Cybertruck NO RESALE Restriction (1 Year) Spotted in Purchase Agreement Language

[KScheidt]

Someone shared this on the Cybertruck Reddit page claiming it was found in a recent Model Y purchase agreement. No insight into validity but I’ve heard of other manufacturers doing similar before so not out of the realm of possibilities. Thoughts?

Personally it would be good news to me because I don’t intend to resell mine after purchase. Maybe this will help slim down the line a bit.

Sponsored

 

[kbolt]

Pretty cool stuff. It means that anyone who wanted the vehicle for themselves and waited for something to enjoy gets it. If anyone jumps the line it will be for good reason and not because "baby gets what baby wants" mentality.

 

[cvalue13]

Pretty cool stuff. It means that anyone who wanted the vehicle for themselves and waited for something to enjoy gets it. If anyone jumps the line it will be for good reason and not because "baby gets what baby wants" mentality.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

EDIT TO STRIKE: When first posted, there was only a purported excerpt from Reddit; subsequently this language has been found on Tesla's website, so turns out...

 

[KScheidt]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

While I agree with your discussion points, that there are negative aspects to this (potential) agreement, blowing up the line will just resort in new/different flippers seeking to capitalize on initial supply/demand constraints. In fact, I’d imagine it would only make it worse. At least with the line, a reseller would have had to have the foresight to make a reservation on the night of the reveal and hold on to it for four years.

 

[greggertruck]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

It's real. Page 3. https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale

 

[kev12345]

If somebody wants to pay me double for mine I’ll gladly sell to said dummy.

 

[CyberSleuth]

I'm in the camp of I should be able to sell my own vehicle to whomever for whatever reason. The only benefit for us here is that it will eliminate a portion of reservations.

"Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000"

Why $50,000?

 

[Tinker71]

If somebody wants to pay me double for mine I’ll gladly sell to said dummy.

It's real. Page 3. https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale

Thank god there are 654,114 people in front of me. I don't have to worry. I am seeing a price cut by the time my number comes around.......hmm they probably won't cut prices until they go through all the reservation. Still. No worries here.

 

[Sirfun]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take.

Fortunately, I’m think this is fake and I’ll explain why later.

But if this is true, I find it pretty repugnant

As a deal lawyer and c-suite, let me boil down why:

You like this provision only because you’re imagining a scenario you dislike, eg a pure flipper selling to a “baby wants” (as you put it) buyer who is “skipping the line.”

But provisions like this work not only in that scenario, but instead all buyer scenarios - including the repugnant ones.

Here’s just one of many repugnant example consequences - based on what this provision actually says:

“if you buy the CyberTruck, and [decide it’s a POS and not as promised][pass away and your estate is liquidating], [decide to sell it to your brother], [etc.] then your only recourse is to sell it back to us at whatever repurchase price Tesla dreams up - or else just remember we have a 600 person legal group, while you have a mortgage and a job to hold down, so good luck fighting it or determining if this is enforceable.”


So now one must perform the balancing test of what really matters to them:

Are we so butthurt by the prospect of the rare flipper+”baby wants” buyer “skipping the line”, that we don’t mind subjecting every good intentioned purchaser to these consequences?

Personally, taking rights from EVERY other person in line, to avoid a rare flipper - to me seems a worse outcome than a flipper.

Not the least of reasons is this: people who are expecting their to be a “line” in the first place are probably pissing on their own shoes - Tesla could ask for this provision, then week 4 blow up “the line” just like they’ve done in the past, first-come-first serve




Which brings me back to why I doubt this provision is real. It’s drafted for sh*t. I don’t mean just language, I mean function.

Here’s just one example:


It says in part, “if you have an unforeseen reason you need to sell, and Tesla agrees it’s a valid unforeseen reason, then [you must notify Tesla and Tesla can buy it]”

This is nonsensical. It doesn’t say what happens if it’s a foreseeable reason to sell it. It doesn’t say what happens if Tesla *doesnt* agree you have a good reason to sell it. That means there’s no requirement to notify Tesla. That means if Tesla says you DONT have a “good reason” to sell it, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right. That means if your reason to sell *is* foreseeable, Tesla doesn’t have its repurchase right.

Instead, if the reason is foreseeable or Tesla doesn’t agree you have a “good reason,” the entire provision collapses back to merely the first and last sentence: “you agree to not sell for one year, or Tesla can get $50K damages or whatever you make on the sale.”




Want to know a better way Tesla can fix the flipper issue? Blow up the line, make it first come first served (just as they’ve done in the past).

Then the “don’t skip the line,” crowd might instead become the ones saying “baby gets what baby wants, and baby wants a line!”

REALLY, blow up the line? To hell with all of us people that put $100 in Tesla's account 4 years ago? Are you telling everyone on this forum to F-Off?

 

[PATEL]

Here's the full agreement.

 

[scottf200]

It's real. Page 3. https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale

Searchable forum text:

For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards.

If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla.

You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles.

 

[Jsmithjr732]

$50k or consideration - whichever is greater. So if you get someone to buy it at $100k more, Tesla gets that amount.

I generally am in favor of this with the exception of the whole “being up to used Tesla specs” piece. It’s open-ended and could be up for interpretation.

 

[Red61224]

Pretty cool stuff. It means that anyone who wanted the vehicle for themselves and waited for something to enjoy gets it. If anyone jumps the line it will be for good reason and not because "baby gets what baby wants" mentality.

When I sign the check the vehicle is mine and ALL mine and I will do with it as I please. I can run it off a cliff which I have heard is a popular trend and Tesla can pack sand. When MY name is on the title and no one else's it's MINE, not sorta mine but ALL mine.

What other appliance do you have in "your" home that you do not have complete control over. Washer, dryer, stove, furniture, dogs/cats....etc.

What if your spouse came with a 30 year no divorce clause and they were a drug using, abusive drunk that would not repent. Nope sorry, you are stuck with them till the end of the contract.

 

[SEER]

What if the truck gets repo’d in the first few months? Who gets to sell it?

 

[Balthezor]

So happy for this. It's a deterrent. Many people probably have never purchased a high in demand vehicles. I've always purchased the new Range Rovers. I have always signed one of these. They get you if you try and sell this. Usually the RRs end up getting exported.

Yeah might not hold up in court, but lawyers aren't free or cheap.

Sponsored