❗️ He FLIPPED his CYBERTRUCK for $245,000 🥵 How He Feels about NO-RESALE Agreement & Profit Made

[HaulingAss]

HA, not sure what you are talking about. I understand you feel attacked. Nothing false about what I am stating.

I don't know where you got that I feel attacked, it's Tesla and Elon Musk that is being attacked from all sides, not me. Because Tesla and Elon Musk are a threat to so many.

Sponsored

 

[firsttruck]

Well, how about Tesla honor our reservation price $39K for the Cybertruck first then talk about no one can flip it for higher?

Looks like you didn't read before agreeing.

The price was always subject to change and resellers were always prohibited.

** "we may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle" **

Besides the official Cybertruck Motor Vehicle Pre-Order Agreement Terms & Conditions, there were many other web sites that also discussed the agreement.

-------------------------

2019 Nov 21
Cybertruck Motor Vehicle Pre-Order Agreement Terms & Conditions
https://www.tesla.com/order/download-order-agreement?redirect=no&country=US&model_code=mp

.....
Your Cybertruck Motor Vehicle Pre-Order Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made up of the following documents:
1. Vehicle Configuration: The Vehicle Configuration will be confirmed with you at a later date. It will describe the vehicle that you configure,
including pricing (excluding taxes and official or government fees).
2. Final Price Sheet: The Final Price Sheet will be provided to you as your delivery date nears. It will include final pricing based on your Vehicle
Configuration and will include taxes and official or governmental fees.

.....
Your Vehicle is priced and configured based on features and options available at the time of order and you can confirm availability with a Tesla representative. Options, features or hardware released after you place your order may not be included in or available for your Vehicle.

Pre-Order Price, Taxes and Official Fees. The pre-order price of the Vehicle will be confirmed in your Vehicle Configuration and Final Price Sheet. As you may have only configured part of your Vehicle, any pre-order price provided to you in advance of the Final Price Sheet is only being offered to you as an estimate and is subject to change. Any pre-order price listed in the Vehicle Configuration will not include taxes and official or government fees, which could amount to up to 10% or more of the Vehicle pre-order price. Because these taxes and fees are constantly changing and will depend on many factors, such as where you register the Vehicle, they will be calculated closer to the 'me of delivery and indicated on your Final Price Sheet. You are responsible for paying these additional taxes and fees. If you present a check for any payment, we may process the payment as a normal check transaction, or we may use information from your check to make a one-'me electronic fund transfer from your account, in which case your bank account will reflect this transaction as an Electronic Fund Transfer.

Pre-Order Process; Cancellation; Changes. After you submit your completed pre-order and the options you selected become available in production, we will invite you to complete the configuration of your Vehicle. We will then issue you the Vehicle Configuration and Final Price Sheet based on the base price of the model and any options included or that you select. Your Pre-Order Payment covers the cost of these activities and other processing costs and is not a deposit for the Vehicle. Until your Vehicle is delivered to you, you may cancel your pre-order at any me, in which case you will receive a full refund of your Pre-Order Payment. Unl your final configurationon is matched to a vehicle, you may make changes to your Vehicle Configurationtion. If you make changes to the configuration of the Vehicle, you may be subject to potential price increases for any pricing adjustments made since your original Pre-Order Date. Any changes made by you to your Vehicle Configuration, including changes to the delivery location or estimated delivery date, will be reflected in a subsequent Vehicle Configuration that will form part of this Agreement. When you take delivery of the Vehicle, we will provide a credit to the final pre-order price of your Vehicle equivalent to the amount of the Pre-Order Payment you paid. This Pre-Order Payment and this Agreement are not made or entered into in anticipation of or pending any conditional sale contract.

.....
No Resellers; Discontinuation; Cancellation. Tesla and its affiliates sell cars directly to end-consumers, and we may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle or that has otherwise been made in bad faith. We may also cancel your pre-order and refund your Pre-Order Payment if we discontinue a product, feature or option after the time you place your pre-order or if we determine that you are acting in bad faith.

-------------------------

Published Nov 27, 2019

Read this clause in the Tesla Cybertruck Agreement before you order!
By Sogand Shamsaria
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/read-clause-tesla-cybertruck-agreement-before-you-order-shamsaria

.....
Tesla Cybertruck Pre-Order Agreement

This bad boy covers your vehicle configuration, details about the final price and the T&Cs. The most salient six points being:

1.- The pre-order's “Final Price” you will be agreeing to may only be an estimate. No taxes and additional fees (can reach up to 10% or more) have been added to this price. These will all be calculated closer to delivery time and issued on your "Final Price Sheet".

2.- Until your Vehicle is delivered, you may cancel your pre-order at any time, in which case you will receive a full refund of your Pre-Order Payment.

3.- Until your final configuration is matched to a vehicle, you may make changes to your Vehicle Configuration.

4.- If you’re picking up your vehicle when it’s ready, you only have one week to do so otherwise it may get resold!

5.- If you’re buying a Cybertruck just to resell it (or anything else in “bad faith”) and Tesla find out, they can cancel your order. No consent needed. Ouch.

6.- As Tesla hasn’t begun manufacturing your Cybertrucks yet, there is no guarantee on when or if delivery will happen!


---------------------------------

 

[JBee]

I will not answer for HaulingAss but my answer to the question is

Simple question has a simple answer.
The bank did not sign a contract with Tesla. The bank does not have a 1-year no resale restriction.

Yes, thanks for answering that, I didn't see it as a serious question that needed an answer, but maybe it was.

You have just proven the complete hypocrisy of your point of view.

So now you are both saying it is ok that the bank sells the vehicle by repossessing it?

But it's NOT ok for the owner to try to resell it before it is repossessed by the bank?

You are both off the charts.

To say this perception of justice is warped is an understatement.

I have another one for you:

Q: When you make a cash deposit on your saving account with the bank, legally who's money is it to use as they please?

 

[HaulingAss]

You have just proven the complete hypocrisy of your point of view.

So now you are both saying it is ok that the bank sells the vehicle by repossessing it?

But it's NOT ok for the owner to try to resell it before it is repossessed by the bank?

You are both off the charts.

To say this perception of justice is warped is an understatement.

Justice follows the contract. At first I thought you were faking it, now I'm thinking you really have no clue when it comes to contract law.

There is no doubt the bank has the right to reposses the truck. What they do with it is between the bank and Tesla and not really relevant to the contract between the buyer and Tesla.

You seem to think there is some unwritten rule of justice. But the contract defines the terms of the sale.

 

[JBee]

Justice follows the contract. At first I thought you were faking it, now I'm thinking you really have no clue when it comes to contract law.

That is the biggest heap of BS you have stated yet.

The contract only becomes valid if it follows the rules and is found to having standing in the court. Illegal or invalid contracts and terms are struck down by the hundreds every day. Even you admitted that at one stage.

There is no doubt the bank has the right to reposses the truck. What they do with it is between the bank and Tesla and not really relevant to the contract between the buyer and Tesla.

You seem to think there is some unwritten rule of justice. But the contract defines the terms of the sale.

No you are just blatantly pushing a narrative and are arguing ad hominem, because you lack any understanding of the clause, simply because you keep misquoting it, and making up your own versions of it to make your unbased arguments. The clause is actually unenforceable in court anyway, if you would of read cvalues posts.

Regardless of this, the reality is that the public view of this will determine the outcome and IF AT ALL Tesla will try to pursue someone under the clause.

Tesla will not do something to reduce demand, and in the end every car sold is a win for them at the price they set, which btw is far beyond even your expectations. Who it goes to is meaningless as is how much it is resold for, for those pitiful few that ever do for more.

The only remaining value of the clause as a deterrent for fools like you, to discuss ad infinitum to propagate FUD to those who have not had to deal with the law and cower in fear of your verbal battering.

Accordingly, I'm not here to rebut your ignorance, I don't have enough lifetimes for that, rather only to make sure that another more reasonable representation of the implications of the clause are heard by those reading your rubbish, and attacks on them for ever daring to think differently to you.

 

[HaulingAss]

That is the biggest heap of BS you have stated yet.

The contract only becomes valid if it follows the rules and is found to having standing in the court. Illegal or invalid contracts and terms are struck down by the hundreds every day. Even you admitted that at one stage.



No you are just blatantly pushing a narrative and are arguing ad hominem, because you lack any understanding of the clause, simply because you keep misquoting it, and making up your own versions of it to make your unbased arguments. The clause is actually unenforceable in court anyway, if you would of read cvalues posts.

Regardless of this, the reality is that the public view of this will determine the outcome and IF AT ALL Tesla will try to pursue someone under the clause.

Tesla will not do something to reduce demand, and in the end every car sold is a win for them at the price they set, which btw is far beyond even your expectations. Who it goes to is meaningless as is how much it is resold for, for those pitiful few that ever do for more.

The only remaining value of the clause as a deterrent for fools like you, to discuss ad infinitum to propagate FUD to those who have not had to deal with the law and cower in fear of your verbal battering.

Accordingly, I'm not here to rebut your ignorance, I don't have enough lifetimes for that, rather only to make sure that another more reasonable representation of the implications of the clause are heard by those reading your rubbish, and attacks on them for ever daring to think differently to you.

You sound awfully certain the "no resale" clause would be found to be an "illegal restraint of trade", or some other such nonsense, should Tesla enforce it. Are you willing to designate an escrow account of $100K to cover any profits Tesla claws back from people who take your advice to ignore the clause since you are so sure it would be found to be repugnant to the law? Of course, that would likely be an insufficient amount because Tesla wouldn't just go after one offender at a time, they would batch a bunch of them together to avoid the appearance of picking on one of many.

I'm suggesting people exercise reasonable caution before ignoring such clearly spelled out contractual terms. The Australian is recommending you take all the risk while he cheerleads you from the sidelines on the other side of the globe.

 

[JBee]

You sound awfully certain the "no resale" clause would be found to be an "illegal restraint of trade", or some other such nonsense, should Tesla enforce it. Are you willing to designate an escrow account of $100K to cover any profits Tesla claws back from people who take your advice to ignore the clause since you are so sure it would be found to be repugnant to the law? Of course, that would likely be an insufficient amount because Tesla wouldn't just go after one offender at a time, they would batch a bunch of them together to avoid the appearance of picking on one of many.

I'm suggesting people exercise reasonable caution before ignoring such clearly spelled out contractual terms. The Australian is recommending you take all the risk while he cheerleads you from the sidelines on the other side of the globe.

I didn't claim I'm a lawyer, nor give anyone legal advice, I just disputed you specifically and your unfounded claims.

I've also never said anyone should do it one way or the other, especially not based on what I say.

You on the otherhand say they definitely should NOT, and continue to barrage them into the ground until they submit to your position, which of itself holds no authority or evidence whatsoever, nor even the correct interpretation or wording of the clause.

There is also a big difference between the likelihood of risk and the consequence of the risk. All topics you can't seemingly distinguish between to make a fair a nuanced assessment of the situation.

To be clear I am mostly repeating what other members have said who are actual lawyers and whom I personally know and have met, in your jurisdiction of the USA, rather than some random forum hack called Hauling Ass that is proclaiming from the rooftops that Elon is the second coming and he and his followers, including you apparently, can never be at fault of anything whatsoever no matter what they do or why they do it.

So lets pack up the fanboi extremism and stick at least remotely to the facts and hear both sides of the arguement with considered responses, without bashing everyone over the head with opinion pieces.

 

[HaulingAss]

I didn't claim I'm a lawyer, nor give anyone legal advice, I just disputed you specifically and your unfounded claims.

I've also never said anyone should do it one way or the other, especially not based on what I say.

You on the otherhand say they definitely should NOT, and continue to barrage them into the ground until they submit to your position, which of itself holds no authority or evidence whatsoever, nor even the correct interpretation or wording of the clause.

There is also a big difference between the likelihood of risk and the consequence of the risk. All topics you can't seemingly distinguish between to make a fair a nuanced assessment of the situation.

To be clear I am mostly repeating what other members have said who are actual lawyers and whom I personally know and have met, in your jurisdiction of the USA, rather than some random forum hack called Hauling Ass that is proclaiming from the rooftops that Elon is the second coming and he and his followers, including you apparently, can never be at fault of anything whatsoever no matter what they do or why they do it.

So lets pack up the fanboi extremism and stick at least remotely to the facts and hear both sides of the arguement with considered responses, without bashing everyone over the head with opinion pieces.

To be clear, you didn't meaningful dispute anything I said with supporting facts, you simply disagreed with me while refusing to back up your claims with anything at all. You state the contract terms are illegal and repugnant to the law without any supporting evidence (I guess it should just be common sense that you paid for it so you can do what you want with it regardlesss of what you actually agreed to) . You have also failed to explain why so many manufacturers have used "no resale" clauses if they are repugnant to the law.

This was the same thing you did when claiming the Cybertruck's stainless-steel panels were not in the "load path" and therefore couldn't be structural. Complete BS to anyone who understands structural engineering. Now you are making the same kind of uninformed and unsupported legal arguments.

You don't have any skin in the game and yet you are cheering on and encouraging people on the other side of the globe to break the terms of the agreements they signed their name to.

 

[JBee]

To be clear, you didn't meaningful dispute anything I said with supporting facts, you simply disagreed with me while refusing to back up your claims with anything at all. You state the contract terms are illegal and repugnant to the law without any supporting evidence (I guess it should just be common sense that you paid for it so you can do what you want with it regardlesss of what you actually agreed to) . You have also failed to explain why so many manufacturers have used "no resale" clauses if they are repugnant to the law.

This was the same thing you did when claiming the Cybertruck's stainless-steel panels were not in the "load path" and therefore couldn't be structural. Complete BS to anyone who understands structural engineering. Now you are making the same kind of uninformed and unsupported legal arguments.

You don't have any skin in the game and yet you are cheering on and encouraging people on the other side of the globe to break the terms of the agreements they signed their name to.

I think 6-7 months of this clause rubbish over 10's of threads is enough rebutal. I'm not sure how you mean I have no skin in the game, you know I have multiple orders for CT in the USA, but I plan on keeping them for our own use.

As I said I'm not taking legal advice on a contract clause from a wannabe cowboy, neither am I giving any except to say there has been enough said by those that do actually know and are qualified to say how it is, people you have blocked and don't read.

For me it's an easy choice who to believe or not on the legalities of the clause, despite all the other arguments I have made on the logic and usefulness of the clause (which has nothing to do with its standing in a court btw), how it doesn't stop scalping (as is now proven), impacts genuine customers by threatening them (to which you agree) into conduct they should not be subject too (which for some bizarre reason you don't agree).

You also have a wild internal misconception that you flip flop between, that all terms in a (any?) contract are following precedent and are legally binding. This is simply a flat out lie, because only the court can determine each individual contracts standing, case by case, and then make orders to enforce it.

You then misconstrue that if you signed something with no standing to mean a person signing it intentionally "lied". Both can't be true at the same time. If it has no standing and it is inadmissible to begin with, signing it is of no consequence.

Then we have the whole set of red herrings of reasons why Tesla included the clause and how great it is for customers and Tesla, yet they themselves have cashed in using much higher prices that even surprised you, and are skipping reservations to bundle FS accessories for even more than what was "locked in" for, like FSD at full price, that are not even avaiable to use on any of the range yet.

So who exactly is fleecing who here? Who is promising what?
Who is being bullied?
Who is being mislead?

Ah the loyal Tesla customer, sheep to the slaughter.

Seriously though I have never once heard you say Tesla did you or anyone wrong in any way. Everything is always justified away which is pathologically unrealistic perception of how things are in reality, let alone an unnatural and extreme relationship to have with a car company.

So I ask you again genuinely: Why are you doing this?

 

[HaulingAss]

I think 6-7 months of this clause rubbish over 10's of threads is enough rebutal. I'm not sure how you mean I have no skin in the game, you know I have multiple orders for CT in the USA, but I plan on keeping them for our own use.

As I said I'm not taking legal advice on a contract clause from a wannabe cowboy, neither am I giving any except to say there has been enough said by those that do actually know and are qualified to say how it is, people you have blocked and don't read.

For me it's an easy choice who to believe or not on the legalities of the clause, despite all the other arguments I have made on the logic and usefulness of the clause (which has nothing to do with its standing in a court btw), how it doesn't stop scalping (as is now proven), impacts genuine customers by threatening them (to which you agree) into conduct they should not be subject too (which for some bizarre reason you don't agree).

You also have a wild internal misconception that you flip flop between, that all terms in a (any?) contract are following precedent and are legally binding. This is simply a flat out lie, because only the court can determine each individual contracts standing, case by case, and then make orders to enforce it.

You then misconstrue that if you signed something with no standing to mean a person signing it intentionally "lied". Both can't be true at the same time. If it has no standing and it is inadmissible to begin with, signing it is of no consequence.

Then we have the whole set of red herrings of reasons why Tesla included the clause and how great it is for customers and Tesla, yet they themselves have cashed in using much higher prices that even surprised you, and are skipping reservations to bundle FS accessories for even more than what was "locked in" for, like FSD at full price, that are not even avaiable to use on any of the range yet.

So who exactly is fleecing who here? Who is promising what?
Who is being bullied?
Who is being mislead?

Ah the loyal Tesla customer, sheep to the slaughter.

Seriously though I have never once heard you say Tesla did you or anyone wrong in any way. Everything is always justified away which is pathologically unrealistic perception of how things are in reality, let alone an unnatural and extreme relationship to have with a car company.

So I ask you again genuinely: Why are you doing this?

You can be sure I don't explain the right of consenting adults to enter into legally binding contracts in order to teach you anything. 'Nuff said.

 

[JBee]

You can be sure I don't explain the right of consenting adults to enter into legally binding contracts in order to teach you anything. 'Nuff said.

I agree, you don't explain or justify it whatsoever.

Time for next the topic.

Sponsored