No Resale Provision is Back

[fiveten]

Can someone who hasn’t placed their order yet click on the terms and conditions and see if this no resale language is there before you order. I read through everything before I placed my order and took some screen shots of the language, but didn’t save the whole thing, and this no-resale language was not there. It only popped up in my order agreement after I placed my order.

Sponsored

 

[dLux]

Can someone who hasn’t placed their order yet click on the terms and conditions and see if this no resale language is there before you order. I read through everything before I placed my order and took some screen shots of the language, but didn’t save the whole thing, and this no-resale language was not there. It only popped up in my order agreement after I placed my order.

There is no such thing in it. I posted it to the other thread: https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...-inconsistency-is-it-legal.10399/#post-208798

 

[cvalue13]

The Clause says nothing about setting up a contract promising to sell to someone after 12months and basically loaning them the vehicle during those 12months (you maintain the registration & insurance—of course you’ll presumably incorporate these costs into the price agreed-upon in the Contract) and then transfer title after 12 months completing the Sale.

yes, people have talked about lease to own structures

In theory they might work, but there is still decent risk

Tesla has a lot of latitude in both their practical leverage, and the entire agreement language (not just that one provision).


These “might work, still risk” scenarios are ripe for aspiring sellers to be overly optimistic, and right-minded buyers overly pessimistic.

 

[dLux]

Can someone who hasn’t placed their order yet click on the terms and conditions and see if this no resale language is there before you order. I read through everything before I placed my order and took some screen shots of the language, but didn’t save the whole thing, and this no-resale language was not there. It only popped up in my order agreement after I placed my order.

And here is the link to the original document: https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=ct&saleType=Sale

You are right, there is no such thing in it. I saved the whole PDF for later reference.

 

[cvalue13]

And here is the link to the original document: https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=ct&saleType=Sale

You are right, there is no such thing in it. I saved the whole PDF for later reference.

well this is all an interesting little mess ?

 

[BayouCityBob]

I think there is language before you hit the payment button (gone now) but in any case, anyone who wants to cancel and get their $250 back because they did not see this provision I am sure it would be no big deal. Just call the number:

 

[Balthezor]

Im happy it’s back. Less bullshit and CTs taken to scalp and more CTs to actual people who want them.

 

[BayouCityBob]

These sorts of preferential buy back provisions are super common in finance, they are fairly common in real estate as well. I would be pretty confident this has been vetted by Tesla's law firm (I will note once again that I told you so back in March so props to me for having a well-tuned crystal ball).

 

[freakyguy666]

yes, people have talked about lease to own structures

In theory they might work, but there is still decent risk

Tesla has a lot of latitude in both their practical leverage, and the entire agreement language (not just that one provision).


These “might work, still risk” scenarios are ripe for aspiring sellers to be overly optimistic, and right-minded buyers overly pessimistic.

Not seeing any support for your assertion that there is “decent risk”. Practically speaking Tesla would not even know about the agreement until the title transfer—which would occur after the requisite 12month period.

if you can provide even one detailed scenario where this would not work I’d like to see it…

 

[cvalue13]

These sorts of preferential buy back provisions are super common in finance, they are fairly common in real estate as well. I would be pretty confident this has been vetted by Tesla's law firm (I will note once again that I told you so back in March so props to me for having a well-tuned crystal ball).

I’m one of the guys that companies like Tesla would hire and pay $2,050/hr to consider, strategize, and draft provisions like this.

This provision isn’t exactly drafted to do what folks are suggesting.


Which is to say, it’s not drafted based on clearly settled law, to have clearly defined consequence, with clearly defined proceeders, clearly defined outcomes, clearly defined money amounts invoked, or clearly defined on/off switches.

It’s instead drafted to primarily function as psychological warfare, wherein a $1T corporation with a 400 person in-house legal team has all the leverage over any customer, and has inordinate flexibility to do, pay, or enforce how it pleases.


Personally, if when my order is called this provision still applies, it all but guarantees (alongside my other cost/benefit items). that I won’t complete my order.

If that sounds odd to anyone, it’s because they have different principles, or less understanding.

 

[cvalue13]

Not seeing any support for your assertion that there is “decent risk”. Practically speaking Tesla would not even know about the agreement until the title transfer—which would occur after the requisite 12month period.

if you can provide even one detailed scenario where this would not work I’d like to see it…

I can provide a 100

I do this for a living, for 15 years, for companies more sophisticated than Tesla (legal), and assets far more valuable.


Meanwhile, on the limited point of Tesla not knowing about this agreement until the title transfers after a year:

explain exactly how your LLC registers, insures, services, home charges, and supercharges this truck for a year?


it’s not that a corporate ownership arrangement could net be drafted and agreed, of course it could - it’s that nobody here suggesting that path appears to have an appreciation for the length and complexity of that document needed to make it work well for both buyer and seller (unless the two parties have other reasons to trust and play nice - like being relatives, etc.).

Even then, it leaves open the possibility of a trail of info that, even if this no resale provision doesn’t trigger, Tesla can take any of it’s other contractual rights (eg voiding warranty, shutting out from supercharging, etc.)

 

[Balthezor]

I can almost see the faces of those brokers who made a ton of money on the Bronco debacle. So happy Tesla is doing this. We all know they preordered hundreds in anticipation for demand.

 

[SDLCyberTruck41]

I’m one of the guys that companies like Tesla would hire and pay $2,050/hr to consider, strategize, and draft provisions like this.

This provision isn’t exactly drafted to do what folks are suggesting.


Which is to say, it’s not drafted based on clearly settled law, to have clearly defined consequence, with clearly defined proceeders, clearly defined outcomes, clearly defined money amounts invoked, or clearly defined on/off switches.

It’s instead drafted to primarily function as psychological warfare, wherein a $1T corporation with a 400 person in-house legal team has all the leverage over any customer, and has inordinate flexibility to do, pay, or enforce how it pleases.


Personally, if when my order is called this provision still applies, it all but guarantees (alongside my other cost/benefit items). that I won’t complete my order.

If that sounds odd to anyone, it’s because they have different principles, or less understanding.

So what you're saying in your profession legal opinion is that there is no way around the clause?

I'm all for reselling, let capitalism breathe and let the early adapters benefit. Tesla gets their money one way or another, and the hot resale market for initial deliveries will subside once production gets cranking. Which leads me to believe this clause is only for the foundation series.

Sponsored