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

[Crissa]

No, it isn't. Flippers aren't good for consumers. Nor are they consumers - as they'e definitionally not consuming the product.

I'm no scalper but if after taking delivery I don't like my purchase for whatever reason, I should be able to sell it.

The clause allowed that. Tesla would buy it back, or let you sell it to someone else.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[TruckDaddy]

It would be great for publicity if a few would resell for the highest price possible, preferably over a $million. TSLA would jump too. People would think they need to start making 100,000 reservations. Great for the company and the stock.

The big ass wiper will finally get respected.

 

[cvalue13]

However, from your posts, it appeared that you were comfortable with the scalping, and that's why you got the comments that you did.

zero about my posts suggests I'm "comfortable" with scalpers.

I've been crystal clear that simultaneously:

(1) I wont accept at all costs Tesla's ham-fisted attempts at deterring scalpers, and
(2) meanwhile, and as a BTW, I also think people are confused if not delusional about (a) how significant the scalper problem will be, and (b) how material an effect that tesla's attempts to deter scalping will have on the timeline of buyers receiving their trucks

the ONLY reason that people miss-interpret, or miss-attribute, my comments to the effect above is this:

they're not following the conversation, and are too blinded by their hopium and their own FUD (about scalping), to not have an emotional rather than reasoned response to being faced with someone saying "i don't think scalping will be as bad for people as they think, but even if it is this Tesla proposal is a terrible and counter-productive way to go about things"

so then people respond with non-sequitur platitudes that are completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, such as:

At the end of the day, Tesla can and will do whatever it needs to ensure that the scalping situation is limited.

of course Tesla can do what it wants. nobody reasonable has suggested otherwise.

the painfully obvious discussion being had isn't whether Tesla can do what it wants - it's whether what they are doing is a good idea or a bad idea for legit buyers

it's funny/telling when people retreat to these non-sequiturs as a last resort

 

[JBee]

Well JB,

This assumes a single individual is doing it, without the help of automation. And it does happen when you get money involved.

Do you know if Tesla has a order rate limit or other countermeasures?

If scalping is so common, or such a big problem, it would not take much effort on their part to avoid the whole scalper issue at the ordering stage already, by simply limiting how many can order from an IP address, and simply block ranges of IP for that matter if they needed to.

Seriously though, if they can run FSD, they can put a simple time delay on a ordering website, and as a Trillion dollar company, their sister company is running satellites that are even unhackable by the Russians? But a bunch of scalpers can hack them? Come on, they can't be that bad at these things surely right?

 

[Arctic_White]

zero about my posts suggests I'm "comfortable" with scalpers.

I've been crystal clear that simultaneously:

(1) I wont accept at all costs Tesla's ham-fisted attempts at deterring scalpers, and
(2) meanwhile, and as a BTW, I also think people are confused if not delusional about (a) how significant the scalper problem will be, and (b) how material an effect that tesla's attempts to deter scalping will have on the timeline of buyers receiving their trucks

the ONLY reason that people miss-interpret, or miss-attribute, my comments to the effect above is this:

they're not following the conversation, and are too blinded by their hopium and their own FUD (about scalping), to not have an emotional rather than reasoned response to being faced with someone saying "i don't think scalping will be as bad for people as they think, but even if it is this Tesla proposal is a terrible and counter-productive way to go about things"

so then people respond with non-sequitur platitudes that are completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, such as:




of course Tesla can do what it wants. nobody reasonable has suggested otherwise.

the painfully obvious discussion being had isn't whether Tesla can do what it wants - it's whether what they are doing is a good idea or a bad idea for legit buyers

it's funny/telling when people retreat to these non-sequiturs as a last resort

I think people don't like it when you come across as a) argumentative simply for the sake of it, and b) talking about this as if it's be-all and end-all.

Just my two cents. Canadian ones so they are worth less.

I obviously failed to understand your posts and I bet others did the same because of the two points listed above.

However, you and I are aligned for what it's worth. But I disagree with your method of delivery and the tone.

 

[PilotPete]

Do you know if Tesla has a order rate limit or other countermeasures?

If scalping is so common, or such a big problem, it would not take much effort on their part to avoid the whole scalper issue at the ordering stage already, by simply limiting how many can order from an IP address, and simply block ranges of IP for that matter if they needed to.

Seriously though, if they can run FSD, they can put a simple time delay on a ordering website, and as a Trillion dollar company, their sister company is running satellites that are even unhackable by the Russians? But a bunch of scalpers can hack them? Come on, they can't be that bad at these things surely right?

There are ways. The old-school simple IP trick don’t work with all the VPNs out there. I have absolutely NO idea of what kind of security/counter measures Tesla has/uses for the pre-orders. I’m sure they could, if they wanted. The question becomes, how bad do they think the problem could be, how bad do they want to stop it, and how many resources (peeps, bucks and h/w) they want to throw at it.

 

[Cyberman]

Allrighty then.

 

[JBee]

There are ways. The old-school simple IP trick don’t work with all the VPNs out there. I have absolutely NO idea of what kind of security/counter measures Tesla has/uses for the pre-orders. I’m sure they could, if they wanted. The question becomes, how bad do they think the problem could be, how bad do they want to stop it, and how many resources (peeps, bucks and h/w) they want to throw at it.

It's actually not hard to block VPNs as they all use certain IP ranges and ports. Tor would be more difficult, but most email addresses and ips can be verified. The trick would be just to use a 2FA over SMS, that way you need a phone number in the loop which makes it expensive and hard. Bit like the x subscription.

 

[cvalue13]

But I disagree with your method of delivery and the tone.

for what it’s worth, this is far from the first or early of my exchanges on this topic - the dozens prior having somewhat set a defensive and exhausted tone (including comments from others the mods felt reasonable to delete)

in any event, I’ll admit to - especially online - having zero patience for intellectually dishonest discourse

it’s a matter of different values, I suppose, that I’d rather be and be called an assh*le than let people repeatedly offer unconsidered and strawmen and revert essentially to the playground allegation that “anyone who dislikes this provision is themselves a scalper, QED”

so perhaps you’ve caught some strays, but not because your responses here have been entirely different in type

 

[HaulingAss]

I'm no scalper but if after taking delivery I don't like my purchase for whatever reason, I should be able to sell it.

Nothing would be preventing you from selling your Cybertruck in the first year! It's simply a provision to keep the sale from being wildly profitable in the first year. Tesla has the right of first refusal to buy it back with minimal depreciation in the first year. If they don't exercise that right, you can sell it to anyone you want, at any price you both agree upon.

I hope you understand the "anti-flipping" clause better now.

 

[fhteagle]

If they don't exercise that right, you can sell it to anyone you want, at any price you both agree upon.

That is not what the disappeared clause said.

"If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla."

There's nothing in that clause that forces Tesla to give that consent. They could just not respond. They could low-ball your buyback offer instead and put you in a real pickle.

I know you _wish_ it said what you interpreted it to say. But it doesn't.

 

[Crissa]

That is not what the disappeared clause said.

"If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla."

There's nothing in that clause that forces Tesla to give that consent. They could just not respond. They could low-ball your buyback offer instead and put you in a real pickle.

I know you _wish_ it said what you interpreted it to say. But it doesn't.

I know it doesn't say that - but legally, they cannot withhold their consent within a reasonable time frame.

You're reading that they would decided to entrap people into trucks they don't want or can't keep. That would be horrible PR.

-Crissa

 

[alcstarheel]

That is not what the disappeared clause said.

"If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla."

There's nothing in that clause that forces Tesla to give that consent. They could just not respond. They could low-ball your buyback offer instead and put you in a real pickle.

I know you _wish_ it said what you interpreted it to say. But it doesn't.

Exactly.

Here's a rundown of how the process would work based on how the provision is written:

• Customer signs purchase order for CT with (old disappeared) "For Cybertruck Only" clause
• Customer takes delivery
• Customer within the first year of ownership decides to sell for [add in whatever reason you want] at [however much]
• Customer has two choices
  1. follow provision and inform Tesla of intent to sell
     or
  2. sell to whatever third party they choose without receiving consent from Tesla

If number 1 above:

• Tesla receives intent to sell request and doesn't respond
• Tesla receives intent to sell and disagrees that seller's reason for the sell warrants an exception to its no reseller policy essentially barring seller from reselling
• Tesla receives intent and responds with "Tesla will buy back at MSRP minus..." a litany of considerations (mileage, damage, depreciation, etc.) which will most likely be lower than seller could receive on the open market
• Tesla receives request and gives consent for seller to resell to a third party

One can surmise that based on Tesla's history with responding to, well, anything many of those requests could sit in limbo for months. And if you think about it that could be a tactic while they dare anyone to go against the provision and sell without consent.

If the problem is as big as they think it would be Tesla would have to staff an entire team to investigate these requests. Potential sellers would no doubt be required to bring in their CT to the nearest service center for "evaluation." Tesla could either turn those evaluations around quickly (unlikely) or request the customer's CT remains in the service center for multiple days as the evaluation is performed (most likely).

Then Tesla can offer a reasonable amount for the buy back or they could just as easily offer a low ball number. One only has to look to the situation of how Tesla values FSD on trade in compared to what they sell it for to further surmise that the buy back offer would be lower than reasonable. And in that situation if the customer doesn't accept the buy back offer customer are still bound by the provision that they can't resell to a third party because they haven't received consent.


If number 2 above:

• Customer sells CT to third party within first year without Tesla's consent
• Tesla never finds out about the resale
  or
  Tesla investigates a CT resold and identifies the party that offended their provision
• If Tesla doesn't find out (right away at least) customer lives in perpetual fear that Tesla will come calling with an injuntion
• If Tesla does find out Tesla files an injunction against reseller for at least $50K adding any profits over that amount reseller received for reselling *owner's* vehicle without receiving Tesla's consent

Based on the how the provision is worded if Tesla finds out about an unconsented resale they would not evaluate whether unnecessary profit was received in the sale before filing an injuntion. They would file the injunction purely for violating the provision. We can *hope* that if someone resold for $1-$1K over MSRP Tesla wouldn't file an injunction but we don't know where that line would be. Is it $5K over? $10K? Since it isn't clear we have to assume that any violation found out would result in an injunction.

And just like the bell cannot save someone in a boxing match the one year mark would not necessarily save someone from Tesla filing an injunction if they found out 2/3/4/n years later that within the first year a CT was resold.

All this to say I agree scalpers should be cut off. But to me this single paragraph doesn't account for all the factors at play. They need a more well rounded provision.

 

[freakyguy666]

The problem with the alleged “original no resell provision“ was that it was apparently only going to be valid for a year or 2…meaning that buyers of the vehicle in 2026 might not be subject to the same restrictions….this could be legally problematic as it would appear to favor certain buyers over others…not worth the fights in court that would inevitably result…hence Clause is out….

 

[AlexcyberTX]

this doesn’t matter to me, I’ll make more money off my cybertruck having it wrapped in my roofing company advertisement vs just trying to scalp it. I’ll have mines for at least one year no matter what

Sponsored