No Resale Provision is Back

[George Costanza]

... and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla's bla bla standards ...

Guess who gets to decide that cost unilaterally?

I have not received a Foundation allocation, and if if I did and if I decided to go ahead with the purchase, then I do not expect to resell it within a year, but if I had to sell due to unforeseen circumstances, then I would set my expectations low, really low, I mean really really low on the price Tesla would pay me for it. (recent burns take time to heal I guess)

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I wonder if they only want to prevent the foundation series from being flipped. Interesting

yes, what now remains unknown is if this was always drafted for foundation units (which are a separate sales proposition), or if it will also show up in normal retail sales of standard retail cybertrucks.

From sounds of it, will be a few months before we see the first standard retail sales orders

 

[Gurule92]

Well it depends on if you pay cash for the Foundation version, if so no interest applies, so the math would be:

Buy Foundation now $122,335
Minus miles driven and return undamaged: 10,000mile x $0.25 = $2500
Sell it before year is up, back to for Tesla = $122,335 - $2500 = $119,835
Buy new Retail CT TM (with an existing order to avoid delays) = $119,835 - $99,990 = $19, 845 refund.

(**) Use $19,845 left over towards your new TM CT so it only costs you $99,990 - $19,845 = $80,145 (**)

Plus you got to drive a Foundation series for 1 year for $2500!

I'll take three!

(**Used car dealer math!)

would they come uninstall your wall charger and stuff on re-buy? lol

 

[freakyguy666]

The Clause says nothing about setting up a contract promising to sell to someone after 12months and basically loaning them the vehicle during those 12months (you maintain the registration & insurance—of course you’ll presumably incorporate these costs into the price agreed-upon in the Contract) and then transfer title after 12 months completing the Sale.

 

[JBee]

The Clause says nothing about setting up a contract promising to sell to someone after 12months and basically loaning them the vehicle during those 12months (you maintain the registration & insurance—of course you’ll presumably incorporate these costs into the price agreed-upon in the Contract) and then transfer title after 12 months completing the Sale.

Yeah it's fairly poorly written, but also vague enough that a court "interpretation" will be to costly for a consumer, whilst they stand and watch you burn through cash with their legal team. A deterrent for the "honest" guys as such.

There's not to much you can do about them denying you further service though either I think, which is really the only risk if you are smart about it, and don't get twisted u in a legal dispute.

 

[freakyguy666]

Yeah it's fairly poorly written, but also vague enough that a court "interpretation" will be to costly for a consumer, whilst they stand and watch you burn through cash with their legal team. A deterrent for the "honest" guys as such.

There's not to much you can do about them denying you further service though either I think, which is really the only risk if you are smart about it, and don't get twisted u in a legal dispute.

Not how the law works in the USA…Courts don’t interpret in more restrictive manner when the Plaintiff wrote the Clause…If they wanted to prevent loaning the car out they would need to put that in the Clause….it’s clearly not there….easy loophole provided the other party agrees to the terms…

 

[JBee]

Not how the law works in the USA…Courts don’t interpret in more restrictive manner when the Plaintiff wrote the Clause…If they wanted to prevent loaning the car out they would need to put that in the Clause….it’s clearly not there….easy loophole provided the other party agrees to the terms…

I didn't say it wouldn't work, rather that it likely would work to lend it, "provided" you aren't targeted by Tesla in a costly dispute "if or not it was" included in the agreement. And even then it's easier for them to deny you access to future vehicles than pursue you in court. I highly doubt they would even look at you twice, if you weren't a serial offender.

 

[freakyguy666]

I didn't say it wouldn't work, rather that it likely would work to lend it, "provided" you aren't targeted by Tesla in a costly dispute "if or not it was" included in the agreement. And even then it's easier for them to deny you access to future vehicles than pursue you in court. I highly doubt they would even look at you twice, if you weren't a serial offender.

Targeted for what? Tesla would have no idea about the agreement. They would only become aware once the title transferred, which would be after 12 months—which is in accordance with the Clause.

 

[JBee]

Targeted for what? Tesla would have no idea about the agreement. They would only become aware once the title transferred, which would be after 12 months—which is in accordance with the Clause.

I suppose it depends on how you go about using your app and Supercharging or not. Even your home charging setup would be known. Once again, not saying they "would" bother, rather just saying they "could" dig into it and filter out some probabilities with some data they already have, "if' they wanted to.

 

[freakyguy666]

I suppose it depends on how you go about using your app and Supercharging or not. Even your home charging setup would be known. Once again, not saying they "would" bother, rather just saying they "could" dig into it and filter out some probabilities with some data they already have, "if' they wanted to.

its illegal for tesla to actively track their customers in the way you’re describing—that would be “targeting specific customers”….they would not risk doing that and getting into a massive lawsuit. As such, not gonna happen.

Again, if the sale occurs after 12 months, there’s absolutely no reason for Tesla to give it a second thought.

 

[JBee]

its illegal for tesla to actively track their customers in the way you’re describing—that would be “targeting specific customers”….they would not risk doing that and getting into a massive lawsuit. As such, not gonna happen.

Again, if the sale occurs after 12 months, there’s absolutely no reason for Tesla to give it a second thought.

As I said "if" they wanted to. I actually said they wouldn't bother though.
There's a difference between can, can't, should, would, might, allowed to etc.

A lot of people and corporations do things they shouldn't all the time, simply because they "can", but not because it's legal. Most contracts in existence remain untested by the court, otherwise we would see courts become a booming business.

 

[freakyguy666]

As I said "if" they wanted to. I actually said they wouldn't bother though.
There's a difference between can, can't, should, would, might, allowed to etc.

A lot of people and corporations do things they shouldn't all the time, simply because they "can", but not because it's legal. Most contracts in existence remain untested by the court, otherwise we would see courts become a booming business.

well if you agree they wouldn’t bother then there is virtually no risk—just as I said at the start.?

 

[HaulingAss]

I wonder if they only want to prevent the foundation series from being flipped. Interesting

The "no re-selling" clause will almost certainly be in all Cybertruck sales contracts, precisely because Tesla wants to prevent a secondary market at higher prices from developing. They know they have a VERY desirable product here and they don't want a bunch of greedy people swooping in with schemes to profit from those who are not near the front of the line.

I'm super stoked that Tesla is taking charge and preventing what would have become a sickening circus. Sincere buyers and Tesla fans will get their Cybertrucks sooner than they would have if there was widespread flipping going on by people who don't even like the Cybertruck.

 

[JBee]

The "no re-selling" clause will almost certainly be in all Cybertruck sales contracts, precisely because Tesla wants to prevent a secondary market at higher prices from developing. They know they have a VERY desirable product here and they don't want a bunch of greedy people swooping in with schemes to profit from those who are not near the front of the line.

I'm super stoked that Tesla is taking charge and preventing what would have become a sickening circus. Sincere buyers and Tesla fans will get their Cybertrucks sooner than they would have if there was widespread flipping going on by people who don't even like the Cybertruck.

Does nothing to stop flippers.

We just proved that above with a lease, let alone a myriad of other legal avenues discussed on other threads on how a profit can be made from existing demand without invoking the clause.

All it does is put the onerous on "unsophisticated buyers" not to change their minds for whatever reason, even to their own detriment, for situations out of their control.

Or sell it back to them for essentially a profit with the Foundation edition, if you swap it before the year is up....

This is all ignoring the fact that scalping is unlikely to result in ANY meaningful delay in the delivery line, whilst the CT production is being ramped to full production.

Show me your numbers how this is not so.
But no fanboi gum flapping please, just cold hard numbers.

Sponsored