No Resale Provision is Back

[HaulingAss]

Not according to others on this very board…

I'm aware of that. Be careful who you listen to. It looks like there are some people who are butt-hurt they can't use their wealth to jump the line and others who are butt-hurt they will not be able to use their multiple reservations to become a Cybertruck reseller.

Additionally, there are anti-Tesla forces that want a real shit-show to develop around scalping of the Cybertruck and news of Tesla legally attacking these re-sellers. They want to encourage people to risk it so Tesla has to enforce it (because they love news headlines that they can spin in a negative light).

Nothing new here, there is always plenty of misinformation surrounding anything having to do with Tesla.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

If the court doesn’t uphold the agreement how would Tesla enforce it?

I'm curious if you can articulate the legal basis on which you think a court might find the "no resellers" clause unenforceable.

I don't see any reasonable reason why such a simple clause would not be enforceable. Do you see a flaw in the specific wording, or what?

 

[HaulingAss]

Incorrect. Many other resale agreements have been found unenforceable.

Why don't you cite the most applicable case, so we can judge for ourselves. Without that, it's just an empty claim.

 

[cvalue13]

Based on that comment it sounds like you have a personal problem. Seek help.

Man, you’re talking about loan structures, not “” arousing suspicion “”, being unable to prove intent, etc.

You’re just being mealymouth, and then using those ambiguities in mixed messages as a sword or shield, as you see fit

at the end of the day, the whole of your conversation on this thread, has been a mixed message of on the one hand, how exactly to get around the provision, which demonstrates that you don’t have the requisite intent, and then on the other hand, demonstrating about how your intent is good, or in applicable to the provision

The only personal problem I have, is with the general category of human beings, that are intellectually, dishonest, and in the beautiful scenario of a forum, where social decorum doesn’t cause me to not call out that kind of bullshit. In fact, it’s a bit cathartic.

 

[freakyguy666]

Why don't you cite the most applicable case, so we can judge for ourselves. Without that, it's just an empty claim.

I would have to charge you for that. My clients wouldn’t be pleased if I gave it to you for free.

 

[freakyguy666]

Man, you’re talking about loan structures, not “” arousing suspicion “”, being unable to prove intent, etc.

You’re just being mealymouth, and then using those ambiguities in mixed messages as a sword or shield, as you see fit

at the end of the day, the whole of your conversation on this thread, has been a mixed message of on the one hand, how exactly to get around the provision, which demonstrates that you don’t have the requisite intent, and then on the other hand, demonstrating about how your intent is good, or in applicable to the provision

The only personal problem I have, is with the general category of human beings, that are intellectually, dishonest, and in the beautiful scenario of a forum, where social decorum doesn’t cause me to not call out that kind of bullshit. In fact, it’s a bit cathartic.

Youre not helping yourself. Clearly the concept of loaning out a vehicle and then selling in 12 months is apparently too complex for you.

Hint: it is not restricted in the clause.

 

[HaulingAss]

You are barking up a really strange tree if you think the Sherman anti-trust act is relevant here.
Perhaps a Boojum Tree.

I'm amazed that anyone would think that applies to a no-resale clause. We have entered la-la Land.

 

[cvalue13]

Youre not helping yourself. Clearly the concept of loaning out a vehicle and then selling in 12 months is apparently too complex for you.

Hint: it is not restricted in the clause.

I understand the provision just fine, including exactly what you appear to not understand about the provision and how it may work in practical terms.

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.

I also am the one who understands the meaning of the word ‘mealymouthed’

 

[HaulingAss]

Youre not helping yourself. Clearly the concept of loaning out a vehicle and then selling in 12 months is apparently too complex for you.

Hint: it is not restricted in the clause.

There are generally tortuous paths to get around contract clauses, even if that path is not clearly within the bounds of a contract and that comes with its own risks, like being the legal owner while someone else has possession of your Cybertruck. If that's your strategy to make a profit, go right ahead.

I thought the discussion was about the validity of the no resale clause, not whether or not it could be quasi-circumvented with other contracts designed to make a sale look like a loan.

 

[freakyguy666]

There are generally tortuous paths to get around contract clauses, even if that path is not clearly within the bounds of a contract and that comes with its own risks, like being the legal owner while someone else has possession of your Cybertruck. If that's your strategy to make a profit, go right ahead.

I thought the discussion was about the validity of the no resale clause, not whether or not it could be quasi-circumvented with other contracts designed to make a sale look like a loan.

Not an “either/or” scenario. Both may be viable options.

 

[smggsm]

No sale provision tested many times and failed .. I know some one sold FORD GT and ford couldn’t apply it ..

La FERRARI sold too . They made good money but Ferrari put them on black list
. They couldn’t enforce it too ..

 

[cvalue13]

No sale provision tested many times and failed .. I know some one sold FORD GT and ford couldn’t apply it ..

La FERRARI sold too . They made good money but Ferrari put them on black list
. They couldn’t enforce it too ..

exceptions prove the rule

again, y’all keep skipping to ultimate outcomes as though any of you have the time, money, expertise, or standing to ever run that conclusion to ground

meanwhile Tesla has an injunction order in your sale whereby the truck is basically legally bricked until one of two things happen: they decide to unbrick it (because you pinky swear to stop), or you’ve run the outcome to ground



saying “John Cena fought this and months later they settled out of court for a $1,5000,000 car” is effectively irrelevant to whether one of you normies is going to fight the man for your $[20K] profit on a flip

 

[CyberGus]

Youre not helping yourself. Clearly the concept of loaning out a vehicle and then selling in 12 months is apparently too complex for you.

Hint: it is not restricted in the clause.

"Tesla and its affiliates sell cars directly to end-consumers, and we may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle or that has otherwise been made in bad faith, and we'll keep your Order Fee, Order Deposit and Transportation Fee."

This is in every Tesla sales contract.

Sponsored