Be careful selling your Cybertruck! Tesla found sale listings, cancelled my other reservations and I may be blacklisted

[SlegMD]

Haha. Nice theory you have concocted in your mind. Just for fun, please feel free to point us to said bot that would give that statement. I’ll wait.

I said “sounds like”, we all know around here that Tesla staff generally know little regarding more complex issues and shouldn’t be relied upon first glance. I definitely don’t consider this statement accurate regarding their intentions to engage with you. You should be more cautious, you continue to make mistakes that seem to be causing you trouble.

Sponsored

 

[malinecentral]

I said “sounds like”, we all know around here that Tesla staff generally know little regarding more complex issues and shouldn’t be relied upon first glance. I definitely don’t consider this statement accurate regarding their intentions to engage with you. You should be more cautious, you continue to make mistakes that seem to be causing you trouble.

Again, you can believe whatever you like. I can tell you I followed all directions I was given by Tesla. Like I mentioned in another reply, until we have a confirmed case of Tesla buying back a vehicle I will maintain my stance.

 

[SlegMD]

Again, you can believe whatever you like. I can tell you I followed all directions I was given by Tesla. Like I mentioned in another reply, until we have a confirmed case of Tesla buying back a vehicle I will maintain my stance.

Cool, keep us all updated, it has been amusing so far watching you hand Tesla your balls on a platter!

 

[malinecentral]

Cool, keep us all updated, it has been amusing so far watching you hand Tesla your balls on a platter!

For sure. It has also been amusing watching you internet lawyers who don’t even have a truck moan and complain.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

I find it dubious, again elementary restraint on commerce, if I'm not allowed to resell a Cybertruck already paid and I wholly owned.

2nd that Tesla can force me to sell to them the Cybertruck below the price I want -- and when they refuse is not to be taken as waiver and non exercise of first refusal.

I only have 33 units of commerical law so I'll just argue on the simple common sense rights of ownership.

 

[JBee]

I find it dubious, again elementary restraint on commerce, if I'm not allowed to resell a Cybertruck already paid and I wholly owned.

2nd that Tesla can force me to sell to them the Cybertruck below the price I want -- and when they refuse is not to be taken as waiver and non exercise of first refusal.

I only have 33 units of commerical law so I'll just argue on the simple common sense rights of ownership.

Exactly, it has to be established in some form to begin with.

It's like when you purchase and pay for something at the checkout in a store and they check your receipt on the way out.

You have already purchased it and its yours, and they have no right to check(haress) your personal belongings, even if they post conditions of entry. There is no difference if you walk out of there with you new sneakers, one minute later or one year later. Once you pass the buck, ownership and all the rights are transfered.

The only real enforcable threat here is that they can refuse you further service (provided it doesn't relate to safe or continued operation, repair or warranty). The only other threat is prolonged litigation costs.

But the thing I find most surprising is how many people are still trying to justify a clause that is not in anyones favour, and they somehow think has a meaningful impact on flipping, which it doesn't.

For example the one per person rule already addresses the flippers problem anyway, and limits the CTs available, the order sequence of only being able to reserve one at a time, addresses the delay caused etc.

But in reality there is no delay from that either, because being only one per customer it is the same as any other customer taking possession of a vehicle, just via an agent. "Aka my mama bought me new sneakers but wants a thank you kiss before I get them." There's no discrimination to other customers, in that a customer still received it for them to use, but had to pay extra for the privilege to get it earlier. Just like FS, long time shareholder etc.

Accordingly, I find any justification of the clause quite disingenuous, and have yet to hear any arguments on how it stops or impacts flipping at all, or helps other customers get theirs earlier.

If despite all of the above, Tesla still returned the a clause to their terms, then the legit question is why did they go against their own loyal customers when whatever flipping there was, is already controlled by other means already?

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Exactly, it has to be established in some form to begin with.

It's like when you purchase and pay for something at the checkout in a store and they check your receipt on the way out.

You have already purchased it and its yours, and they have no right to check(haress) your personal belongings, even if they post conditions of entry. There is no difference if you walk out of there with you new sneakers, one minute later or one year later. Once you pass the buck, ownership and all the rights are transfered.

The only real enforcable threat here is that they can refuse you further service (provided it doesn't relate to safe or continued operation, repair or warranty). The only other threat is prolonged litigation costs.

But the thing I find most surprising is how many people are still trying to justify a clause that is not in anyones favour, and they somehow think has a meaningful impact on flipping, which it doesn't.

For example the one per person rule already addresses the flippers problem anyway, and limits the CTs available, the order sequence of only being able to reserve one at a time, addresses the delay caused etc.

But in reality there is no delay from that either, because being only one per customer it is the same as any other customer taking possession of a vehicle, just via an agent. "Aka my mama bought me new sneakers but wants a thank you kiss before I get them." There's no discrimination to other customers, in that a customer still received it for them to use, but had to pay extra for the privilege to get it earlier. Just like FS, long time shareholder etc.

Accordingly, I find any justification of the clause quite disingenuous, and have yet to hear any arguments on how it stops or impacts flipping at all, or helps other customers get theirs earlier.

If despite all of the above, Tesla still returned the a clause to their terms, then the legit question is why did they go against their own loyal customers when whatever flipping there was, is already controlled by other means already?

Even denial of service. The buyer is not a party to the so-called no resale contract.

Blacklisting the original buyer however is within their preeogative.

 

[HaulingAss]

Accordingly, I find any justification of the clause quite disingenuous, and have yet to hear any arguments on how it stops or impacts flipping at all, or helps other customers get theirs earlier.

You've been told, you just refuse to listen.

I will lay it out to you so simply that a first grader could understand it:

1) We have seen many people on this forum who reserved a Cybertruck but decided not to order/configure because the price was higher than anticipated and it didn't fit into their financial planning/budget. Their truck will go to the next person in line.
2) If they knew it was too expensive for their tight finances, but they could simply flip it right after taking delivery, without any consequences (like the remedies listed in the "no resale" clause), then they would configure/order and flip it to someone without a 4-year reservation.
3) One more truck that doesn't get delivered to a 4-year reservationist.
4) Mulitply by all the people who decided it would be too burdensome on their finances.

There is zero doubt the "no resale" clause is helping other customers get their Cybertruck sooner than if the "no resale" clause did not exist.

It's not clear why you keep making such illogical claims. The other illogical claim is it's just like anything else you buy, you paid for it, you can do what you want with it. That's just as big of a fallacy because most items you buy don't come with a "no resale" clause that you have to agree to before purchasing it. Cybertruck does.

It makes me wonder what's in the drinking water down under.

 

[VinVeg]

People really seem to like debating the legality of the No-Resale agreement. Here is a long post from a prospective you might not have considered… (please read to the end…. We like reading on here right?)



Forget possible legality and probably enforceability… let talk simple ethics and reasonableness, from the manufacturer’s perspective…



I engineer prototypes for clients… occasionally I have tried to make my own stuff for production and sale (none have taken off… some for the reasons below).

Let say I come up with a new type of fitness gear… You see me testing it and say “Hey that is awesome, when it comes out I’d like to buy one… in fact it’s so cool I’d like one for my wife and friends… sign me up for 4!”

(This actual conversation happened)

“That is great! Glad you like it… You’ll get one of the first and I have a few reserved for you after… but can you do me a favor… please don’t resell for a few months, if I sell you one… I am trying to get the product out there to people who appreciate it and will use it. Those are the best customers.” (Here is where I didn’t explain that I am engaging an patent lawyer in hope’s of slowing down counterfeiters… though I know the second someone resells it, especially to someone who just wants to copy it and make their own bootleg version or mark it up, my product is dead).



Of course I make the product… it IS awesome. I deliver it to the would be customer, you. Then very next week I see sales postings on “Grieg’s List” and “Macebook Marketplace” and “Fee-Bay” because you believe you have a few more reserved and so can make some cash with this fabulously unique product that NOBODY else has yet. Free capitalism right?!?!



Dude! You and I agreed that you wouldn’t sell it!!! You better believe I won’t sell you more! You didn’t even use it… how do I believe you won’t try to sell the next ones for more… The heck with free trade mumbo-jumbo… You and I agreed you wouldn’t resell it… that is just wrong!



Now if we actually signed an agreement, with a real no-resell timeframe and I put into writing why you are agreeing to buy it and not resell it, but you immediately list it for sale… of course I am going to try to enforce whatever clause in that agreement I can… You gave me your word, Man! If you don’t think lying to my face is wrong then something is wrong with ya…

You paid your money and now you own it… bla bla… it’s still wrong… Just because it may be hard for me to take you to court, doesn’t make agreeing to something you immediately renege on, OK or right…



Honestly making cool stuff is really, really, really, really hard!!! The idea and assembly of a cool thing takes years. Then there are the safety and durability efforts that nearly sink the product before it gets past prototype. Once the product is finally made… version 1.0… it’s hard to get it out there before copies are made or negative naysayers dump on it, especially when it’s new or unique. I totally wouldn’t blame any maker for trying to protect the product they spent years making or for trying to sell it to people who really want it first.

From first hand experience I can absolutely tell you, even one first Gen product scalped and priced higher than the heavy weighed and calculated price point (materials and product building and logistics really factor in) can totally disrupt future sales and often sink a product… Just because this is a vehicle and Tesla is a large company, doesn’t make it OK to agree to no resale and do the opposite. The agreement is really there to protect what they spent billions of hours of people lives making.



Numerous specific circumstances aside, If that case landed in my courtroom as a judge with a clear list of agreed upon details, with mitigation efforts included in case of hardship, I would have to side with the folks who made the product!



Ton’s of amazing inventions die all the time because people do this stuff.

OP, I can’t speak to all of your reasons for doing what you did but Tesla’s reaction completely makes sense. You indicated a desire to resell the vehicle you agreed not to resell… Really VIN # included? WOW, Yo!

Why wouldn’t they blacklist you?

You haven’t sold it yet but if you do they are truly justified in coming after you. I don’t think they will but it would be understandable.



Now will CyberTrucks as a product die because a bunch of people scalped them…

Geez I sure hope not. A lot of us have saved and waited SOOOOO long for it…

But they spent time making that agreement for a reason. Early resales of a new product by folks other than the manufacturer really do damage the product’s future. The folks who worked hard making said product should care about it and try to protect it. Shame on folks who don’t respect that. Of course if you just see the product as a way to make money (YouTubers, and resellers included) none of that matters to you anyway. I think most of us here on this forum aren’t in that category… if you really do like the product, then a debate against Tesla’s efforts to protect the product is really counterproductive (there is a pun in there I think)!
- VIN

 

[JBee]

You've been told, you just refuse to listen.

I will lay it out to you so simply that a first grader could understand it:

1) We have seen many people on this forum who reserved a Cybertruck but decided not to order/configure because the price was higher than anticipated and it didn't fit into their financial planning/budget. Their truck will go to the next person in line.
2) If they knew it was too expensive for their tight finances, but they could simply flip it right after taking delivery, without any consequences (like the remedies listed in the "no resale" clause), then they would configure/order and flip it to someone without a 4-year reservation.
3) One more truck that doesn't get delivered to a 4-year reservationist.
4) Mulitply by all the people who decided it would be too burdensome on their finances.

There is zero doubt the "no resale" clause is helping other customers get their Cybertruck sooner than if the "no resale" clause did not exist.

It's not clear why you keep making such illogical claims. The other illogical claim is it's just like anything else you buy, you paid for it, you can do what you want with it. That's just as big of a fallacy because most items you buy don't come with a "no resale" clause that you have to agree to before purchasing it. Cybertruck does.

It makes me wonder what's in the drinking water down under.

At least our drinks still have some H2O in it, you seem to be on pure absinthe and in the green fairy land.

The clause is only for one year and you can resell then anyway, even according to the clause. It's NOT 4 years.

It's also likely that many more jumped ship because they couldn't afford to flip it in the first place. Which brought the whole line up anyway, of no choice of their own, and are lost customers to Tesla.

Plus who said the clause will last longer than 4 years, it will probably end after some more ramp and FS.

And then in a year or so from now when production is ramped Tesla will abandon the 4 year reservation line anyway, like they did with the other models.

If there is a 4 year line at all, given the new price, the FS, shareholder, and whatever they come up with next as "super-legit" Tesla jump the line options.

Accordingly, the notion of the line, or a clause to defend it remains dumb, dumber, dumbest.

It's not clear why you keep making such illogical claims. The other illogical claim is it's just like anything else you buy, you paid for it, you can do what you want with it. That's just as big of a fallacy because most items you buy don't come with a "no resale" clause that you have to agree to before purchasing it.

Huh so strange, I wonder why??
Could it have something to do with that they can't be enforced?? lol.

Lets jump on this roundabout again so your head swings the right way on this silly kindergarten ride: Contract is not law. Illegal contract is not enforceable, even if agreed to.

You obviously don't have any capacity to make over the horizon predictions, or use even the slightest bit of primary school math and deduction in your reasoning. Time to head back and follow up on those 1+1=2 classes you missed in 1st grade.

 

[GrandEnigma]

My biggest gripe with the resale clause was that if its purpose is to protect original reservation holders from others jumping the line because they were willing to pay more then way did they offer the foundation series at a $20k premium to start, why do I see celebrities with them already, why are they prioritizing local deliveries, and why are they allowing share holders to take delivery before og order holders? It seems a bit disingenuous to me. I totally understand why they are doing it, but I suspect the market for those willing to pay $200k for a $80k truck that is not ultimately production limited is a very small subset and that the free market would drive down the second hand market very quickly. As a share holder, I support this fully as it maximizes profits for Tesla and as a consumer this simply seems like corporate greed.

I have had an Aptera pre-order for ages and they keep adding more pay to win ways to jump the line. Eventually it will turn people off and make them second guess early pre-orders which will ultimately hurt the companies.

 

[SlegMD]

Contract is not law. Illegal contract is not enforceable, even if agreed to.

Now I’ve kinda ignored the larger msg here with all the back-and-forth, so if I miss something please correct. I agree the contract is not “law”, as you do not get receive criminal charges… however contracts are upheld by the law.

now as we have all heard, court case Cena vs. Ford is resolved by settling. Means no guilt is found however the individual is liable. The court will most likely use past cases in there consideration and this is likely some of the highest profile for other perpetrators.

Settling is to limit excessive damages to either party, that both parties agree to, for a reason. Even with inflated values of the CT in question, it is still not worth it. For either party. So for now, or until now, it’s a bluffing game, because to engage will create NO winner.

private selling the CTis a unit NOT sold by Tesla, which I am sure Tesla will only tolerate for a certain threshold.

So the beast may be stirring from its slumber because the flies are becoming numerous. Then the beast acts out violently, but is just a waste of energy, because you know… swatting at flies… stupid metaphor but whatever.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

There is already a Cybertruck for sale in Reno Car Guru.

Since they inly had delivered to Tesla employees at Sparks Giga, then this must be from a Tesla employee.

Not afraid to be fired nor Elon's threat of being sued and paying $50,000.

But what if I resell my Cybertruck, for $200K, then go to Tesla and volunteer to pay the $50k. Then keep the profit $40K+. Everyone happy?

 

[Gigahorse]

There is already a Cybertruck for sale in Reno Car Guru.

Since they inly had delivered to Tesla employees at Sparks Giga, then this must be from a Tesla employee.

Not afraid to be fired nor Elon's threat of being sued and paying $50,000.

But what if I resell my Cybertruck, for $200K, then go to Tesla and volunteer to pay the $50k. Then keep the profit $40K+. Everyone happy?

Yea there are over 20 CTs on Car Gurus and about 50 for sale across all platforms.

Sponsored