Has Tesla been enforcing No-Resale clause?

[MF7]

Does anyone know if Tesla is actually enforcing the no resale contract?

Sponsored

 

[Woodrick]

It appears that they have in at least some situations.

 

[MF7]

It appears that they have in at least some situations.

Do you know what those situations have been?

 

[Woodrick]

Do you know what those situations have been?

If you want to break your contract, you do the work. I'm not going to flip my vehicle and I abhor those that do.

If it is a hardship case, contact Tesla

 

[Pops]

I follow the CT and Tesla news very closely. I have not seen a single case of Tesla taking action after a sale. Its possible Tesla doesn't want the bad press of suing their customers, even if they are in the right.

There was a post here on this forum of a person that said Tesla cancelled their reservations (they had 3 pending) because they simply posted their VIN on an auction. I do not believe the sale went through. I do not recall if this story was confirmed as true or not.

I love my Cyberbeast, but if I could have I would have sold it for $100k profit. That window of opportunity is gone.

 

[CyberGus]

I just had Powershare installed, and now I can't sell my house for a year

 

[UberNoob]

I’m sure Tesla has plenty of time to do all the suing they want. Likely cheaper for them to do everyone at once or as many as they can. Lawyers stuff is way outta my league.

 

[sefar]

I’m sure Tesla has plenty of time to do all the suing they want. Likely cheaper for them to do everyone at once or as many as they can. Lawyers stuff is way outta my league.

I am a lawyer. With the caveat that I haven't done legal research, I think there will be a huge legal challenge. They are selling the truck, not a subscription to a truck. Most courts frown on limiting a right to resale. Ferrari and sometimes Mercedes will blacklist you if you sell early, that is about the most I can imagine happening.

On top of that, they are dealing with a customer base that can afford litigation and once they sue they are inviting a class action suit. Arguably the value of the truck is diminished if you can't resell it. If they wind up in suit in a state where Tesla is disfavored (oil state or one where dealers have kept them out) they risk a bad precedent.

 

[HaulingAss]

I am a lawyer. With the caveat that I haven't done legal research, I think there will be a huge legal challenge. They are selling the truck, not a subscription to a truck. Most courts frown on limiting a right to resale. Ferrari and sometimes Mercedes will blacklist you if you sell early, that is about the most I can imagine happening.

On top of that, they are dealing with a customer base that can afford litigation and once they sue they are inviting a class action suit. Arguably the value of the truck is diminished if you can't resell it. If they wind up in suit in a state where Tesla is disfavored (oil state or one where dealers have kept them out) they risk a bad precedent.

I'm of the belief that you shouldn't sign a purchase agreement that you intend to break. If you don't like the terms of the sale, don't buy it.

Whether Tesla enforces it, and when they choose to enforce it, is up to Tesla.

 

[Pops]

I'm of the belief that you shouldn't sign a purchase agreement that you intend to break. If you don't like the terms of the sale, don't buy it.

Whether Tesla enforces it, and when they choose to enforce it, is up to Tesla.

Generally I agree with you, but most do not read the agreement. Also there are a lot of ridiculous and unenforceable things in agreements. This gives a consumer 2 choices:

1. Protest the agreement and be denied the ability to purchase the product. This is a dead end with 1 outcome.
2. Purchase the product and protest the agreement when/if it comes up. The odds of having a legal fight are slim to none.

Its the old ask permission vs ask forgiveness dilemma. I dont know of any case law on this. The closest I am aware of ended in settlement. (John Cena and Ford Settle GT Resale Lawsuit)

What puts Tesla at a disadvantage is

The first sale doctrine is a legal concept in the United States that limits the rights of intellectual property owners to control the resale of products that embody their intellectual property. It's codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109.

 

[Woodrick]

I follow the CT and Tesla news very closely. I have not seen a single case of Tesla taking action after a sale. Its possible Tesla doesn't want the bad press of suing their customers, even if they are in the right.

There was a post here on this forum of a person that said Tesla cancelled their reservations (they had 3 pending) because they simply posted their VIN on an auction. I do not believe the sale went through. I do not recall if this story was confirmed as true or not.

I love my Cyberbeast, but if I could have I would have sold it for $100k profit. That window of opportunity is gone.

Yes, Tesla doesn't want the press, one way or another.

There have been a number of for sale postings that mysteriously disappear, especially once Social Media broadcasts them.
And the proliferation of them just hasn't happened. That either means that no one wants to flip them or flipping hasn't been profitable.
I believe that there's a post on this site from "a dealer" that says that they have everything handled. But yet it has been there for some time.
There was another "high-end car" sales group that tried, but there's stayed for a long time and disappeared.

 

[Woodrick]

I am a lawyer. With the caveat that I haven't done legal research, I think there will be a huge legal challenge. They are selling the truck, not a subscription to a truck. Most courts frown on limiting a right to resale. Ferrari and sometimes Mercedes will blacklist you if you sell early, that is about the most I can imagine happening.

On top of that, they are dealing with a customer base that can afford litigation and once they sue they are inviting a class action suit. Arguably the value of the truck is diminished if you can't resell it. If they wind up in suit in a state where Tesla is disfavored (oil state or one where dealers have kept them out) they risk a bad precedent.

This has already been discussed in other threads ad nauseum. The "I'm a "lawyers" ended up saying that it is a possiblity.

And even if it isn't, turning off updates, connectivity, and Supercharging could easily be a possibility.

 

[HaulingAss]

Generally I agree with you, but most do not read the agreement.

Huh? It's a $100,000 purchase. Anyone who doesn't read the contract is either ignorant or too trusting that they understand the rules. Is this some new GenX thing, "I don't read contracts"? Anyone agreeing to it who hasn't read it doesn't understand contract law. Or they would read it.

What puts Tesla at a disadvantage is:

"The first sale doctrine is a legal concept in the United States that limits the rights of intellectual property owners to control the resale of products that embody their intellectual property. It's codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109. "

The first sale doctrine applies to consumer goods, but only those sold without a purchase and sale agreement. The doctrine cannot overrule a contract signed by consenting adults.

 

[Pops]

Huh? It's a $100,000 purchase. Anyone who doesn't read the contract is either ignorant or too trusting that they understand the rules. Is this some new GenX thing, "I don't read contracts"? Anyone agreeing to it who hasn't read it doesn't understand contract law. Or they would read it.

Very few read them, regardless of age group. Here is a sample size of 2500 that only 8% are have estimated to read the agreement based on time they took to agree.

The first sale doctrine applies to consumer goods, but only those sold without a purchase and sale agreement. The doctrine cannot overrule a contract signed by consenting adults.

Its not that simple. For example an agreement doesn't allow a company/individual to

• Avoid liability due to negligence.
• Break the law. I cant make you my slave, even if we both agree and sign a contract.

The first sale doctrine is the law, so it would be interesting to see how it is challenged in a case. It did go to the supreme court in 2012 in "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." They ruled in favor of the 2nd seller. Granted the specifics might be different, it shows an inclination to honor first sale doctrine.

I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[sefar]

Very few read them, regardless of age group. Here is a sample size of 2500 that only 8% are have estimated to read the agreement based on time they took to agree.



Its not that simple. For example an agreement doesn't allow a company/individual to

• Avoid liability due to negligence.
• Break the law. I cant make you my slave, even if we both agree and sign a contract.

The first sale doctrine is the law, so it would be interesting to see how it is challenged in a case. It did go to the supreme court in 2012 in "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." They ruled in favor of the 2nd seller. Granted the specifics might be different, it shows an inclination to honor first sale doctrine.

I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Actually, they can avoid liability due to negligence, at least in Missouri, under certain circumstances and with the right disclosures. Health clubs often do. Probably not in a product liability situation, FSD is a different question if you could ever prove their negligence. They possess the driving logs after all.

Sponsored