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

[TBONO]

Will this affect financing?
Such a stipulation makes the asset less liquid and higher risk for a lender

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

Not saying I want to flip mine. Because I don't. But its my money. Its my risk. It should be my reward. And anyone who supports this sort of infringement on financial autonomy knows they only agree because it currently suites them.

And your actions impact others in the world. Someone who took the bet on reservations so they could flip them... That doesn't put extra money in Tesla's account, it just delays the time until Tesla can realize those prices for themselves.

-Crissa

 

[cyberwulf]

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.

"probably" scenarios are not in the agreement

 

[fhteagle]

That doesn't put extra money in Tesla's account, it just delays the time until Tesla can realize those prices for themselves.

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.

If Tesla wants all the profit for themselves (which is perfectly reasonable for them to desire and go after, in any way that doesn't screw the customer or monopolize the market), they need to price it at market price at launch. Due to people with more dollars than sense, that price is crazy high at the start but asymptotes down to reality rapidly as well. There's another name for this style of sale, it's called a Dutch auction, and it's a much more sane way to handle giving Tesla it's due share of the profit, instead of "scalpers".

But people will complain about rapid downwards price movements and resale value and a bunch of other things that don't matter.

"Tesla is owed the profit on a resale" clause? Fine.

Can't buy a second CT until Tesla has exhausted all other first purchase reservations? That works too.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as written in the document linked above, the no resale clause is badly written at best, and a disaster in waiting for Tesla customers at worst.

 

[cvalue13]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as written in the document linked above, the no resale clause is badly written at best, and a disaster in waiting for Tesla customers at worst.

member: 17092"]
"probably" scenarios are not in the agreement
[/QUOTE]


on reflection, the provision likely is written exactly as intended

namely, it’s rewritten to be both broad and vague, with the intended result being a generalized confusion and uncertainty

the counterparty, if “understanding” it as best as is possible, is left really only with a sense that the truck can’t be transferred in any scenario without a threat of legal action (to the tune of at least $50K, but possibly more).

Death, divorce, new auto loan, or really any scenario in which one might have the clarity of mind to realize there is some semblance of change in title - the result is all the same.


This style of provision is familiar, in that my prior work involved dealing with government sanctions - like those placed on Russia by the U.S., post Crimea. Sanctions, too, are drafted in such a way as to intentionally instill confusion and paralysis- the central goal being to leave any involved party with an inability to clearly determine which actions are prohibited, which are permitted. In the sanctions world, the benefit being that - without such clarity - one might deter even actions that strictly speaking are illegal to be prohibited.


All in all, you’re both absolutely correct: it’s drafted to leave completely unclear what is or isn’t prohibited - but that’s the point.

 

[fhteagle]

All in all, you’re both absolutely correct: it’s drafted to leave completely unclear what is or isn’t prohibited - but that’s the point.

I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV... But I vaguely remember something about a tenet of law that vague contract construction is to be interpreted in the way that benefits the party that did not write the contract. Is that true, especially on the US? Does it make such language lose its purpose, enforceability, etc? And if so, and I assume Tesla GC's would know that, does it relegate this language to the level of scare tactics? If so, I think I'm even more disgusted by this.

This is all pure speculation on my part, I have zero proof for any of the above.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV... But I vaguely remember something about a tenet of law that vague contract construction is to be interpreted in the way that benefits the party that did not write the contract. Is that true, especially on the US? Does it make such language lose its purpose, enforceability, etc? And if so, and I assume Tesla GC's would know that, does it relegate this language to the level of scare tactics? If so, I think I'm even more disgusted by this.

This is all pure speculation on my part, I have zero proof for any of the above.

All true, however:

there’s an unspoken tenet of practical reality that goes: “you may bear the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”

which is to say, it would take a customer with both the time and the resources to litigate the contract, make the legal arguments you make, etc., for it to be sorted out.

and that process could be strung out by several years before there is a resolution.

all while “settlement pressure” would leave the customer increasingly pressured to back down, and the truck stuck in injunction limbo - unsold

by which point, the customer would have to be a wealthy celebrity type to make it even to a meaningful settlement zone.

HERE is where the “John Cena” case with Ford DOES have relevance - not even he made it to a conclusion before settling, and that was for a $500K car that was selling for over $1M


Joe customer just has to eat a d*ck

 

[chonnertruk]

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.

Generally, I enjoy reading comments, responding to obvious lighthearted opinions or speculations, and viewing video's from participants. But more recently, my concern is growing as to the quality of interactions. This posting is serves as an example. I feel tactics such is this, are designed to put concern, fear or doubt as to Tesla's business policies into its readers conscience, is something just short of criminal.

It is my opinion, this fearmongering attempt was designed to mislead the casual observer, possibly causing the readers to cancel their Cyber Truck order thus altering or manipulating the arrangement of current reservation holders. It appears to me this document or its representation was doctored/edited.

In my order agreement document, I do not find any paragraph, sub-paragraphs, appendix, or citations representing this misleading statement. Additionally I believe this person copied and pasted or in some manner edited this document and is suggesting its authenticity.

I have found all paragraph's in the agreement document have a specific similar format. Each unique topic in the agreement is set with a BOLD FONT, not underlined. The agreement I am reading is 3 pages instead of 4. These discrepancies call into question the validity of the document.

 

[cvalue13]

In my order agreement document, I do not find any paragraph, sub-paragraphs, appendix, or citations representing this misleading statement.

You don’t have an “order” agreement

you have an agreement, for $100, that Tesla might try and in the future extend you *this* purchase contract

 

[chonnertruk]

OOPPSSS you're right... it's a "Pre-Order Agreement". Further compelling my argument. No one should have a Retail Cyber Truck Order agreement. I believe the basis of my argument still stands.

 

[cvalue13]

OOPPSSS you're right... it's a "Pre-Order Agreement". Further compelling my argument. No one should have a Retail Cyber Truck Order agreement. I believe the basis of my argument still stands.

they don’t have a CyberTruck order agreement

they purport to have Tesla’s new vehicle order agreement - which is general - which form of contract now includes a new provision that addresses a peculiarity applicable if the vehicle being ordered is a Cybertruck. Which is plausible, seeing how retail orders will open soon.

none of which is to assert this is proof of the contract’s legitimacy

instead only to say that your reasons for saying it’s illegitimate appear to be based on misunderstanding

 

[Coolbreeze704]

they don’t have a CyberTruck order agreement

they purport to have Tesla’s new vehicle order agreement - which is general - which form of contract now includes a new provision that addresses a peculiarity applicable if the vehicle being ordered is a Cybertruck. Which is plausible, seeing how retail orders will open soon.

none of which is to assert this is proof of the contract’s legitimacy

instead only to say that your reasons for saying it’s illegitimate appear to be based on misunderstanding

Main stream media has been all over this purchase agreement. The usual suspects are writing articles to hit at Tesla with most negative slants possible. Since Tesla has not responded to the release of this agreement or these story in the media I would think it seems legit.

 

[KScheidt]

Main stream media has been all over this purchase agreement. The usual suspects are writing articles to hit at Tesla with most negative slants possible. Since Tesla has not responded to the release of this agreement or these story in the media I would think it seems legit.

The fact that it can be found on Tesla’s site in official documentation should be enough to (IMO) consider it authentic. If that’s still not enough then I fear we may still be debating the presence of a “Mid-Gate” on December 1st.

 

[cvalue13]

Here are the people “in line” ahead of you, “profiteering“ off the Cybertruck, all with Tesla’s blessing and encouragement





And now, for the rare few true ‘flippers’ with only one or two orders, some will also be incentivized to go ahead and take the truck, rent/loan for a year, and on day 365 sell for the remaining profit

If anything, now they get the advantages of a commercial vehicle tax/deduction, too!

 

[Coolbreeze704]

The fact that it can be found on Tesla’s site in official documentation should be enough to (IMO) consider it authentic. If that’s still not enough then I fear we may still be debating the presence of a “Mid-Gate” on December 1st.

You are right. I didn't realize it was on the Tesla site. I thought it was leaked doc. So yeah, that should be enough, but about that midgate?

Sponsored