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

[TickTock]

I, too, would love to hear why Tesla added that clause. As JCW stated, it only benefits Tesla to have these truck flipped for such exorbitant prices. Furthermore, if there is a "no resale" clause on your purchase agreement, do you really own the truck? Once you put the money down, it is yours - to do with as you please.

OTOH, I disagree with JCW stating this is "anti-capitalism." Tesla, for whatever reason, chose to put that clause on the purchase agreement. It is their product to define however they want. No-one is forcing anyone to buy it. Let the market decide if that clause reduces the price. Capitalism is still at work. Now, if the gov't put that requirement then you could argue it was anti-capitalism. But that is not what is going. Still open market. Still capitalism.

Sponsored

 

[firsttruck]

Not just politicians.

Solicitation (bribe) to someone to break policy or rules might get the solicitior in big trouble.

Some say no big deal, those other children that got skipped over / did not get admitted could have just gone to other cheaper schools.

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

Varsity Blues Bribery scandal & College Admissions Scandal.
Some parents bribe college/university employees to get their children admitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal

In 2019, a scandal arose over a criminal conspiracy to influence undergraduate admissions decisions at several top American universities. The investigation into the conspiracy was code named Operation Varsity Blues.[1][2] The investigation and related charges were made public on March 12, 2019, by United States federal prosecutors. At least 53[3] people have been charged as part of the conspiracy,[4][5] a number of whom pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty. Thirty-three parents of college applicants were accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to William Rick Singer, organizer of the scheme, who used part of the money to fraudulently inflate entrance exam test scores and bribe college officials.[6][7] Of the 32 parents named in a Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, more than half had apparently paid bribes to have their children enrolled at the University of Southern California (USC).

......

* List of just a few parents who went to prison or paid large fines.

Lori Loughlin
Actress best known for her roles on Full House and When Calls the Heart. Sentenced to 2 months in prison, two years of supervised release, a $150,000 fine and 100 hours of community service.

Mossimo Giannulli (husband of Lori Loughlin)
Sentenced to 5 months in prison, two years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine and 250 hours of community service.

Jeffrey Bizzack
California businessman sentenced to two months in prison, $250,000 fine and to serve 900 hours of community service over three years of supervised release.

Todd Blake
Entrepreneur and investor, sentenced to 4 months in prison.

Marci Palatella
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud on August 25, 2021.[176] Sentenced on December 16, 2021, to six weeks in prison, a $250,000 fine, two years of supervised release, with a condition of home confinement for the first six months of supervised release, and 500 hours of community service, as previously recommended by both the prosecution and defense.

Robert Repella
Biotech executive who once served as CEO of Harmony Biosciences.[179] Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. Sentenced to a month home detention, 220 hours community service and a $220,000 fine.[

Xiaoning Sui
Canadian resident who paid $400,000 in an attempt to pose her son as an alleged soccer recruit. Held in Spanish prison for 5 months before being extradited to the United States to plead guilty and sentenced to time served, $250,000 fine and a forfeiture of $400,000.

Homayoun Zadeh
Associate professor of dentistry at USC. Reportedly lost book deal following the accusations. Pleaded guilty on July 9, 2021, to one count of filing a false tax return.[189] Was given a sentence of six weeks in prison, 250 hours of community service and a $20,000 fine.

Robert Flaxman
Founder and CEO of Crown Realty & Development. Pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest service mail fraud. Sentenced to one month in prison, 250 hours of community service, one year's supervised release and a $50,000 fine.

Michelle Janavs
Food industry executive and who was at one point regarded as the "heiress" to her father Paul Merage's former microwave snack company Hot Pockets.[57][201][202] Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Sentenced to five months in prison, 200 hours of community service, two years' supervised release and a $250,000 fine.

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

Not sure how that is relevant or counters my statements.

Solicitation / inducement ( even bribe) to someone to break a contract, policy or rule might get the solicitior in big trouble.

Even though the auction guy did not buy the Cybertruck directly from Tesla nor signed Tesla's Cybertruck contract, the auction guy could be liable if he knew the Cybertruck owner was under contract and the auction guy was bribing the Tesla customer to breach the contract.

Similar to buyer of stolen goods. If a person unknowingly bought a stolen good and was found out by the police, the buyer will probably lose the goods and their money but nothing more (no criminal charges). But if the buyer of stolen goods actual asked or urged the thief to commit the theft the buyer is in big trouble.

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

Maliciously interfering in a contract between two parties.
If an unrelated 3rd party does more than JUST give advice. Problematic things could be extreme emotional pressure, firing from job, large sums money, threats, blackmail, etc.
The things applied to the party in the contract do not need to be illegal (threats, blackmail, etc.).

Common legal names:
Inducement for breach of contract
Procuring a breach of contract
Accessory to Breach of Contract
Malicious procurement of the breach of a contract
Tortious interference with contract
Tort of interference with contractual relations

For over 120 years and multiple countries (UK, USA, Australia, Canada, and many more).
Even ruled on as early as 1894 by U.S. Supreme Court.

-----------

Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations in the Nineteenth Century: The Transformation of Property, Contract, and Tort
Harvard Law Review
Vol. 93, No. 7 (May, 1980), pp. 1510-1539 (30 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1340608

.....
1893 in UK, "Temperton v.Russell":
"A contract confers certain rights on the person with whom it is made,
and not only binds the parties to it by the obligation entered into, but
also imposes on all the world the duty of respecting that obligation."

-----------

United States Supreme Court - ANGLE v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. , 151 U.S. 1 (1894)
CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. is Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company
No. 73
Decided: January 03, 1894
[151 U.S. 1, 3] Statement by Mr. U.S. Supreme Court Justice BREWER:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/151/1.html

.....
"It has been repeatedly held that, if one maliciously interferes in a
contract between two parties, and induces one of them to break that
contract to the injury of the other, the party injured can maintain an
action against the wrongdoer."

-----------

Svantesson on the Law of Obligations
Subtitle: 4th edition (Revised)
The material dealt with is approached from an Australian perspective.
Author: Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Bond University (Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia) https://bond.edu.au
The book was first published by Pearson Education in 2007
This now the fourth edition revised in 2021
https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/s...t-of-interference-with-contractual-relations/

.....
accessible, yet comprehensive, overview of how the rules of common law and equity, together with the provisions of applicable legislation such as the Australian Consumer Law, the Fair Trading Acts, and the Sale of Goods Acts, affect contractual and other obligations. The material dealt with is approached from an Australian perspective.

.....
What is tortious interference with contract Australia?
Rule 23 makes clear that there are three categories of conduct that may constitute the tort of interference with contractual relations (i.e., factors relating to the defendant), and that there are two types of situations in which a plaintiff may successfully argue such a tort (i.e. factors relating to the plaintiff). The three types of conduct that may constitute the tort of interference with contractual relations are:
1. where the defendant uses pressure, persuasion, procurement or inducement towards the contract-breaking party;
2. where the defendant applies unlawful means directly towards the contract-breaking party; and
3 where the defendant applies unlawful means indirectly towards the contract-breaking party.

In relation to the first category mentioned above, it may be difficult to determine whether the defendant’s conduct amounts to “pressure, persuasion, procurement or inducement”, or merely constitutes advice. If the plaintiff cannot show that the defendant’s conduct goes beyond merely providing advice, her/his action will fail. This is only logical as otherwise anybody providing advice in relation to another person’s contractual arrangements may be accused of committing the tort of interference with contractual relations.

Further, in the first of these categories, there is no need for the defendant’s conduct to be unlawful.

Over the years, the details of the tort have been clarified. For example, while the Court in Lumley v Gye[2] focused on the defendant’s malicious intention, it is now clear that the courts should be focusing on whether the defendant had knowledge of the contract so as to act deliberately in bringing about its breach. While it has been suggested that the defendant must have acted knowingly and intentionally, Lindgren J has stated that:

Linguistic confusion can arise in respect of the alleged tortfeasor’s state of mind with respect to breach of the contract. Both “intention” and “knowledge” have been used in this context. But a person’s “knowledge” that what he is inducing will constitute a breach of contract and his “intention” to induce a breach of contract by what he is doing refer to one and the same thing. After all, ex hypothesi, the alleged tortfeasor’s acts are intentional, a breach of contract occurs, and the acts induce the breach. Against that background, “knowledge” and “intention” that the breach will result from the acts do not signify any relevant distinction.[3]

Indeed, the courts have gone even further, and it seems that actual knowledge is not required. Rather, it is suggested that reckless indifference as to whether a relevant contract exists,[4] or constructive knowledge of the existence of such a contract,[5] is sufficient.

Furthermore, it appears that an action in the tort of interference with contractual relations can succeed even where the contract-breaking party was more than willing to break the contract.[6]

-----------

Missouri Law ReviewMissouri Law Review
Volume 39, Issue 4
Fall 1974 Article 6
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2231&context=mlr

.....
As stated in Rosen v. Alside, Inc.,3 "a combination for the purpose of causing a breach of contract has been held to be an unlawful conspiracy.
A person who by conspiring with another or by collusive agreement with him assists him to violate his contract with a third person and to obtain the benefit of that contract for himself commits an actionable wrong."4 Since no damages would accrue unless a contract breach was induced, however, the conspiracy rule followed in Stephan and Rosen seems to be merely an extension of the action for "malicious procurement of the breach of a contract" which is recognized independently as a tort in Missouri.5 The "intentional interference with the contractual relation" without just cause so as to effect a breach of the contract is a "wrong for which the wrongdoer may be held accountable" in damages. 6 To recover, the plaintiff must show that the inducement of the breach was done maliciously. This does not require that actual malice or ill will be shown.7 An intentional act without justification suffices; 8 the use of coercion is not essential to recovery.9 It seems, however, that both the person who procured the breach and the person charged as co-conspirator must have full and actual knowledge of the previous contract with the plaintiff.' 0 The plaintiff must also have a valid contract to have a cause of action

-----------

What You Need to Know – Accessory to Breach of Contract
Leslie A. Beck
LAWYER at Gravenor Beck (Quebec, Canada)
Published Nov 14, 2022
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-you-need-know-accessory-breach-contract-leslie-a-beck

Article 1440 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“CCQ”) specifies that “[a] contract has effect only between the contracting parties; it does not affect third parties, except where provided for by law.” Yet, inciting a party to a contract, to breach that contract, can have legal consequences. The recent Judgment of the Superior Court in Bell Mobility Inc. vs. AP Wireless Investments gives an example of how this can occur.

.....
APW presented several arguments against the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting it from having access to leases with confidentiality clauses.

The first of these are arguments was that it was not bound by the confidentiality clauses.[xxii]

While recognizing that APW was not a party to any of the leases, the judge underlined that Quebec jurisprudence recognizes that “…the inducement of a third party to a contract to breach one of its contractual obligations constitutes a civil fault that may give rise to [civil] liability not only to the defaulting contracting party but also to the third-party inducer.”[xxiii] In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada in Trudel vs. Clairol[xxiv] “…confirmed that, from the point of view of civil law principles, when a third party is complicit in the breach of a contract to which it is not a party, it commits a… civil fault.

.....
“APW's breach of confidentiality is clear. In doing so, APW is in breach of its duty to exercise its rights in good faith. The protection of its business interests is not a valid justification for inducing the Owners to breach their duty of confidentiality.”

.....
The judge also rejected APW’s argument that Bell Mobility suffered no prejudice from the remittance of the leases to APW.[xxxv] He found that the confidentiality clauses served “…two main objectives. The first is to avoid disclosing [Bell Mobility’s] business strategies to third parties, in this case other telecommunications companies. This is quite common. A second objective is to prevent [Owners] from comparing the terms of their respective leases with each other, as these terms differ from lease to lease based on several considerations. These objectives are legitimate.”[xxxvi]
-----------

J.H. RAYMOND, JR., v. A.H. YARRINGTON ET AL
Court:Supreme Court of Texas
Date published: Apr 23, 1903
Summary
upholding right of purchaser of business to recover from third party for inducing seller of business to breach noncompetition provision of contract of sale
Summary of this case from CoreALM, LLC v. Keen Fusion, Inc.
https://casetext.com/case/raymond-v-yarrington

-----------

Campbell v. Matlock
749 S.W.2d 748 (1987)
Gerald L. CAMPBELL and Fort Loudon Realty and Auction, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Bill MATLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section, at Knoxville.
December 8, 1987.
https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-appeals/1987/749-s-w-2d-748-2.html

.....
THE LAW

The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in holding that Matlock procured a breach of the option contract.

In Tennessee, there is a cause of action for procurement of the breach of a contract both under the common law and by statute. Swift v. Beaty, 39 Tenn. App. 292, 282 S.W.2d 655 (1955), cert. denied (1955).

T.C.A. § 47-50-109 (1984) provides:
Procurement of breach of contracts unlawful Damages. It shall be unlawful for any person, by inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other means, to induce or procure the breach or violation, refusal or failure to perform any *751 lawful contract by any party thereto; and, in every case where a breach or violation of such contract is so procured, the person so procuring or inducing the same shall be liable in treble the amount of damages resulting from or incident to the breach of the contract; and the party injured by such breach may bring his suit for the breach and for such damages.

The Code Section relied on (47-1706, T.C.A.) [now T.C.A. § 47-50-109] and made the basis of this action under the Second count of the declaration contemplates the improper inducement, and we might add the unlawful conduct, of the alleged wrongdoer whereby a contract is broken. The statute contemplates the imposition of a severe penalty, "and should not be enforced except upon a clear showing." Lichter v. Fulcher, 22 Tenn. App. 670, 125 S.W.2d 501, 508.

Id. at 549-50, 322 S.W.2d at 230-31.

The elements of a cause of action for procurement of the breach of a contract are: there must be a legal contract; the wrongdoer must have knowledge of the existence of the contract; there must be an intention to induce its breach; the wrongdoer must have acted maliciously; there must be a breach of the contract; the act complained of must be the proximate cause of the breach of the contract; and there must have been damages resulting from the breach of the contract. Dynamic Motel Management, Inc. v. Erwin, 528 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tenn. App. 1975).

-----------

 

[TwilightHan]

This is not a crime as there is no victim.

The dude saw an opportunity and took advantage.

This is pure commerce and what capitalism is all about.

So spare me your rage -- and displays of envy.

So you are saying that signed agreements are meant to be voided because one party changes their mind. This is the opposite of why capatilism works and is theft not commerce.

There is no crime. Yes. Because it’s a civil matter. And a jury will look at the agreement, look at the actions, and then award accordingly.

Anyone who supports this is an embarrassment to man kind and spitting in the face of rules that we set forth to all work off a level playing field to make our system work properly.

 

[dw321]

I remember the days when agreements you signed were honored and not celebrated when they were broken.
I prefer those time to today.

 

[CyberGus]

Campbell v. Matlock
749 S.W.2d 748 (1987)
Gerald L. CAMPBELL and Fort Loudon Realty and Auction, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Bill MATLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section, at Knoxville.
December 8, 1987.
https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-appeals/1987/749-s-w-2d-748-2.html

Matlock won, of course

 

[MotoBenelli]

My guess the insertion of the clause is going to be just like the window break of the reveal night. All press and ahhs with no real follow up of actions to fix the windows or actually sue anyone.

 

[Gurule92]

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here. I think it's stupid to pay that much for a 79k truck. But I guess some people have stupid money.

What I will say, is there are going to be a lot of sad flippers when they realize that if there are already this many being sold. You aren't getting 200k lol

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inven...CE&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=d3353

 

[TTz]

Elon will be putting the price higher soon. He knows we will but at any price. I say $150k is reasonable, there is no other truck like this.

Low supply and high demand.
This resale was a one-off.
Three years from now, just like the Hummer EV and the Lightning, you will be able to pick CTs up at normal resale values.
Elon will not raise the price. He will lower it. Just like he has with Tesla cars.
First, he has a Giga factory that needs high through-put to be profitable.
Secondly, he wants to keep the pressure on the competition. A $150,000 CT makes the Rivian competitive. A $75,000 CT put Rivian into bankruptcy. A $100,000 CT gives Tesla a nice profit margin and lets the competition live, but only just barely.

 

[Gurule92]

I, too, would love to hear why Tesla added that clause. As JCW stated, it only benefits Tesla to have these truck flipped for such exorbitant prices. Furthermore, if there is a "no resale" clause on your purchase agreement, do you really own the truck? Once you put the money down, it is yours - to do with as you please.

OTOH, I disagree with JCW stating this is "anti-capitalism." Tesla, for whatever reason, chose to put that clause on the purchase agreement. It is their product to define however they want. No-one is forcing anyone to buy it. Let the market decide if that clause reduces the price. Capitalism is still at work. Now, if the gov't put that requirement then you could argue it was anti-capitalism. But that is not what is going. Still open market. Still capitalism.

Tbh, I think it just allowed the truck to be flipped for MORE. Which is what Tesla would want because it makes it seem even more cool and valuable. Helps you feel better about Tesla forcing that 100k price down your throat.

It's 3D chess and we're all losing

 

[TTz]

Exactly!

This brain-damaged ex-auto dealer, car flipper, joke of a businessman, acts like he supports capitalism, but then wants to restrict the producers right to sell the products they make with contractual encumbrances (like the no-resale clause).

You can't support capitalism without supporting the right of two consenting adults to enter into a contractual purchase/sale agreement!

The guy is a complete moron for not being able to see what a bone-headed position he's taking. I think he took too many hits to the brain back when he used to play football. Or, maybe he was born dumb. With capitalism, you make it, you own it, you get to write the terms of the sale. The buyer can take it or leave it.

That's true capitalistic freedom, he just doesn't get it.

That is true up until the product is sold.
Downline encumbrances are anti-competitive and difficult to enforce. If Elon is upset over CT flips, then he should have priced the truck closer to the demand price. If Tesla doesn’t like the optics, then accelerate the production pace. The closer supply gets to demand, the sooner CT flipping comes to an end. And Mr. John Clay Wolf will be back to high volume/low margin auctions.

 

[Beyond]

Much more interesting interview, with actually some real information:

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

So you are saying that signed agreements are meant to be voided because one party changes their mind. This is the opposite of why capatilism works and is theft not commerce.

There is no crime. Yes. Because it’s a civil matter. And a jury will look at the agreement, look at the actions, and then award accordingly.

Anyone who supports this is an embarrassment to man kind and spitting in the face of rules that we set forth to all work off a level playing field to make our system work properly.

Wow, you just hit the highest point of rage-meter and rang up the bell. Just be careful busting a vein.

Again, how is this theft?

And, you can set up a kiosk at the carnival with your ability to see things and jury verdict in your crystal ball.

 

[rudedawg78]

I remember the days when agreements you signed were honored and not celebrated when they were broken.
I prefer those time to today.

Well stated. Nowadays people look for loopholes on how to break contracts and not get into trouble.

Tesla's agreement that customer's sign (AND AGREE TO) is in straightforward English. I cannot understand why so many people breach the agreement just because they don't believe it to be right. You can agree or disagree with this clause in the contract, however when you sign it, you are agreeing to Tesla's terms.

I hope that the breaches get enforced or else they will continue to happen.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Because there is such thing as greater rights.

Those lawyers who draw up contracts are paid per word.

Also, they throw in everything there to scare you shitless.

Explains why your motgage agreement read like you've also mortgaging your soul together with your home.

 

[HaulingAss]

Lol name a company that compensates people when their vehicles are worth less than they paid for them. I'll wait.

An auto company could agree (in the Purchase/Sale Agreement) to compensate purchasers for loss in resale value. But that clause was not in the contract. Instead, the purchaser agreed to the "no re-sale" clause, breaking it is breach of contract, clear and simple.

Sponsored