cvalue13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
- Threads
- 74
- Messages
- 7,153
- Reaction score
- 13,769
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Vehicles
- F150L
- Occupation
- Fun-employed
your linking of two pop news articles *is*?That's not how proof works. You made a claim. You prove it.
I already discussed it earlier in the post.
With Ford, they did nothing with the lightning. All Ford did is say that they would not prohibit dealers from coming up with terms. I’ve been very involved in the lightning forums, received one of the first trucks in the country, and there is not a known instance that anyone had a dealer both propose and ultimately receive any such resale restrictions. My dealership tried it with me, I told them to pound sand, and they never spoke of it again. Consumer backlash was swift against any dealer that postured like they’d require it - and if they did, people moved their delivery dealership.
also has already described above, General Motors had no terms similar to what Tesla is providing here. GM’s attempt, which as far as anyone can tell was rarely if ever used, stated that if someone resold within 6 months , (1) the vehicle’s warranty will be voided and (2) they will be prevented from placing a future reservation for another high-demand model (as determined by GM).
Tesla, since 2019 for the CT, has already had nearly identical terms as GM’s - it’s in the $100 order interest contract.
what Tesla is now proposing over and above that is unlike anything any major has ever attempted to impose.
if you’re left with any remaining confusion, feel free to do your own research
Sponsored