⛔️ NO RESALE language REMOVED for Cybertruck sales agreement! ✏️ 📄

[SlegMD]

Interesting

Sponsored

 

[ÆCIII]

Ultimately I think most of us want Tesla to be supporting genuine customers while ramping the Cybertruck, and I believe Tesla has every right to make warranties and support non-transferable for certain periods to prevent flipping and scalping.

Tesla aims to support genuine customers, and not have layers of middlemen skimming money for sales transactions nor dealing with a frustrated end customer who paid too much or is possibly experiencing problems introduced by previous flippers or scalpers. Short term flippers or scalpers will not be able to transfer certain features, connectivity, or benefits if Tesla doesn't allow it - and why should they? If Tesla did so it would be a lot of extra work for short term ownership that is not genuine, and if some illegal modification was done, or some abuse happened that voided the warranty, it would be very hard to track and nail down the previous owner that caused it if they had only driven it for a few days or weeks.

We don't know what actual conditions will be in a real delivered Cybertruck MVPA yet, which was why I reminded that too much speculation is pointless. My positions on this subject has been about what I (hope) would be in an MVPA, regardless of what actual conditions end up getting put in the MVPAs for Cybertrucks delivered.

I'm perfectly Ok with reselling after a sufficient amount of time, because such a policy would deter short term flipping and scalping, while still allowing genuine buyers to sell their vehicle for whatever reason after a required amount of time. If it happened to be one year, then that would actually be very flexible of Tesla IMO. I'd be naive to think even that would prevent all flipping and scalping, but I think it would deter much of it.

I think there are mainly two categories of people who want quick resales to be allowed. First, those who have extra capital, and have made multiple reservations in hopes of reselling (scalping) to make money. Second, those who were slow to realize they want a Cybertruck but happen to have a lot of extra money and don't mind paying the extra to get their Cybertruck sooner (but from a scalper). There could be others that aren't either of these two categories, but I believe they cover a lot of those supporting flipping or quickly reselling.

I believe from Tesla's point of view this flipping or scalping process would cheat many other genuine buyers' place in the reservation line (because bulk reservation holders push everyone else further to the back of the line). It also intrudes on Tesla's process of direct sales to provide optimal support to a genuine buyer.

Those who were able to make multiple reservations (like 5, 10, 30, 50, or whatever) obviously have different reasons. Now if they genuinely wanted to own all of them and setup a rental fleet, or if they were a small company that genuinely wanted a small fleet of Cybertrucks, like a contractor, police, then I would say go for it, as long as they provide Tesla some proof of their intentions when making such large numbers of reservations. They would still be genuinely keeping all of them so I'd have no problem with that. Otherwise, if someone made bulk reservations unchecked, it would make Tesla's ability to predict which reservations will actually turn into sales and deliveries - more unpredictable.

Outside of those situations, I don't know what (if any) initial reservation limits were specified, but IMO Tesla should have made it so that only one reservation per person of legal driving age is allowed, and then mandate that same reservation holder has to be the buyer and registered owner.

I think if these types of reservation controls had been put in place back in 2019, we probably wouldn't even be having all of this discussion right now.

- ÆCIII

 

[hridge2020]

That would be rewarding bad driving. If you total your Cybertruck, you have to go to the end of the line!

Hmmm how bout not your fault. Like it was parked someone plowed into it fleeing from the police.
. Just trying to help us all down the road.

 

[PilotPete]

Hmmm how bout not your fault. Like it was parked someone plowed into it fleeing from the police.
. Just trying to help us all down the road.

Get your insurance through Tesla, and get the full rental car option. They'll find you one REAL quick...

 

[kbolt]

We know that around 90% of people on this forum are in favor of no scalping language and that there is just a vocal minority that are in favor of scalping. Not much you can do about one person making a bunch of waves for everyone else.

 

[HaulingAss]

Outside of those situations, I don't know what (if any) initial reservation limits were specified, but IMO Tesla should have made it so that only one reservation per person of legal driving age is allowed, and then mandate that same reservation holder has to be the buyer and registered owner.

I think if these types of reservation controls had been put in place back in 2019, we probably wouldn't even be having all of this discussion right now.

- ÆCIII

I like your view of the situation and think it's accurate right up until the last bit quoted above.

I guarantee that if Tesla had mandated the buyer had to be the registered owner (for any length of time) a few people would still be calling it a "nanny state" and crying louder than a Falcon 9 launch. The reason that is not a true perspective is because it ignores that this is not a government imposing restrictions on all citizens, it is two private parties entering into a Purchase/Sale agreement and no party is being coerced to enter into the terms. It's a "take it or leave it" situation, some people just happen to be unhappy with that choice, which makes no sense at all, because if Tesla didn't offer the Cybertruck, they wouldn't even have the option to make that choice.

In fact, people actually did whine louder than a Falcon 9 launch at the "no resellers" provision included at the time of the reservation. The latest language simply provides clarity as to how Tesla intends to enforce it.

Tesla made the Cybertruck happen, they can decide what to do with it. And I am one who appreciates the care they are demonstrating in keeping the market as orderly and affordable as possible for people who actually want to own one themselves.

Any genuine buyer who is put off by these straightforward terms doesn't understand the terms. I'm glad that if my plans suddenly change, Tesla might buy it off me with minimal depreciation.

 

[HaulingAss]

Hmmm how bout not your fault. Like it was parked someone plowed into it fleeing from the police.
. Just trying to help us all down the road.

When we bought our first Model 3, I was very aware of the long waiting list and was extra careful where I parked it and also of other traffic driving around me. Because I didn't want to be without it and I knew I couldn't just go buy a new one without a long wait.

It's just a risk of owning something that is basically unobtanium in any reasonable timeframe.

I like the idea of someone who totalled their Cybertruck, through no fault of their own, being able to instantly buy a replacement, but that puts Tesla in the position of having to determine fault. So the easiest solution, without rewarding bad or wreckless drivers, is that everyone has to wait their turn.

 

[cvalue13]

I believe Tesla has every right to make warranties and support non-transferable for certain periods to prevent flipping and scalping.

Has anyone said Tesla doesn't have the right?

Tesla has "the right" to contract that a person must wear pink every Tuesday, or else the buyer pays $1M in damages.

That doesn't mean eager buyers can't disagree with Tesla's decisions.

Implying that anyone (serious) has said that Tesla doesn't have the right, is a dishonest way of arguing that misrepresents an opponent's position and attacks a weaker version of it.

Tesla aims to support genuine customers, and not have layers of middlemen skimming money for sales transactions nor dealing with a frustrated end customer who paid too much or is possibly experiencing problems introduced by previous flippers or scalpers.

Has anyone said Tesla "aims" with this provision to do anything but support genuine customers, and avoid (true) scalpers?

That Tesla aims to prevent scalpers, doesn't mean that its strategy for doing so isn't up for reasonable critique.

Implying that anyone (serious) has argued that the recent (and now departed) provision was subterfuge for some other nefarious plan, is a dishonest way of arguing that misrepresents an opponent's position and attacks a weaker version of it.

We don't know what actual conditions will be in a real delivered Cybertruck MVPA yet, which was why I reminded that too much speculation is pointless.

Has anyone suggested that we know with certainty what conditions will be in the MVPA for a "delivered Cybertruck?"

That we don't know it (only because the conditions aren't met), doesn't mean that it's irrational to think Tesla is thinking about using that provision in virtue of someone at Tesla having drafted it and posted it to Tesla's website.

Implying that it is "pointless" to discuss that potentiality, because no one has taken delivery of a Cybertruck, is a dishonest way of arguing that misrepresents an opponent's position and attacks a weaker version of it.

I think if these types of reservation controls had been put in place back in 2019, we probably wouldn't even be having all of this discussion right now.

You're wrong.

Because in all your claptrap, you never addressed the central, critical, feature of this new resale provision being discussed. All you did was recount a bunch of vague principles if things *you* believe of other's intentions, Tesla's intentions, etc. And none of that addressed the most disagreeable portions of the actual provision at issue.

The actual provision at issue was a hamfisted, overly broad, and repugnant threat of forcing every single buyer of a CT who needs to sell (for ANY reason), to make a Sophie's choice between only one of the following outcomes:

• if Tesla agrees (no process defined) that you have a "good" reason (completely undefined):
  • sell it to Tesla for whatever sub-MSRP amount Tesla offers you (with no disclosure to buyers of the pricing parameters), and absent any number of reasonable upward pricing adjustments (taxes, interest, registration fees, then-current market pricing, etc.), or
  • Be forced to keep the truck for the remainder of the 1yr term, or
  • face an automatically perfected judgment for the greater of (a) $50K or (b) any monies received in the sale of the vehicle
  • attempt arbitration (and buyer's sole cost) against a $1T corporation
• if Tesla does not agree (no process defined) that you have a "good" reason (completely undefined)
  • be forced to keep the truck, face automatic judgment of $50k/etc., or attempt to arbitrate a $1T company

MEANWHILE, people who have owned the vehicle for 1yr will be selling their used units - right next door - for a marked premium over MSRP.

In other words, all this provision ACTUALLY does to any real buyer or scalper that has a need to sell, is to wait until the 1 year mark is up in order to sell it at an above-MSRP premium on the secondary market.



Mind you, all of the above larded on top of the existing no-resale provisions (and various tools) Tesla already has in place - e.g., voiding warranties, shutting off supercharging, forbidding future purchases, etc.

That the above-described system of deterrence appears to have been dreamt up by a D-minus second year law student with zero clue how to construct fair and reasonable provisions, which ineptitude results in an absurd and draconian shit show that would be simultaneously bad for every single buyer as well as Tesla's brand value ... is the thing


The only thing MORE absurd than Tesla's glimpsed strategy is for you to gloss right over it to instead strawman the entire situation to the implication that anyone who disagrees with Tesla's batsh*t approach must themselves be a flipper:

Are you or anyone you're associated with a reseller or car dealer? I'm genuinely curious.

Wake up man. You're being an ass*ole, all in the name of being too naive to have any clue what you're talking about.

If Tesla cares about deterring (it wont stop) scalpers, they could do it without also f*cking real customers and enthusiasts.

The only difference between you an me, is that I know when I'm getting f*cked.

 

[CYBR117]

Win for personal autonomy. Do what you want with your voice, vote, money, property.......

 

[JBee]

Let alone the whole delayed effect of how multiple orders could be placed when reservations started. Seeing you could only reserve one CT at a time, by the time you got the second order in a 1000 others would of gotten a place in front of you. The site didn't allow for quantities over one to be ordered at a time.

And secondly the delay caused by the production ramp would have diluted those scalpers over many years.

How many sequencial orders can a scalper make in an hour?

To subject everyone else to extra conditions, with far more serious consequences than losing a spot or two in line, is quite idiotic especially if you consider the trivial numeric results.

 

[HaulingAss]

To subject everyone else to extra conditions, with far more serious consequences than losing a spot or two in line, is quite idiotic especially if you consider the trivial numeric results.

I think if Tesla believed that the worst that could happen without the "no resellers" provision was that genuine buyers might lose "a spot or two in line" then they wouldn't have even bothered with preventing resellers from trying to make a buck on the side.

The fact that Tesla is taking this seriously strongly implies they intend to sell the Cybertruck for well under it's true market value and want that additional value to accrue to the actual purchasers rather than turn into a shitshow.

Your position is naive in the extreme. Any sincere purchaser of the Cybertruck will not be negatively impacted anymore than if they purchase any other new truck should they unexpectedly need to sell it to raise cash, beyond the up to 30 day delay while the owner gives Tesla the option to buy it back. This agreement prevents Tesla from paying any less than what the buyer originally paid, minus 25 cents for each mile on the odometer.

Tesla seems unconcerned that people will buy it just to drive it around for 4 months and perhaps put 4,000 miles on the tires and odometer, and then let Tesla buy it back for a price that can't be less than $1000 less than they paid for it. That would be a pretty cheap 4-month rental for such a nice truck. If Tesla declines to buy it back for $1,000 (4,000 miles x $0.25/mile) less than the purchase price, the buyer would be free to sell it for more than the original purchase price on the open market.

The rules do not dissuade sincere purchasers, they only remove the profit motive of scalpers because the price Tesla would have to pay to prevent the owner for selling it on the open market is almost the amount it cost in the first place.

But the real kicker here is that Tesla is not forcing anyone to do anything against their will. If you don't like the sale terms, don't buy it. It really is as simple as that!

That doesn't prevent a couple of very vocal people here from getting their panties tied in a knot over nothing.

 

[HaulingAss]

Win for personal autonomy. Do what you want with your voice, vote, money, property.......

Are you saying I do, or do not, have the personal autonomy to decide to enter into a contract (Purchase/Sale Agreement) or not?

What is wrong with just saying "no" if I don't think the terms of the agreement are beneficial to me?

 

[JBee]

I think if Tesla believed that the worst that could happen without the "no resellers" provision was that genuine buyers might lose "a spot or two in line" then they wouldn't have even bothered with preventing resellers from trying to make a buck on the side.

The fact that Tesla is taking this seriously strongly implies they intend to sell the Cybertruck for well under it's true market value and want that additional value to accrue to the actual purchasers rather than turn into a shitshow.

Your position is naive in the extreme. Any sincere purchaser of the Cybertruck will not be negatively impacted anymore than if they purchase any other new truck should they unexpectedly need to sell it to raise cash, beyond the up to 30 day delay while the owner gives Tesla the option to buy it back. This agreement prevents Tesla from paying any less than what the buyer originally paid, minus 25 cents for each mile on the odometer.

Tesla seems unconcerned that people will buy it just to drive it around for 4 months and perhaps put 4,000 miles on the tires and odometer, and then let Tesla buy it back for a price that can't be less than $1000 less than they paid for it. That would be a pretty cheap 4-month rental for such a nice truck. If Tesla declines to buy it back for $1,000 (4,000 miles x $0.25/mile) less than the purchase price, the buyer would be free to sell it for more than the original purchase price on the open market.

The rules do not dissuade sincere purchasers, they only remove the profit motive of scalpers because the price Tesla would have to pay to prevent the owner for selling it on the open market is almost the amount it cost in the first place.

But the real kicker here is that Tesla is not forcing anyone to do anything against their will. If you don't like the sale terms, don't buy it. It really is as simple as that!

That doesn't prevent a couple of very vocal people here from getting their panties tied in a knot over nothing.

My friend, you ignore the consequences of my post to continue on with agenda.

Fact 1: Tesla pulled the clause
Fact 2: You don't know who put it there, or if it was someone misguided and pulled
Fact 3: there's no evidence they will add it back
Fact 4: It in no way diminishes the argument that the mathematics of the ordering process and the extended delay in deliveries over years, the clause would in any way meaningfully reduce the wait time and position of a legitimate buyer

Simply the math is not subject interpretation, as might be the clause or the consequences of them.

Do some modelling, and get back to me how many scalpers you think there were and what positions they could have in the line, and how that affects your position in line.

Remember though that you could NOT select the quantity of CT on your order, and would have to order one after the other in sequence, in which time at least 2-300 to 1000 other people could jump in front of you in the line.

Accordingly, the clause was too broad and undefined to be a valid pathway just to mitigate scalpers alone, in fact it was decidedly against the privileges of a legitimate buyer, and done nothing for scalping at all, who could just wait a year and still end up in the same beneficial market anyway. So why bother.

 

[cvalue13]

My friend, you ignore the consequences of my post to continue on with agenda.

Fact 1: Tesla pulled the clause
Fact 2: You don't know who put it there, or if it was someone misguided and pulled
Fact 3: there's no evidence they will add it back
Fact 4: It in no way diminishes the argument that the mathematics of the ordering process and the extended delay in deliveries over years, the clause would in any way meaningfully reduce the wait time and position of a legitimate buyer

Simply the math is not subject interpretation, as might be the clause or the consequences of them.

Do some modelling, and get back to me how many scalpers you think there were and what positions they could have in the line, and how that affects your position in line.

Remember though that you could NOT select the quantity of CT on your order, and would have to order one after the other in sequence, in which time at least 2-300 to 1000 other people could jump in front of you in the line.

Accordingly, the clause was too broad and undefined to be a valid pathway just to mitigate scalpers alone, in fact it was decidedly against the privileges of a legitimate buyer, and done nothing for scalping at all, who could just wait a year and still end up in the same beneficial market anyway. So why bother.

lemme guess… ?

 

[CyberGus]

Even if Tesla includes the buyback provision, there is zero chance that I can drive up to a Tesla service Center with my Cybertruck and walk out with a check.

Here’s a thread about someone with a brand-new Model X so bad it should have been in the book of Job. Tesla agreed to buy it back under the Lemon Law, and from start to finish it only took… 10 months

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...elivery-experience-no-quality-control.285573/

Sponsored