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

[HaulingAss]

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.

The intention here would be clear in any court, if you gave Tesla written notice that you wanted to sell your Cybertuck, and they either declined to purchase it, or didn't respond within the 30 days, then you could sell it on your own.

Could the language be nailed down a little better? Sure, maybe the language will be more polished on the actual Purchase and Sale Agreements.

Please take off the tin-foil hat, Tesla would not benefit and there would be no reason for Tesla to not provide consent if they did not intend to buy it.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

The intention here would be clear in any court, if you gave Tesla written notice that you wanted to sell your Cybertuck, and they either declined to purchase it, or didn't respond within the 30 days, then you could sell it on your own.

Could the language be nailed down a little better? Sure, maybe the language will be more polished on the actual Purchase and Sale Agreements.

Please take off the tin-foil hat, Tesla would not benefit and there would be no reason for Tesla to not provide consent if they did not intend to buy it.

Is "no sense" the same as "nonsense"?

Now your straight up making up stuff.

 

[fhteagle]

didn't respond within the 30 days

"30 days" doesn't appear _at_all_ in the original clause text. Again, your wishful thinking does not make it so.

You're not "helping people understand this better" by making it harder for them to understand what was actually in the clause or not.

 

[cvalue13]

You're not "helping people understand this better" by making it harder for them to understand what was actually in the clause or not.

I'm gonna use your point as a jumping-off place for my own:

Here’s a basic tenant of counseling around whether to accept long-term commercial arrangements such as these:

decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned.​

This tenant is not motivated by paranoia. It's merely stripping away people's natural biases when applied to the unfamiliar context of long term contracts and business dealings. Many people can instinctively risk-adjust in everyday life, but put a contract in front of them and a large segment of society have a bias towards rose-colored glasses.​

​

In more familiar contexts, people's natural ability to risk-adjust comes instinctively. For example, one does not decide to get on an airplane based on outcomes of the success case. If told there is a 0.5% chance that every airplane crashes, the natural response is not "great, I have a 99.5% chance of survival." Instead, they correctly risk-adjust for the probability of the outcome weighed against the intensity of result. A 0.5% chance of certain death outweighs a 99.5% chance of making it to Baltimore for a meeting.​

​

But for many, this natural instinct to risk-adjust is for some reason lost once presented with the terms of a long-term commercial contract. They may still recognize the probability of the failure case: "this deal is by far most likely to work out." But their ability to risk-adjust for the severity of the outcome is often lost: "but in the unlikely event it doesn't work out, it means I lose my business, which my family depends on."​

​

Which is where expert counseling comes in. That counseling is not merely to correctly interpret the language of the contract (which laymen are often wholly unprepared to do well). It is to interpret that language, and then also overlay both (a) the "extra contractual" legal framework not apparent on the surface (i.e., the 'hidden' rules of law), but also overlay onto the language and the legal framework (b) the "off paper" practical/pragmatic realities that will affect either the probability or severity the outcomes.​

​

I've spent a career doing this sort of work. For Fortune 100 companies (transactions you've read about in the WSJ), presidents of countries (in 2023, I've removed from my office photos of Vladamir Putin signing deals I've negotiated - I represented Russia in more optimistic geopolitical times), but also for small domestic businesses you've never heard of. And as my sub-specialty deals in transactions involving hard assets (e.g., energy infrastructure), that work has centrally involved negotiating, drafting, and living with the long-term consequences of 'Rights of First Refusal' sorts of provisions such as the one at issue in this thread.​

​

In short, I have not in this thread been merely shooting from the hip, out of an armchair.​

​

And the basic tenant of "decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned" is infrequently lost on the layperson, especially when it comes to long term contracts. These provisions, to be evaluated well, require "looking around the corner" of all probable or possible permutations of how facts can unfold in various possible futures. That's a skillset few have naturally, and even fewer have repetitious experience in.​

It's at this point someone might fairly object, "ok, hotshot, what does all this high-cotton, high-stakes, experience have to do with buying a $[80]K truck." It's a fair question, but one with a ready response:

Here, the risks aren't as grand, it's true. But so too are the upside benefits proportionately low. The "success" case benefits of this provision, for many, involves and amounts merely to the successful purchase of a vehicle, and maybe a few weeks or a couple of months sooner. *This*, for the consumer, is the all-in upside against which any failure case risks are to be weighed.​

​

So yes, the failure case risks here are comparatively benign relative to an airplane crash or trillion dollar acquisition. But also relatively benign are the success case upsides. And given how maths work, and so proper risk-adjustment works, the basic tenant of "decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned," is equally applicable, if proportionately reduced in overall magnitude.​

All of which brings to mind something so irritating about many of the responses in this thread. Repeatedly, someone says some version of "I'm so financially stable, and so confident I'll love the Cybertruck so deeply, that I foresee no future scenario where I realize any downside risk."

To them I say: take a step back and recognize how deeply self-centered this view is. One may as well exclaim, 'yes, there's a 0.5% chance this airplane of 500,000 passengers crashes, but *I* am one of the chosen allotted an exit row and a parachute."​

​

Some of us, even some of us who also have an exit row and a parachute, don't think anyone should get on this plane if, on a risk-adjusted basis, even one of us wont make it.​

​

Then they object, "airlines have a right to fly planes, and to wherever they like." Fine. What does that have to do with whether one believes they should get on that flight, or applaud and invest in that airline?​

​

Then they revert to a different, veiled, self-centered argument: but the scalpers! They feign that they object to scalping on a matter of principle (e.g. scalpers are bad people and need to be stopped for reasons of justice), but if pressed seem to boil down to self-interest (e.g., they will make "the line" longer, and so I don't get my truck as soon). They feign that they object to scalping due to some brand of corporate unfairness to Tesla (e.g., "parasitic profiteers), but if pressed seem to often boil down again to self-interest (they're $TSLA investors).​

​

Fine. Hold up your hand if you believe we should all get on this flight, reason being that you're a partial owner of the airline? We can all discount your vote accordingly.​

​

Next, hold up your hand if you believe we should all get on this flight because you believe that half the people on board (the scalpers) deserve to crash - and what's a little collateral damage to a few of the remaining passengers - all while you believe (correctly or incorrectly), that those of you in the exit rows with parachutes will be just fine. Hold up your hand, and we can discount your vote accordingly.​

Now, I'm long-winded and irrationally invested in any number of conversations on this forum. Big picture, it's all silly and nearly a waste of lifespan - but hey, some folks have wordle, I have this for my meaningless mental gymnastics. And if we're being honest, you're here, too.

But on this specific topic, I find a long-winded and irrationally invested novella such as this at least a touch more meaningful. I do this work for a living. More than many other topics I discuss here, I can bring to bear some actual expertise. And on this topic of no resale provision, it's not merely about bickering over one's preferences for something so meaningless as a, e.g., roll-down rear window, or if a truck will have 360mi of range vs 420mi of range.

Instead, here, people with no expertise, and a glaringly self-centered prerogative, are taking *their* time to talk passengers into getting on this plane. Because *they* really want to be in Baltimore by noon, believe half the passengers deserve to crash, are investors in the airline company, and think (right or wrong) that they themselves and those in exit rows with parachutes will be just fine.

And then, they go so far as to imply or explicitly say that anyone else here suggesting that folks shouldn't get on this plane, must also be amongst the people who deserve to crash.


This is about the purchase of what, in the big picture, is a stupid-fu*king truck. Even a mere shareholder in the airline shouldn't want to see the company risking the bad press of a crash. But more importantly I don't care how badly you dislike half the people on the plane. If even a handful of genuine buyer-enthusiasts stand a risk-adjusted chance of bad outcomes - that's the basis upon which this provision should be judged.

If the alternative is you have to wait a few more weeks or months for your truck, and live knowing some bad intentioned scalpers made a few grand on it, so be it. You've waited 4 years already. And the reality is, the vast majority of you, still have a few more years to wait, with or without this provision.

Stop telling others they should get on planes you wont even be a passenger on.

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Why are scalpers always the bad buys?

What about the line skippers? Aren't they the real problem?

 

[HaulingAss]

Is "no sense" the same as "nonsense"?

Now your straight up making up stuff.

No, what is nonsense is the idea I was responding to, that Tesla could prevent you from selling it for an entire year simply by not responding to your request to sell it. That's not how contract law works.

Anyone who knows anything about how contract law works can see that's complete bullshit. Why are you like that? I've got to call out this kind of nonsense, defend it at the risk of looking like a no-nothing.

 

[HaulingAss]

"30 days" doesn't appear _at_all_ in the original clause text. Again, your wishful thinking does not make it so.

You're not "helping people understand this better" by making it harder for them to understand what was actually in the clause or not.

It doesn't need to say "30 days", it says that if you must sell the vehicle within the first year, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla "reasonable time" to purchase the vehicle.

Anyone who knows anything about how a court would interpret this knows that anything over 30 days would NOT be considered "reasonable time" and that the seller would be free to sell it to another party. In actuality, it would be unusual for a court to rule that two weeks was not "reasonable time". There are all kinds of legal precedence for this type of language and it would be read against the entity who wrote the contract (Tesla).

I'm absolutely helping people who don't have experience interpreting contracts understand this better. It is you who is sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt about a clause that is easy to understand.

Where do you get off on acting like you know what you're talking about when it's obvious you know nothing about contract law. Shesh!

 

[JBee]

No, what is nonsense is the idea I was responding to, that Tesla could prevent you from selling it for an entire year simply by not responding to your request to sell it. That's not how contract law works.

Anyone who knows anything about how contract law works can see that's complete bullshit. Why are you like that? I've got to call out this kind of nonsense, defend it at the risk of looking like a no-nothing.

The clause is gone bud, for good reason.

What are you still fighting for?

 

[HaulingAss]

The clause is gone bud, for good reason.

What are you still fighting for?

The "no reselling" clause has been removed from the Purchase and Sale Agreement Tesla is currently using to sell the Models S,3,X, and Y. Considering Tesla has not completed a single Cybertruck Purchase and Sale Agreement it's very premature to be stating that it won't be on that Purchase and Sale Agreement.

If you have a copy of a Purchase and Sale Agreement that you can verify is applicable to the Cybertruck, then please share it. Until then, chill out.

Furthermore, you have no idea why the clause was removed from the current sales agreements. I say this because you know what they say about assuming. ASS-U-ME.

 

[CyberGus]

It doesn't need to say "30 days", it says that if you must sell the vehicle within the first year, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla "reasonable time" to purchase the vehicle.

Anyone who knows anything about how a court would interpret this knows that anything over 30 days would NOT be considered "reasonable time" and that the seller would be free to sell it to another party. In actuality, it would be unusual for a court to rule that two weeks was not "reasonable time". There are all kinds of legal precedence for this type of language and it would be read against the entity who wrote the contract (Tesla).

I'm absolutely helping people who don't have experience interpreting contracts understand this better. It is you who is sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt about a clause that is easy to understand.

Where do you get off on acting like you know what you're talking about when it's obvious you know nothing about contract law. Shesh!

Did you see my post about the Model X owner's woes? It took Tesla months to buy back the vehicle after they had agreed to do so under the Lemon Law, and the law was on his side!

To my knowledge, there are no consumer-protection laws governing such "anti-resale" language in a sales contract.

A rational actor will generally behave reasonably, but the clause did not require Tesla to do so. It was badly worded, regardless of the broader intent.

 

[JBee]

I'm gonna use your point as a jumping-off place for my own:

Here’s a basic tenant of counseling around whether to accept long-term commercial arrangements such as these:

decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned.​

This tenant is not motivated by paranoia. It's merely stripping away people's natural biases when applied to the unfamiliar context of long term contracts and business dealings. Many people can instinctively risk-adjust in everyday life, but put a contract in front of them and a large segment of society have a bias towards rose-colored glasses.​

​

In more familiar contexts, people's natural ability to risk-adjust comes instinctively. For example, one does not decide to get on an airplane based on outcomes of the success case. If told there is a 0.5% chance that every airplane crashes, the natural response is not "great, I have a 99.5% chance of survival." Instead, they correctly risk-adjust for the probability of the outcome weighed against the intensity of result. A 0.5% chance of certain death outweighs a 99.5% chance of making it to Baltimore for a meeting.​

​

But for many, this natural instinct to risk-adjust is for some reason lost once presented with the terms of a long-term commercial contract. They may still recognize the probability of the failure case: "this deal is by far most likely to work out." But their ability to risk-adjust for the severity of the outcome is often lost: "but in the unlikely event it doesn't work out, it means I lose my business, which my family depends on."​

​

Which is where expert counseling comes in. That counseling is not merely to correctly interpret the language of the contract (which laymen are often wholly unprepared to do well). It is to interpret that language, and then also overlay both (a) the "extra contractual" legal framework not apparent on the surface (i.e., the 'hidden' rules of law), but also overlay onto the language and the legal framework (b) the "off paper" practical/pragmatic realities that will affect either the probability or severity the outcomes.​

​

I've spent a career doing this sort of work. For Fortune 100 companies (transactions you've read about in the WSJ), presidents of countries (in 2023, I've removed from my office photos of Vladamir Putin signing deals I've negotiated - I represented Russia in more optimistic geopolitical times), but also for small domestic businesses you've never heard of. And as my sub-specialty deals in transactions involving hard assets (e.g., energy infrastructure), that work has centrally involved negotiating, drafting, and living with the long-term consequences of 'Rights of First Refusal' sorts of provisions such as the one at issue in this thread.​

​

In short, I have not in this thread been merely shooting from the hip, out of an armchair.​

​

And the basic tenant of "decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned" is infrequently lost on the layperson, especially when it comes to long term contracts. These provisions, to be evaluated well, require "looking around the corner" of all probable or possible permutations of how facts can unfold in various possible futures. That's a skillset few have naturally, and even fewer have repetitious experience in.​

It's at this point someone might fairly object, "ok, hotshot, what does all this high-cotton, high-stakes, experience have to do with buying a $[80]K truck." It's a fair question, but one with a ready response:

Here, the risks aren't as grand, it's true. But so too are the upside benefits proportionately low. The "success" case benefits of this provision, for many, involves and amounts merely to the successful purchase of a vehicle, and maybe a few weeks or a couple of months sooner. *This*, for the consumer, is the all-in upside against which any failure case risks are to be weighed.​

​

So yes, the failure case risks here are comparatively benign relative to an airplane crash or trillion dollar acquisition. But also relatively benign are the success case upsides. And given how maths work, and so proper risk-adjustment works, the basic tenant of "decide on the basis of outcomes when nothing goes as planned," is equally applicable, if proportionately reduced in overall magnitude.​

All of which brings to mind something so irritating about many of the responses in this thread. Repeatedly, someone says some version of "I'm so financially stable, and so confident I'll love the Cybertruck so deeply, that I foresee no future scenario where I realize any downside risk."

To them I say: take a step back and recognize how deeply self-centered this view is. One may as well exclaim, 'yes, there's a 0.5% chance this airplane of 500,000 passengers crashes, but *I* am one of the chosen allotted an exit row and a parachute."​

​

Some of us, even some of us who also have an exit row and a parachute, don't think anyone should get on this plane if, on a risk-adjusted basis, even one of us wont make it.​

​

Then they object, "airlines have a right to fly planes, and to wherever they like." Fine. What does that have to do with whether one believes they should get on that flight, or applaud and invest in that airline?​

​

Then they revert to a different, veiled, self-centered argument: but the scalpers! They feign that they object to scalping on a matter of principle (e.g. scalpers are bad people and need to be stopped for reasons of justice), but if pressed seem to boil down to self-interest (e.g., they will make "the line" longer, and so I don't get my truck as soon). They feign that they object to scalping due to some brand of corporate unfairness to Tesla (e.g., "parasitic profiteers), but if pressed seem to often boil down again to self-interest (they're $TSLA investors).​

​

Fine. Hold up your hand if you believe we should all get on this flight, reason being that you're a partial owner of the airline? We can all discount your vote accordingly.​

​

Next, hold up your hand if you believe we should all get on this flight because you believe that half the people on board (the scalpers) deserve to crash - and what's a little collateral damage to a few of the remaining passengers - all while you believe (correctly or incorrectly), that those of you in the exit rows with parachutes will be just fine. Hold up your hand, and we can discount your vote accordingly.​

Now, I'm long-winded and irrationally invested in any number of conversations on this forum. Big picture, it's all silly and nearly a waste of lifespan - but hey, some folks have wordle, I have this for my meaningless mental gymnastics. And if we're being honest, you're here, too.

But on this specific topic, I find a long-winded and irrationally invested novella such as this at least a touch more meaningful. I do this work for a living. More than many other topics I discuss here, I can bring to bear some actual expertise. And on this topic of no resale provision, it's not merely about bickering over one's preferences for something so meaningless as a, e.g., roll-down rear window, or if a truck will have 360mi of range vs 420mi of range.

Instead, here, people with no expertise, and a glaringly self-centered prerogative, are taking *their* time to talk passengers into getting on this plane. Because *they* really want to be in Baltimore by noon, believe half the passengers deserve to crash, are investors in the airline company, and think (right or wrong) that they themselves and those in exit rows with parachutes will be just fine.

And then, they go so far as to imply or explicitly say that anyone else here suggesting that folks shouldn't get on this plane, must also be amongst the people who deserve to crash.


This is about the purchase of what, in the big picture, is a stupid-fu*king truck. Even a mere shareholder in the airline shouldn't want to see the company risking the bad press of a crash. But more importantly I don't care how badly you dislike half the people on the plane. If even a handful of genuine buyer-enthusiasts stand a risk-adjusted chance of bad outcomes - that's the basis upon which this provision should be judged.

If the alternative is you have to wait a few more weeks or months for your truck, and live knowing some bad intentioned scalpers made a few grand on it, so be it. You've waited 4 years already. And the reality is, the vast majority of you, still have a few more years to wait, with or without this provision.

Stop telling others they should get on planes you wont even be a passenger on.

Contracts are a minefield, and many fall victim to them.

I think legalese is a artform, and I see similarities in how important language and the definition of it is, in many subjects. The word, especially the written one, is hugely powerful and life changing. Be that agreements, social media, commercial media, politics, history, software, accounting, taxes, AI science, engineering, medicine or religion.

We live in a world of dead mens ideas.

This is because ideas can continue to exist in written form long after the author has met his demise. It can also be reproduced and spread. This is actually an unnatural thing, in that the rate of knowledge transferability is accelerating, at times faster than people can comprehend or defend against.

For example history shows that the Papistry withheld the bible from the general public by only allowing it to be taught in churches in Latin by their institutions. The net result was a payment of "indulgences" in compensation for "forgiveness of sins", and a church tax which was used to further the reach and control of the church, that is still collected today. This "information embargo" held until the Lutheran reformation in the 16th century where his translation to German, meant that for one of the first times in the middle ages, the commoners had access to the scripture first hand, and could see for themselves what it really said, and it became blatantly obvious how they were being exploited by not knowing the full story. The result was a series of revolutions and wars, and even the lifting of sanctions against science that led to new discoveries, and the agricultural and industrial revolutions as well.

In this day and age language remains the primary catalyst for changing a person's ideas, but we are all stuck between cultural convention and popular acceptance, and the more lofty pursuit of forming new understanding, that leads to new ideas, that in turn can change the world.

This is one of my primary interests in the whole Tesla and SpaceX, and EM development at this time. I'm not at all inclined to be a religious follower of anyone, but I see similarities in the overall inertia that is driving change at this time, and that it is coming if we want it to or not.

But now it is as important as ever to be an architect of change and not a victim of it.

---

Anyways, I've been thinking about ways to inhibit the "scalping problem" if there is in fact a problem of any magnitude at all.

The easiest solution that Tesla could of implemented, seeing they could of expected the problem in advance, would of been simply to use a 2FA via SMS matching, and by restricting how many orders could be made per day, so that others have a chance to slot inbetween.

With that only individual people could have flipped one or so a year until they had full production, and they could have avoided any reseller clause at all in the contract, and everyone would of been happy they had tried their best to make it fair.

At a minimum no further customer obligations or restrictions would of been required.

I mean if they have the ability to program FSD and be on the forefront of AI, run Starlink even the Russians can't hack, then I'm sure they would have enough capability to make online digital orders more equitable. I think that's a bit of a fail on their part, that they had to resort to terms instead.

 

[cvalue13]

I mean if they have the ability to program FSD and be on the forefront of AI, run Starlink even the Russians can't hack, then I'm sure they would have enough capability to make online digital orders more equitable. I think that's a bit of a fail on their part, that they had to resort to terms instead.

ive seen people suggest that people could have used bots, etc., to run on the CT order page

i havent thought that hard about it, but that suggestion strikes me as pretty implausible to be a successful solution

people running bots one, e.g., sneaker, wrist watch, concert ticket, and chip sales, have a vail between them and the seller of the postal services and credit card spoofing, etc. They only really need to fool the online order/payment end.

purchasing a vehicle, once it comes time to execute the deal, is a very different beast. even if you could solve for getting multiple loans (or even if you have cash on hand), does not solve for the issues with actually taking physical possession and title to several vehicles without it becoming abundantly clear that something is wrong in denmark

to say nothing of that fact that, for people who pay close attention to the secondary market of sneakers, watches, etc., those scalping enterprises are largely (but quietly) ENCOURAGED by the manufacturers - they create all kinds of corporate efficiencies that are the dirtly little secret of the luxury brand (or aspiring luxury brand) markets.



so personally, when i hear someone suggest cybertruck scalper acquisitions could be accomplished "like" the secondary markets for sneakers, chips, etc., i dont think too hard about it because they don't appear to have a very close appreciation for how *those* scalpers (and manufacturers) operate

Tesla could pretty easily uncover that sort of subterfuge, and in virtue of the subterfuge alone, identify the buyers as ill-intented, and simply not execute the contracts.

all abilities they had before, and irrelevant to, the advent of the additional features of this (dissapearing) provision

 

[Wmcgregs]

I'm glad that the 'contract' is gone and I hope it does not reappear during the transaction.

It 100% is against the consumer to protect from an extremely small fraction of scalpers. What if my family has a massive financial issue in 4 months and I need to sell my truck? Or what if I HATE the Cybertruck because none of us are going to be able to test drive it?

Or what if I get relocated to some faraway country in my job?

There are live events that occur and a consumer should not be penalized for wanting to sell THEIR OWN PROPERTY due to some contract that was made to protect who?

Scalpers are a non-issue in a direct to consumer model. Sure, some rich dude can skip the line and buy some products, who cares, it happens literally with everything else in the world.

If it was a classic US dealer model where dealers are up-charging on cars, Yea, that's. huge issue because the consumer cannot buy directly from the company and it loses trust in that company itself due to greedy dealers, hence why I will NEVER buy a Ford or Toyota from my local dealers and I will NEVER buy another Mercedes (also because the company is TERRIBLE).

But a scalper issue here isn't an issue, the scalper is taking on the risk of buying a vehicle that they hope there will be demand for, and takes on the risk of falling in love with this sick truck and never selling it to begin with.

 

[Crissa]

Did you see my post about the Model X owner's woes? It took Tesla months to buy back the vehicle after they had agreed to do so under the Lemon Law, and the law was on his side!

We also don't know how fast he responded to their inquiries, whether it was in their care, etc. We only have one side of the story.

Scalpers are a non-issue in a direct to consumer model.

So why couldn't I buy a Playstation 5 for several years after launch or I had to physically stand in line at 4am to get an nVidia 3090 and why are concert ticket scalpers still a problem?

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

So Tesla sells 100,000 in 2024

1000 customers sell their truck within a year for profit

Tesla takes action against all 1000

10% fight it.. Tesla has 100 court cases and there are perhaps appeals along the way.

hahhaha - Who is so farken stupid enough to want to go through all that trouble, and spend time and legal fees for what?

GM had their 'clause', perhaps as a deterrent, but IMHO, a cheap and effective marketing move to create a feeling of exclusivity and prestige. Asif they would police it. Have they ?

Sponsored