand product) thing, but that's not the case here. Plus, truth be told, even a year later, I'd wager that demand will still be high enough that folks can still make a profit if they want. My main fear today is that, without such a restriction, you'll have people who ordered multiple vehicles with the hopes of immediately selling at high profits (and plenty have claimed to have done just that), thereby effectively significantly increasing the costs for people who played by the rules of ordering for personal use, and want their vehicles now to, again, use for personal use.

 

[almostakeeper]

We got your back Bruce.

EDIT: WHOOMP THERE IT IS!

Thank you ADMIN.

Banning free speech should never be applauded. Hate speech yes, but not someones differing opinion.

 

[almostakeeper]

I think most folks here are over thinking this clause and inserting what if's to justify their position. This past spring, every OEM was marking up all their high profit sellers and Musk put out a tweet stating he would never go down that road. It's real simple, why should Tesla make a product that someone with deeper pockets can scoop up a bunch of and flip them for a profit. If that was fine with everyone then Tesla could just charge a lot more for their product and not care what others do.

 

[rudedawg78]

Banning free speech should never be applauded. Hate speech yes, but not someones differing opinion.

Uhhh... It wasn't the differing opinion that banned him. He started taking personal shots/jokes at a CTOC member's wife. You cool with that?

 

[PilotPete]

Banning free speech should never be applauded. Hate speech yes, but not someones differing opinion.

David,

Do you have any idea why he got banned??? If not, then maybe you might want to walk this one back.

And this site isn't run by the government at any level, so the 1st amendment doesn't apply here. And I think the admin runs a pretty consistent ship. Even if I don't agree, at least it's honest and consistent.

 

[almostakeeper]

Uhhh... It wasn't the differing opinion that banned him. He started taking personal shots/jokes at a CTOC member's wife. You cool with that?

If it was posted then it was possibly removed. Never saw any personnel attacks. Again, differing opinions vs hate speech are two different beasts.

 

[alcstarheel]

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

-Crissa

The provision says if Tesla declines to purchase owner’s damaged vehicle (the scenario I described) the owner can resell to someone else with written consent from Tesla. As I stated for this scenario if that written consent from Tesla does not have a clause for a ceiling on the owner’s damaged resell price then said owner can sell it for however much they want. Tesla can’t then seek damages because they provided written consent for resale and that is the agreement to which said owner would be beholden.

If that consent agreement has even been drafted would be a surprise.

 

[PilotPete]

If it was posted then it was possibly removed. Never saw any personnel attacks. Again, differing opinions vs hate speech are two different beasts.

Without using the popular term “hate speech”, the scumbag made a comment about a member’s wife having sex with someone else. I call it an inappropriate bs verbal attack. It was uncalled for and unprovoked. In short, it was HIS attempt at discouraging free speech and differing opinions.

Still feel that his banning is wrong to be celebrated? I’m celebrating the admin doing the right thing.

Sponsored