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

[rudedawg78]

my “source” is explained in a post above

the Ford GT is irrelevant (as is the John Cena case about the Ford GT)

You had to be ~John Cena to get offered a Gt in the first place. Ford made 1,350 total GTs in SIX years. It cost $500,000. After the 2 years re-sale restriction, they sold in market for $1,500,000

It’s beyond me what the f*ck that has to do with a publically available, mass-production, $[80]K pickup truck that is SUPPOSEDLY intended to help attract ICE truck buyers into BEV

All this before the ironic point that the blow-hard here spend all their time talk not about how Tesla doesn’t and shouldn’t do things like traditional OEMs



But have it your way: Tesla is even MORE petty and nearsighted than Ford/GM, about an $[80]K pickup truck, and Tesla doesn’t actually have an interest in improving the world by attracting ICE truck buyers to BEV

You “win” only by demonstrating the point

The difference with Tesla is that there have never been any vehicles ever produced with over 1M reservations, in fact it is probably over 2M reservations... having such an extravagant demand, there needs to be protections put in place to protect Tesla's name and not outrage the reservation holders.

Sponsored

 

[PilotPete]

This really gives me pause about actually converting my res to an order. Not because I intend to flip the vehicle, but because I do not want to be stuck with it for a year if there is something seriously amiss. I am going to not just want to see it on the net, see it from the outside, but actually drive the thing for longer than 3 minutes to make sure it doesn't set off my sciatica. Which means my order just got delayed until they have some available for no kidding test drives. Probably no skin off of Tesla's teeth, there's plenty of other who will order sight unseen, and that's their choice.

I think, in your situation, you will know in a month or three. Let's say it is three. Average is 1,000 miles a month @$0.25/mile. Assuming you don't beat the ever loving snot out of it, your deduction to sell it back is $750. Any other vehicle on the planet that you drive for 3,000 miles and 3 months and can get all your money back, less $750, is an amazing deal. And if you can figure it out in a week, or 250 miles, means you only lose $62.50. I'll take that deal, and twice on Sundays.

For example, let’s say a guy buys the truck for all the right reasons, maybe such a big fan, wanted it so bad, he stretched the family budget a bit too far. Then two months later he dies. Now the wife at home with three kids needs to liquidate the estate. She now, at that time in her life, has to write Tesla for permission to sell, and then wait for corporate to get back with a “take it or leave it” offer, or else risk being sued by Tesla?

Couple things here. First, he dies two months after buying the CT. Average use case is 2,000 miles, she would get back the purchase price less $500. Can you do that with the majority of cars on the market? I don't think so. And I'll take the position that "at this time of her life" she has to try and sell a used car and negotiate a price on her dead husband's dream car? How much easier is it for her to mail a copy of the DC, a short letter, and they cut a check and come pick it up. Sounds to me like a far easier option for her. And for reference, I've been in the middle of this EXACT situation for the last almost 3 years. Only it wasn't a car, it was a plane. And he did't die 2 months after purchase, it was 5.

I'd also bet that if they were that tightly strapped for cash, and she sold it to the next door neighbor for cost, Tesla wouldn't chase this one. Bad for PR, bad in general, and if she wasn't on the PA, they could only go after his estate, which doesn't sound like it would have had a lot to go after. Kinda doesn't make sense to sue to get blood out of a turnip.

I'm not saying the paragraph is a positive or a negative. I'm just pointing out that just because a company CAN take action, doesn't mean they WILL take action.

 

[JBee]

to say nothing of the fact that for years nobody bats an eye around here when someone here says eg “I’m buying a CyberTruck to start a rental business where people pay me $700/day to drive it”

Like a flipper, that is ALSO a person “ahead in line” who is buying the Cybertruck purely for financial gain


are there differences? Sure. are the differences so great that it suggests people have consistent principles. No.

I have to agree with you.

The clause does not encompass the range of scenarios or market conditions that might be relevant when a sale is required.

Their pricing is ambiguous and is not confidence inspiring.

You could throw a bunch of factors at it, inflation, energy shortages, even war. You could also just let the lender fight it out with Tesla...but that's going to affect your credit score as well.

But although their wording is flimsy, I do wonder if it is more a deterent than something they will actually pursue.

There's a few posts above that claim that clause is from an older agreement, but not the latest? So I think it might be important to understand if it's going to apply or not.

If there's truly no line, then there would be no point in having the no sale clause anyway. Anyone can jump the que.

If that's the case there will be a few unhappy campers around here.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not saying the paragraph is a positive or a negative. I'm just pointing out that just because a company CAN take action, doesn't mean they WILL take action.

read the next few posts

first, it’s irrelevant to me if *you* have faith that what Tesla offers will be fair. Nothing spells out what Tesla will offer.

second, these sales restrictions are in a rolling basis from purchase date.

the fair market value of the truck will be established on that secondary market the day after the one year anniversary of purchase.

One of two things will be necessarily true:

(1) what Tesla offers will be equal to that secondary market, in which case the provision was unnecessary in the first place

or

(2) what Tesla offers will be less than that secondary market, so people post-1yr get to sell at a premium at the exact same time as people before the 1-year are forced to sell at whatever Tesla’s below MSRP offer is


I’m not two steps behind here

 

[cvalue13]

But although their wording is flimsy, I do wonder if it is more a deterent than something they will actually pursue.

THIS is a central point

These provisions are like locks on doors:

they only keep honest people honest



*I* - because I do deal work for a living - could free of cost work around this provision in an afternoon of concentration, and sell my truck just fine

average Joe will have to just bend and take it

 

[SlegMD]

As it’s better to segment these points, the next one I’ll offer you

People are not looking around the corner as to how this plays out in the real world.

back to and expanding on my earlier point about Tesla paying “the value” of the truck:

notice that these 1 year periods will be rolling

so here’s just a cartoon level sketch of how part of this plays out:



Person 1 buys on January 1, 2024, for $[60]k

Person 2 buys on June 1, 2024, for $[60]K

Then…

Person 1 on January 2, 2025, sells the used truck, with 15k miles and , on the secondary market for $80K

Person 2’s recent widow, on January 2, 2025, needs to sell her husband’s truck with 6k miles in pristine condition, and Tesla offers: “take $55K or we’ll sue you”

We have to see the specifics of the agreement. And I want to say, I typically have little faith in corporations in this manner that would benefit a consumer directly. And I am guessing example 2 is within the 1yr time frame, not after? As written the widow is free to purse the increased valuation if it exists, and I encourage her to do so if she has the capabilities. If profit is the goal, then yes she may be at a slight loss, but with costs associated with reprocessing the vehicle to be sold this is not a huge loss to the estate, and may expedite the process of liquidation. This can be an issue, and selling for 92% of the original value could be a blessing.

I’m not against an individual making profit where they can. It’s artificial valuation that prohibits consumers from engaging that stymies participation in the market, that I am against. I am still reaching inwards on the philosophical aspect of the concept of depreciation assets being valued as they are these days.

No resales stipulations are present for a reason, historically, functionally, and if implemented properly can work for the benefit of all of us, long term and indirectly. I do not think many individuals are interested in this concept however.

Also, if I die tomorrow, my wife is debt neutral, so there is less pressure, which supports my ability to comfortably feel this way. I could see why as a (contract?) lawyer you are looking at all the loose threads and how you can untie them

 

[cvalue13]

We have to see the specifics of the agreement.

you have.

it’s posted in OP

 

[SlegMD]

you have.

it’s posted in OP

Then I am not worried.

I am simply curious if it changes closer to the date of.

 

[PilotPete]

One of two things will be necessarily true:
(1) what Tesla offers will be equal to that secondary market, in which case the provision was unnecessary in the first place
or

(2) what Tesla offers will be less than that secondary market, so people post-1yr get to sell at a premium at the exact same time as people before the 1-year are forced to sell at whatever Tesla’s below MSRP offer is

I’m not two steps behind here

C, I never said you were behind even one step. But, the conditions you lay out exist today. If you bought a model S earlier this year, and you had to resell it, you're losing big money. If you bought a model S in January 2020, you could sell it a year later an make money. We're dealing with unknown variables, not constants.

 

[cvalue13]

C, I never said you were behind even one step. But, the conditions you lay out exist today. If you bought a model S earlier this year, and you had to resell it, you're losing big money. If you bought a model S in January 2020, you could sell it a year later an make money. We're dealing with unknown variables, not constants.

the paradigm of (1) vs (2) exists independently of the unknown variables

those are the two outcomes: either the provision isn’t needed because secondary prices aren’t higher, or the opposite

the Model S scenario, of depreciation, is scenario (1) above

 

[JBee]

THIS is a central point

These provisions are like locks on doors:

they only keep honest people honest



*I* - because I do deal work for a living - could free of cost work around this provision in an afternoon of concentration, and sell my truck just fine

average Joe will have to just bend and take it

Agreed.

I'm wondering now if it really is on the CT agreement at all and if someone in legal has slipped it in without EM knowing.

---

I like your new profile picture!

Did Elon come by and bribe you with a CT to take that GC position after all? Lol.

 

[cvalue13]

I like your new profile picture!

Did Elon come by and bribe you with a CT to take that GC position after all? Lol.

I’ve intentionally never told Musk that I have a law degree - it’s been known to make him hiss and, pay $40M to the SEC for a single tweet

 

[JBee]

I’ve intentionally never told Musk that I have a law degree - it’s been known to make him hiss and, pay $40M to the SEC for a single tweet

So long you get to keep it, who cares though right?

Gosh since when have I become a car fanboy?

 

[TBONO]

It sounds like the buyback does not cover the sales tax we pay? That’s factored into the $.25 per mile? Taxes and registration is around 10-12% in most areas?

Sponsored