Used preowned Cybertruck flip on Cargurus for $250K !

[ÆCIII]

Such an outrageous take. I'm not really a huge fan of resellers, but trying to put such severe limits on an individual's private property is just wild.

Tesla isn't asking for 'severe' limits. They only want the original owner to keep the vehicle for a year or more. That's not severe or unreasonable. Everyone signs the MVPA when they buy it. If they don't like Tesla's terms, then they don't have to buy.

Tesla is trying to make sure Cybertrucks are available to people that want them, not dealers or people like dealers who are just wanting to scam a buck off of them not really appreciating them at all. Those types don't treat a Tesla as 'private property' at all because they care only about flipping or turning them for money. So there is no offense to 'private property'.

When dealers or flippers buy a Cybertruck, that's more genuine buyers that didn't get to buy one, and also more other buyers that will get exploited. Tesla is simply trying to prevent this and assure a level playing field with fair access to all Genuine buyers. One year of a wait before resale is not too much to ask at all. Everyone's waited for four years already. One year will go by just like that.

- ÆCIII

Sponsored

 

[Carmino]

Tesla isn't asking for 'severe' limits. They only want the original owner to keep the vehicle for a year or more. That's not severe or unreasonable. Everyone signs the MVPA when they buy it. If they don't like Tesla's terms, then they don't have to buy.

Tesla is trying to make sure Cybertrucks are available to people that want them, not dealers or people like dealers who are just wanting to scam a buck off of them not really appreciating them at all. Those types don't treat a Tesla as 'private property' at all because they care only about flipping or turning them for money. So there is no offense to 'private property'.

- ÆCIII

Tesla isn't, but what you suggested is without question severe.

 

[Makeodds101]

annnnd that listing is already taken down lol

It’s still up when I look for it. They also have it available on their own website.

https://www.specialtycarcollection....-drive-truck-0550069f59e04f8c9914752b89ab045e

 

[ÆCIII]

Tesla isn't, but what you suggested is without question severe.

Whatever level of deterrence that is enough to assure Genuine buyers have access without dealers and flippers taking inventory like parasites - is good for me. Tesla just doesn't want dealers and flippers to exploit second buyers while also depriving genuine buyers of available inventory. I'm fine with whatever level is needed for Tesla to assure that. You can call it severe if you want, as I was giving an example of what might work. Many lessons learned need to be 'severe' for some people, because otherwise they never learn at all and keep making mistakes.

- ÆCIII

 

[Carmino]

Whatever level of deterrence that is enough to assure Genuine buyers have access without dealers and flippers taking inventory like parasites - is good for me. Tesla just doesn't want dealers and flippers to exploit second buyers while also depriving genuine buyers of available inventory. I'm fine with whatever level is needed for Tesla to assure. You can call it severe if you want, as I was giving an example of what might work. Many lessons learned need to be 'severe' for some people, because otherwise they never learn at all and keep making mistakes.

- ÆCIII

Tesla is within their right to drop the price of a vehicle $20k-$40k within a year of purchase — which they've done multiple times — so I think it's hyperbolic to call someone a parasite if they decide to resell for a profit. Maybe that's a hot take on this forum. Again, I don't really care for resellers, but the reaction to them on here is just a bit much. Let's not forget the AWD Foundation series doesn't even include $20k worth of add ons (even if you assume $12k for FSD).

 

[Dusty]

I think @keykeyg got it.

Maybe a company owns it and the company/ it’s assets gets sold ??‍

I'm no lawyer but if I sell you my company that has a vehicle in holding, you now have the vehicle. I sold you the company, the truck is still owned by the company.

Smarter people can chime in to correct me.

 

[ÆCIII]

Tesla is within their right to drop the price of a vehicle $20k-$40k within a year of purchase — which they've done multiple times — so I think it's hyperbolic to call someone a parasite if they decide to resell for a profit. Maybe that's a hot take on this forum. Again, I don't really care for resellers, but the reaction to them on here is just a bit much. Let's not forget the AWD Foundation series doesn't even include $20k worth of add ons (even if you assume $12k for FSD).

I agree with your comments about Foundation Series pricing, but my main concern is that if immediate reselling were allowed, then many more dealers and flippers would be taking Cybertruck inventory from genuine buyers, exploiting second buyers, and also affecting Tesla's reputation. This will happen easily because dealers and flippers tend to have more disposable cash on hand, whereas genuine buyers are more at a disadvantage.

Tesla can raise or lower prices as they want; so can legacy auto companies. But Tesla has made their pricing very transparent and it's up to the buyer whether to purchase or not.

If tons of dealers and resellers bought Cybertrucks unrestricted, the price would be superficially inflated and genuine buyers would have much less inventory access. Look at what happened to the NVidia RTX 30XX series GPUs after their release to market. Regular people couldn't even get to purchase one hardly for months or over a year after that. Of course many bought them for crypto-mining but the specific reasons don't matter as the outcome was the same.

This could easily happen to Cybertrucks if many dealers got their hands on them, because dealers are already in a hurting status with stagnation of their ICE vehicle sales, and they're looking for any way to obtain financial life support. This would just mean even more exploitation of buyers by dealers and terrible optics for Tesla. If it was even harder to get Cybertrucks on order right now (just like NVidia GPUs were), and then if people kept seeing them on dealer lots or reseller locations (like seeing plenty of youtubers review those NVidia GPUs), that would make a lot of people angry and result in reputation damage to Tesla.

Genuine buyers have every right to be assured Tesla will protect their Direct Sales business model, because its a cornerstone which helps assure quality and innovation for customers, and for sustainability.

Dealers are learning their approach is no longer sustainable, and I don't blame Tesla for not wanting any part of it.

- ÆCIII

 

[Carmino]

I agree with your comments about Foundation Series pricing, but my main concern is that if immediate reselling were allowed, then many more dealers and flippers would be taking Cybertruck inventory from genuine buyers, exploiting second buyers, and also affecting Tesla's reputation. This will happen easily because dealers and flippers tend to have more disposable cash on hand, whereas genuine buyers are more at a disadvantage.

Tesla can raise or lower prices as they want; so can legacy auto companies. But Tesla has made their pricing very transparent and it's up to the buyer whether to purchase or not.

If tons of dealers and resellers bought Cybertrucks unrestricted, the price would be superficially inflated and genuine buyers would have much less inventory access. Look at what happened to the NVidia 30XX series GPUs after their release to market. Regular people couldn't even get to purchase one hardly for months or over a year after that. Of course many bought them for crypto-mining but the specific reasons don't matter as the outcome was the same.

This could easily happen to Cybertrucks if many dealers got their hands on them, because dealers are already in a hurting status with stagnation of their ICE vehicle sales, and they're looking for any way to obtain financial life support. This would just mean even more exploitation of buyers by dealers and terrible optics for Tesla. If it was even harder to get Cybertrucks on order right now (just like NVidia GPUs were), and then people kept seeing them on dealer lots (like seeing plenty of youtubers review those NVidia GPUs), then that would make a lot of people angry and there would also be (perceived) reputation damage to Tesla.

Genuine buyers have every right to be assured that Tesla will assure and protect their Direct Sales business model, because that's one its cornerstones which helps to assure quality and innovation for their mission of sustainability.

Dealers are learning their approach is no longer sustainable, and I don't blame Tesla for not wanting any part of it.

- ÆCIII

Tesla's reputation has taken a far bigger toll based on constantly broken FSD promises, Elon tweets, dropping USS, Tesla Vision roll out woes, auto-wiper nonsense, actual Cybertruck pricing/specs, etc — far more than any damage than a few Cybertrucks being resold ever would.

Reselling isn't "exploiting buyers". Like you said with Tesla's "transparent pricing" — no one is making a person pay over sticker for a vehicle. Nothing about a free market reselling an incredibly expensive luxury purchase is exploitative. This isn't a truly fair market, so I don't have a problem with someone trying to profit off their 4 year wait should they decide. We both agree Tesla is in their right to make giant price cuts at any time they see fit. The market should be equal in that regard.

I don't really think the Nvidia card shortage is an apt comparison for obvious reasons. It's exponentially easier for someone to buy a few GPUs and stick them on eBay. Nvidia clearly never cared about resellers because why would they? Nvidia is a shrewd business who has repeatedly shown they don't care about easy/fair access to their cards since they get paid either way.

To reiterate a third time, I don't have a huge problem with the current resale provision, my problem was your suggestion about bricking someone's personal property and making it useless.

Ultimately, we agree to disagree, and that's totally cool. Cheers.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Once fully paid, ownership is absolute.

I read this was tested in court and the seller won.

Of course, Tesla can balcklist the seller. But they can't against the buyer since they are not party in the contract between Tesla and the seller.

 

[Gurule92]

Gone now?

 

[HaulingAss]

That needs to be tested in court

It's basic contract law. It doesn't need to be tested in court because it's pretty basic. It will hold up if Tesla wants to go there. And, as a Cybertruck reservationist, I hope they do.

 

[HaulingAss]

Once fully paid, ownership is absolute.

I read this was tested in court and the seller won.

That's false. No resale clauses have been upheld consistently. Ownership does not negate any contractual obligations. Don't be stupid.

 

[Cyberman]

Tesla can sue owners for $50k OR the profit gained from any sale, whichever is greater.

Good luck with that one. It'll never hold up, and they know it. The best they can do is never again sell (directly) to them.

 

[jookyone]

they can't against the buyer since they are not party in the contract between Tesla

This ^ the buyer walks away with the truck, the seller pays the penalty.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

That's false. No resale clauses have been upheld consistently. Ownership does not negate any contractual obligations. Don't be stupid.

Before you use the word stupid to point your fingers to others, dig and research first because it might come to bite you with the other 4 fingers pointing back at you.

I may inly have 32 units of commercial law hut this clause is very basic "restraint of trade."

Yes, Google is free. Key words, court cases of no resale clause of supercars, MB, MG and even Ford.

Sponsored