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

[Crissa]

And neither does the no resale policy, if Tesla under prices the vehicle at launch, which is the only reason they would need a no resale clause.

No.

That both breaks their good will with reservation holders, and it reduces their overall sales.

The fewer trucks that are flipped, the faster Tesla can get through the reservation list and away from those expectations, allowing them price freedom.

Until then, flippers are taking money now that Tesla could claim at some point. (They're also accelerating depreciation, too, by filling the secondary market.)

Hmmm something is not matching.
Go to https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck/design#payment, click on the Cybertruck Pre-Order Agreement.

The agreement post to the forum shows a 2022 year date.
The one that comes up is a 2023 year date.

this is what it shows me. (No restrictions listed for reselling it)

That is a different agreement. For ordering a reservation slot, not for buying a vehicle.

It's a completely different document.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

I still have not found a single evidence of this text in any of the following. I think it is either fake, or Tesla has removed it already.

* https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale this document does not have the given paragraph.
* The current CyberTruck pre-order agreement doesn't have that paragraph.
* Neither of my CT reservations' Order Agreement has that paragraph.

The text was there earlier today. It is indeed gone now.

Your reservations are not a Purchase Agreement, they are an agreement to get a Purchase Agreement.

 

[Red61224]

It's like a right of refusal. If you die the truck can go to your family and that probably is green lit by Tesla. If your family doesn't want it then it can probably be sold by the estate which is also probably green lit by Tesla.

This is exactly my situation if things take a turn for the worse. I have had a Trust in place for several years and no hassle with probate issues but if my son does not wish to own the CT I don't want to leave an anvil tired around his neck and end up taking a loss. Financing is not involved so a bank lien is not in the picture.

 

[Gurule92]

I still have not found a single evidence of this text in any of the following. I think it is either fake, or Tesla has removed it already.

* https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale this document does not have the given paragraph.
* The current CyberTruck pre-order agreement doesn't have that paragraph.
* Neither of my CT reservations' Order Agreement has that paragraph.

I saw it this morning. But yea looks like they pulled it out.

You can't like make judgements based on what your 4 year old pre-order agreements say lol.

Looks like you were just late enough to the party to miss it

 

[cvalue13]

Either:

• Tesla has already thought better of it,

• someone updated something sooner than they were supposed to, and it’s back in the drawer for now, or

• we’ve all just been Musked



if we’ve been Musked, glad I’m on *this* side of it

(but I suspect it’s just back in the drawer until configurator opens)

 

[FRSandro]

It was so badly written, that it had to be pulled for that reason alone.

Probably written by the in house generic lawyer.

They need to spend 5M and hire a NY law firm that had done so in the past. They'd write it and arbitrate on a retainer. If they want to go forward with it.

 

[Gurule92]

I mean, it's kinda the law.

Unless you agree to the terms dictated by the seller prior to purchase.

Then it's a different story.

Kinda becomes a, if you dont want to abide by the rules,dont buy it situation.

Sucks, but there is enough demand that some opting out because of it wont really matter.

 

[PilotPete]

There is a similar situation with some new aircraft that have hit the market in the last 10 years. People would place their deposits, during the announcement, and years later, when the plane was finally certified and entering production, they would sell their position at a massive profit. And I ain't talking $50,000, I mean tens of millions. The OEM put a "no selling your place in line" clause into the pre-orders and even when challenged, it was upheld. The PA also prevented resale for a period of time and/or hours on the jet.

So it is possible, and may be completely legit. Just like the Apple Agreement when you purchase a new phone (or the Android agreement), you don't have to agree to their terms. You don't get to buy it, but at least you never agreed to them.

 

[PilotPete]

Well, as I think I mentioned, buyers of the aircraft had a time/flight limitation on resale. So, there's that. And your sticker-50% isn't necessarily an anti-trust issue, rather the court has the right to throw out any remedy to a contract breach that is "unrealistic". So that is a much easier path to resolution. So the proposed "0,25/mile" is exactly the same you would have going over a lease, so no one could claim that is unrealistic.

Yes, you've waited 4 years. But during that time, you have had full and complete access to a refund. No one made you wait. I'm not telling you to get out of line and let me move up. I'm just trying to look at it unemotionally and how it has to be looked at legally. Guys like C have far more education and experience than I do at stuff like this. But I do my best and getting emotion out of the way is the first step. Tesla made no guarantees or warranties as to your delivery date. And the pandemic has already been ruled as a Force Majeure event in court. So while you have every right to be frustrated, it is what it is. And you have every right to do with the items you own any way you choose. Right up to the point you sign a contract, voluntarily, to agree to something else. Then, you don't. And just because you think it is an anti-trust violation, you are still a looooooong way from getting such a ruling. Years and years. Even then, there are no guarantees.

 

[Gurule92]

I think we have different definitions of anti-trust.

They aren't stopping or hindering competition in any way. If anything they would be helping competitors by turning away sad scalpers so they go buy the competition.

By keeping the price low and having a no resale clause they are potentially helping the consumer too because the scalers will likely not scoop up all the initial stock and the less rich people will be able to afford it.

Stopping you from buying the truck and trying to sell it for a profit isn't anti competition. It's pro-affordability. The, price gouging tactic is less legal

Imo

Edit: I agree that it's not ideal, but if they do it, it is because they are trying to pick the lesser of three evils.

1 Allow the scalpers who placed 10s-100s of orders to get all the inventory and make big profits

2 raise the price to level out demand and cause some 4 year waiters to move back in line or drop all together because they can't afford it

3 write in a clause that is inconvenient to those who no longer want the truck and prevents to some degree the abuse

One of those seems like the less risky position to me from a reputation standpoint

 

[newwave1331]

Do you think Tesla needs a PR team? This is how things go out.

I do think its interesting that it could be fake (or dated/old format). The v20220720 at the bottom tells me this is old. My 2023 MYP (purchased 9/2023) has a MVOA v20230201. Wouldn't it just be v20231111?

Page 2

The text was there earlier today. It is indeed gone now.

I saw it this morning. But yea looks like they pulled it out.

Either:

• Tesla has already thought better of it,

• someone updated something sooner than they were supposed to, and it’s back in the drawer for now, or

• we’ve all just been Musked



if we’ve been Musked, glad I’m on *this* side of it

(but I suspect it’s just back in the drawer until configurator opens)

Sponsored