No Resale Provision is Back

[cvalue13]

So what you're saying in your profession legal opinion is that there is no way around the clause?

I'm all for reselling, let capitalism breathe and let the early adapters benefit. Tesla gets their money one way or another, and the hot resale market for initial deliveries will subside once production gets cranking. Which leads me to believe this clause is only for the foundation series.

the way you pose your question is a good example of how people outside the law have sometimes a hard time seeing around the corner

whether or not it’s found enforceable by an arbitration court after arbitration is nearly irrelevant to the purpose of the provision

What’s more relevant is the deterrent effects of mere existence of the provision.

the asymmetry between the parties in terms of money, time, and motivation, means that any one customer is forced to fear and avoid the process and uncertainty, more than some textbook outcome

In police work, it’s when they arrest you or threaten arrest knowing and not carrying it likely wouldn’t hold up in a judge’s decision.

That’s called “you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”

Sponsored

 

[zoomer0056]

In my Foundation Order Agreement:

Is this confirmed by another who's also placed an order?

 

[JBee]

That would only be the case if "lots" of people would go against Tesla at the same time. And then for what same reason to make a public outcry? That they couldn't flip their product? Tesla has the upper hand here, not the customer.

The point is the same with patents.

Or as EM puts it, "a patent is like buying a lottery ticket to a lawsuit."

In many, many cases you simply only get the defence you can afford.

 

[SlegMD]

I think the current pricing of the truck is enough of a deterrent to prevent pervasive scalping at this point. You would have to sell the AWD for over 100k to really make up for the headache/time. At that point you could have gone beast mode.

 

[Balthezor]

I think the current pricing of the truck is enough of a deterrent to prevent pervasive scalping at this point. You would have to sell the AWD for over 100k to really make up for the headache/time. At that point you could have gone beast mode.

Problem is also with brokers who have some funds to do this. Not just the typical chump on Ebay.

 

[davelloydbrown]

Actually this is a pretty sweet deal.

You get to drive the Foundation Edition now, then sell it before the year is up, back to Tesla, and get yourself a normal retail version, without the decals (which you can get etched yourself), and they have to pay you back more than a new Beast CT is worth.

Why not. A "free" truck delivered now (for 1st year), and a bonus refund at the end if you don't drive to many miles, and a new Retail truck without the bugs, at the end of the year.

Can I take two please?

(Or are they going to do a "no re-buyers clause" to stop this? ? )

I think they are taking of $0.25 for each mile driven, I guess it is unlikely that you would drive 80 k miles on the first year.

 

[CyberGus]

For a tale of woe, read this TMC thread about a customer gettting blacklisted by Tesla even before the Cybertruck clause:

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-blacklist.248489/

They even blacklisted his family!

 

[davelloydbrown]

I’m one of the guys that companies like Tesla would hire and pay $2,050/hr to consider, strategize, and draft provisions like this.

This provision isn’t exactly drafted to do what folks are suggesting.


Which is to say, it’s not drafted based on clearly settled law, to have clearly defined consequence, with clearly defined proceeders, clearly defined outcomes, clearly defined money amounts invoked, or clearly defined on/off switches.

It’s instead drafted to primarily function as psychological warfare, wherein a $1T corporation with a 400 person in-house legal team has all the leverage over any customer, and has inordinate flexibility to do, pay, or enforce how it pleases.


Personally, if when my order is called this provision still applies, it all but guarantees (alongside my other cost/benefit items). that I won’t complete my order.

If that sounds odd to anyone, it’s because they have different principles, or less understanding.

I guess you can afford the beast. I didn't think you worked at all because of the inordinate amount of time you spend on the forum.

 

[davelloydbrown]

That would only be the case if "lots" of people would go against Tesla at the same time. And then for what same reason to make a public outcry? That they couldn't flip their product? Tesla has the upper hand here, not the customer.

The point is the same with patents.

Or as EM puts it, "a patent is like buying a lottery ticket to a lawsuit."

In many, many cases you simply only get the defence you can afford.

class action lawsuit

 

[SlegMD]

Problem is also with brokers who have some funds to do this. Not just the typical chump on Ebay.

What’s the goal of the broker?

 

[Balthezor]

What’s the goal of the broker?

Make money

 

[SlegMD]

Make money

By doing what??

 

[JBee]

class action lawsuit

For what? Not being able to flip cars en masse? Do you think all car flippers would unit for a class action? Lol.

Would be a sight to see tho.

 

[freakyguy666]

I can provide a 100

I do this for a living, for 15 years, for companies more sophisticated than Tesla (legal), and assets far more valuable.


Meanwhile, on the limited point of Tesla not knowing about this agreement until the title transfers after a year:

explain exactly how your LLC registers, insures, services, home charges, and supercharges this truck for a year?


it’s not that a corporate ownership arrangement could net be drafted and agreed, of course it could - it’s that nobody here suggesting that path appears to have an appreciation for the length and complexity of that document needed to make it work well for both buyer and seller (unless the two parties have other reasons to trust and play nice - like being relatives, etc.).

Even then, it leaves open the possibility of a trail of info that, even if this no resale provision doesn’t trigger, Tesla can take any of it’s other contractual rights (eg voiding warranty, shutting out from supercharging, etc.)

For the record, you failed to provide a single scenario.

…and in case you missed it, when I write “both parties agree to the terms” suggests a high level of trust between the 2 parties (ct owner & potential buyer).

 

[freakyguy666]

the way you pose your question is a good example of how people outside the law have sometimes a hard time seeing around the corner

whether or not it’s found enforceable by an arbitration court after arbitration is nearly irrelevant to the purpose of the provision

What’s more relevant is the deterrent effects of mere existence of the provision.

the asymmetry between the parties in terms of money, time, and motivation, means that any one customer is forced to fear and avoid the process and uncertainty, more than some textbook outcome

In police work, it’s when they arrest you or threaten arrest knowing and not carrying it likely wouldn’t hold up in a judge’s decision.

That’s called “you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”

yes deterrent for those scared of their shadow. I’m not one of them. But you do you.

Sponsored