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

[cvalue13]

While I'm not a fan of relying on polls, the recent poll on this forum (suggests) that most agree with Tesla having a no resellers provision.

yeah, because people who disagree with the vocal hopium minority feel compelled to stick around or speak up - and take dumb polls

Here’s a different datapoint for you to distort with your hopium:

The original post that showed the provision has received 35 *likes* to date. Unclear what percentage of those were ‘liking’ the provision, or just liking the OP’s sharing of new information.

Meanwhile, my initial response to that OP, the 3rd comment on the thread right up top, calling the strategy an egregious sh*tshow has 24 *likes*

This data, I submit, is unreliable but *more* reliable than these dumb “polls” that are ill-constructed and ill-administered.

So, to the extent you want to use this forum’s “data” as a weather-vein for the general public’s feelings - you’re here again doing nothing more than having biased interpretations of convenient info

Sponsored

 

[ÆCIII]

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.




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.




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.




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:



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.

I apologize if my views are not consistent with what you believe on this topic or if they came across disrespectful in any way. We all should be able to express our views without resorting to calling names. Many on this forum support the no reseller provision besides only me. The reseller provision is up to Tesla, so venting to me about it will not change whatever they decide.

Making you upset or overstaying a visit in your head rent free over this one topic was never my intention. I've actually appreciated many of your contributions on this forum over the past few months.

Whatever happens on the reseller provision or clauses will be decided by Tesla, so maybe you should vent your concerns to them. Everyone on this forum has a right to express their views within the content bounds set by administrators, and I will certainly continue to do so.

- ÆCIII

 

[fhteagle]

weather-vein

This typo amused my pre-coffee brain way more than it should have.

Could have just as easily been "whether vain", as in whether or not Tesla is vain enough to think people will slurp up whatever horrible contract terms they put out there. Judging by sales of Tesla inspired "collectibles" and how naively many insert their own "But the line!" logic over reading the clause's actual terms and thinking through its very real potential consequences.... Tesla's vanity might not be so misplaced after all. Which is of course repugnant in the extreme.

 

[SlegMD]

Polls speak with a modicum of truth.

The glorious internet allows even the smallest collection of thought to present as a majority.

 

[pricedm]

Meanwhile, over at GM: no resale for 6 months:

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/11/2024-gmc-canyon-at4x-has-a-6-month-ownership-requirement/amp/

 

[fhteagle]

Meanwhile, over at GM: no resale for 6 months:

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/11/2024-gmc-canyon-at4x-has-a-6-month-ownership-requirement/amp/

From the article: "That said, the ownership requirement does not prevent dealerships from adding large markups to the vehicles."

So the government mandated professional scalpers (aka "stealerships") get free reign to resell at whatever price the market will bear, but John Q Public can't?

Absurd.

 

[cvalue13]

Meanwhile, over at GM: no resale for 6 months:

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/11/2024-gmc-canyon-at4x-has-a-6-month-ownership-requirement/amp/

This is good to know, but let’s be clear about apples-and-oranges:

“General Motors will void certain warranty coverage for the 2024 GMC Canyon AT4X if customers transfer ownership within half a year after taking delivery.”

What GM has done above, for 6 months, Is what Tesla already had in place for years. Not to mention, over and above this, Tesla already had other tools in place (monitoring or blocking supercharger access, forbidding future purchases from Tesla, etc.).

Which is all to say:

“Meanwhile, over at GM, they’re only just now partially catching up to one part of what Tesla’s had in place for years”


None of which is really relevant or at all similar to what Tesla was ADDING in the recent (disappearing) provision.

 

[FarAway]

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/

I read the entire thread. Wow, that is one of the most horrific customer service, let alone car, stories I have ever read... and I come out of the airline industry. Shocking and scary!

 

[JBee]

I mean, legally and contractually, they absolutely can (assuming there’s not an extra-contractual theory of law that says the four corners of the document can’t be upheld or a policy reason).

And that’s the point I was making, basically:

One of roughly two things must be true:

(1) Tesla intended these consequences (in which case, f*ck ‘em), or

(2) The provision was so ill-considered these consequences are just further evidence of the idiocy involved in putting this provision forward (in which case, f*ck ‘em)

And get’s back to my earlier parenthetical regarding extra-contractual reasons for a court to not uphold/enforce such a provision despite being otherwise “legal”:

At the end of the day, a buyer with adequate time and resources and the right set of facts would likely in court be able to have this provision gutted.

And the *only* reason that wouldn’t occur is because inequities between a buyer and Tesla - in terms of time and resources - would be so imbalanced that Tesla could likely just outmaneuver (eg drag out, make expensive) to a default “win”

Which gets us back to where we started

To be clear I didn't mean to dispute your point, rather to agree with it. And to add that if Tesla could take the complete sale proceeds to a third party, than I questioned who would have to pay off any finance there might be on the vehicle. This would be a double whammy for the customer.

 

[cvalue13]

To be clear I didn't mean to dispute your point, rather to agree with it. And to add that if Tesla could take the complete sale proceeds to a third party, than I questioned who would have to pay off any finance there might be on the vehicle. This would be a double whammy for the customer.

yes I know, and same

was instead only trying to point out that the “double whammy” you describe could be viewed as either intentional or unintentional, and on either interpretation an absurd result

 

[cyberwulf]

... so you buy in good faith, but soon after someone makes an offer you can't refuse.

as a wealthy friend once told me "everything is for sale, it's just a matter of price"

does the reseller possibility matter? I mean if someone willingly sells, and someone willingly pays 2x or more what's wrong with that? They weren't forced!

what ticks me off is DEALER scalping "Mark up"

Is it a certainty that delivery will be made by date/time order was placed? I really doubt it.

The Ioniq 5 was in short supply, some states had it long before others.

 

[fhteagle]

This popped up on my local radio station this morning. Apropos lyrics, no?

 

[Cybertruck Tampa]

Don’t know if that’s a win for consumers.

 

[cvalue13]

We all should be able to express our views without resorting to calling names.

*you’re* the one who implied that anyone who disagreed with this dumb s*it provision must themselves be a scalper

don’t act like you’re taking some high road now

jesus

Many on this forum support the no reseller provision besides only me.

yes, on this topic some are equally clueless and vitriolic as you

Some of the other ones, who had that mirror put up to themselves, cried “I’m taking my toys and leaving” and either fled to the vapid, hopium echo chamber of xwitter, or instead blocked people and put their fingers in their ears and loudly repeat “I’m so cool, they’re so mean!”

The reseller provision is up to Tesla, so venting to me about it will not change whatever they decide.

*you* @‘d *me* here man

Everyone on this forum has a right to express their views within the content bounds set by administrators, and I will certainly continue to do so.

yeah - and when you decide to @ me, and dish-out cowardly and ridiculous strawmen, I’ll call you out for it every time

for more like-minded applause, feel free to also migrate to xwitter or block out the people who call that BS

 

[Rozonoe]

A win for greedy b@$!@rd$.

Has nothing to do with greedy you know what! If the price that I signed the réservation for is not the same for the 2 motors, then I want the 1 motor, however it is said that it won't be available, so I will purchase the 2 motors & if I don't like it, I will sell it. Canadian customer are not about to get the invite anyway.

Sponsored