Deleted clause threatened $50,000+ suits against people who violate resale rule.
See full article...
See full article...
Tesla deletes clause threatening to sue buyers who quickly resell Cybertruck
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This is unfortunately quite common. Lease or sales contracts frequently have conditions applied. Employee non-compete statements are another form of this. You can't use your company derived knowledge for a period of time. Arms deals contain conditions for resale as well. Real-estate comes with strings attached much of the time. And have you ever looked at the terms for purchase of software?
So yeah, this is entirely normal. Allowing people to apply conditions to sales contracts isn't a bad thing. Nor is it a good thing. It depends on what the conditions are and and how they're applied.
Upvote
8
(10
/
-2)
The contract clause included verbiage that said Tesla has the right to pursue a court injunction preventing the sale or, failing that, to sue to you for $50k or the sale price, whichever was greater. So yes, they are/were trying to stop you from selling it in the first place.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
The alternative is that Tesla essentially auctions the trucks for the first year or so while they are production limited.
If you want a chance at getting one at a price commensurate with its long-term value, then restrictions have to be put in place like this.
Without it, the truck will get sold for it's market value which will be MUCH higher than the MSRP for a period of time. If Tesla is willing to forego that profit, it's fair to demand their buyers do to. If Tesla wanted people playing scalper price for the truck they'd just sell it at that price themselves.
Edit: not sure what I said that's controversial. Do people like scalpers?
If you want a chance at getting one at a price commensurate with its long-term value, then restrictions have to be put in place like this.
Without it, the truck will get sold for it's market value which will be MUCH higher than the MSRP for a period of time. If Tesla is willing to forego that profit, it's fair to demand their buyers do to. If Tesla wanted people playing scalper price for the truck they'd just sell it at that price themselves.
Edit: not sure what I said that's controversial. Do people like scalpers?
Last edited:
Upvote
-18
(6
/
-24)
Subscription bridges? What is this, one of the 36 US states that utilize tolls to fund public roads?!
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Why is this fair? If you choose to sell something at a yard sale for $1, why shouldn't the buyer be free to turn around and auction it on Ebay? It's not the buyer's fault that you chose to sell at an artificially low price.
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
As a truck guy (but not a cybertruck guy) who buys a truck and keeps it for 10 to 20 years, I'm OK with this and wish more manufacturers would do it. Between the scalpers and the dealers' market adjustments, the inflated prices are very frustrating for someone who just wants a fancy new truck to drive for the next decade plus
Upvote
8
(11
/
-3)
Accurate. I’ve seen the hater comments mostly around social media. Which is why I brought it up here. I supposed I could’ve added that context to my post
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Are you familiar with Exhaustion Doctrine? Exhaustion Doctrine under U.S. law relates to patented things sold in the U.S. and is probably more applicable to the conversation.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Wise words. A lot of cutting edge products are 1) experimental, 2) rental (you don’t have the full ownership and control), 3) fake needs, and the essential needs can be addressed by mature products long time ago.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Good, because the glass isn't...and they only demonstrated the body panels are with low-velocity rounds.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I note that the clause defines the repurchase price as the sale price less $0.25/mile driven.
Doesn't that represent market fixing / manipulation?
I note also that there's a few other things they'll knock off too - repairs, etc.
As written, it looks like they're at liberty to calculate a "price" such that you end up owing them money to take the vehicle back off you. That's probably "unconscionable", isn't it? They're basically saying that if you have the temerity to buy one, drive it, for example, 280,000 miles, even if you keep it repaired / in perfect condition, you're having to give it back to them for free...
Doesn't that represent market fixing / manipulation?
I note also that there's a few other things they'll knock off too - repairs, etc.
As written, it looks like they're at liberty to calculate a "price" such that you end up owing them money to take the vehicle back off you. That's probably "unconscionable", isn't it? They're basically saying that if you have the temerity to buy one, drive it, for example, 280,000 miles, even if you keep it repaired / in perfect condition, you're having to give it back to them for free...
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
It hasn't worn on me well. I feel like every time I see it, it looks worse. The view from the rear is especially awkward.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I still remember watching the first unveil where some dude threw a ball through the "bulletproof" windows. I was with a bunch of Tesla fanboys and I almost died laughing.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
In situations where very rare or very expensive cars have been totaled but insurance rebuilds them, they basically build a brand new car around the VIN plate, which the insurer considers at that point to be "the car". Edit: This is apparently called "rebodying" and enthusiasts also have to deal with it.
So maybe you could say "it crashed into a sawzall factory which precisely removed all the VIN markings" and sell the still-movable car without triggering Tesla's no-sale clause, but then the buyer won't be able to register or insure it since you'd still have the VINs in a box in your garage.
Last edited:
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Judging by the outlined price calculation, it looks like they're at liberty to calculate a sales prices that means you owe them money to "sell" it to them, and you have to accept it.
So, not only are they stopping you selling it, they're able to demand money from you too, and make you pay it.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
My suspicion is that they it wasn't a case of "Oh no, this makes us look like controlling arseholes!", which of course has never bother Muskolini and his X Shirts before; Obsessional loyalty at the cost of your personal safety if you resist (you pedo-guys, and I'll pay a "detective" to prove it to my fans) has always been part of the brand. Rather I suspect this clause was originally put in expecting a huge demand for the Cyberbrick, to try and make it seem like other luxury brands that have similar clauses, whilst they were hoping that tackling scalpers would be seen to be on their fanatics side...
Except the Cyberbrick isn't like Taylor Swift concert tickets; There isn't that much of an interest any more, no huge crowd of people desperate to actually own the product and anguished they might not get any; the real audience is as it always was, a bunch of greedy arseholes who'll raise hell if they can't flip the brick somehow. Which most of them won't be able too make their money back, because of said lack of interest. Again, these aren't Playstations either. But common sense, let alone common decency is never the strong suit of the grifter; they assume the right to flip and make obscene profits is axiomatic, and it's "entitlement" to suggest anything better... no, leaving the clause in would alienate the actual Cyberbrick reservation holders, the scalping arseholes, and they can't risk the small production run immediately being hit with outrage from that core audience.
Instead, the steel-can is being kicked a little further down the road, until there's a tonne of pre-orders slapped up on eBay et all, and remaining unsold at the asking price, because again; Fascism, poor build quality, fug-ugly etc.
Even the genius owner says they've dug their grave on this one.
And I find it all blackly hilarious.
Upvote
17
(20
/
-3)
Did you just come out of cryogenic hibernation from the 1920's? Licensing a car is called a "lease", and hundreds of thousands of people do it.
Upvote
30
(31
/
-1)
Well, you're not a wealthy white South African raised during apartheid, with the attendant paranoia about violent retribution.
Upvote
6
(14
/
-8)
I guess this part isn't new, but it sure jumped out to me as weird (emphasis mine):
Do you even actually own the vehicle if Tesla can locate and disable the vehicle electronically at any time?
You could have paid in full, cash, and they can still decide you tricked them somehow and just turn your truck off. What a future we live in.
Do you even actually own the vehicle if Tesla can locate and disable the vehicle electronically at any time?
You could have paid in full, cash, and they can still decide you tricked them somehow and just turn your truck off. What a future we live in.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
No this is not at all normal for a sale. Sales are normally straightforward complete ownership, with the exception of when you are making payments or leasing. Obviously if you are making payments for 6 years you are limited to what you can do that might diminish the value. No painting it purple polka dots or modifying it into a hearse!
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
Do we seriously still not know the price of this vehicle? Or any actual stats? They are shipping these things when?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
There were approximately 116,000 Edsels ever sold and the theoretical first year of Cybertruck production is 125,000 units.
Given the purchase terms, apparent build quality and horrible appearance, I’m taking the under. Although improving the build quality could make a difference. We’ll have to see how the released version performs.
Given the purchase terms, apparent build quality and horrible appearance, I’m taking the under. Although improving the build quality could make a difference. We’ll have to see how the released version performs.
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
Happens if you try to drive it in a Pride Parade, probably. /s (I hope)
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
From everything I've read about cybertruck....they will depreciate 50% within 6 months of purchase. And that may be optimistic.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Still no. That basically means the patent holder can't hold a purchaser of a second hand patented good for infringing their patent. Their IP rights are exhausted, but they can still place restrictions on the sale of the physical item.
Patent infringement is a matter of IP law, the terms of resale are a matter of contract law. Two entirely separate legal domains.
Even when IP holders accept that customers are allowed to sell IP encumbered physical property, they are STILL allowed to place restrictions on the sale. Here is Blizzard's TOS that says when you sell one of their physical products, you are required to destroy all other copies in your possession, incliding backups. This is a restriction Blizzard is entitled to place on secondary sales:
https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/lega...500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
10 large YouTubers find someone high on the waiting list that doesn't want anything to do with Tesla anymore, each fronts that person $13,000, they buy one, all converge to do a weekend (or week) of testing, embargo all their videos until the same day, re-sell the truck the day before that, and gleefully pay Tesla the extra $50,000. At worst, it would cost them a few thousand dollars each, and they'd get that back from YouTube in a week.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I'm just waiting for somebody to manage to break into the Mothership (Tesla's name for the central computer systems that all their cars phone home to) and push out a fleet-wide shutdown command.
Bonus points if they do so in such a way that it bricks some vital component of the cars, so that Tesla has to build replacements for every single vehicle that they've ever sold.
Upvote
9
(15
/
-6)
Actually it isn't a Ferrari thing, Ford has done this a number of times with product in high demand... the two vehicles that come to mind is the GT and F150 Lightning, there is a clause in the contract against flipping for a two year period. This also tends to be a thing with high end products when it comes to cars.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
I totally see that for a limited-run item, or actual art. The CyberTruck is neither; it's retina-searingly fugly, and they say they're going to make 125,000 a year of them.
Or, you know, maybe they're lying through their goddamned teeth about that.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
No need to worry, it's a fake truck that will never be built in any real numbers.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
My understanding is that "this thing" ended up being a basically bog standard "panels on frame" construction truck, just with a now very awkward style of body panels compared to other trucks and cars. I haven't kept track of if it's unibody/etc, but unlike what was promised--a structural exoskeleton that skipped the standard frame, using stainless steel where the form was a requirement of the structure and processes*--it's just… something done to look that way, but otherwise pretty basically normal.
So despite looking… different… passing safety tests wouldn't surprise me. Other than, you know, Musk's involvement.
*The original proposed cyber truck concept could have possibly worked in terms of safety, or been a complete safety catastrophe, and I would have been equally skeptical of it being safe but honestly also very interested in how that turned out with testing: maybe the actual engineers working on it would have pulled out something amazing and surprising, which would have been neat and interesting for future potential. Equally it seemed like something where repairability hadn't been considered in the least. A lot of modern car manufacturing process is about bolt on pieces that can be relatively easily replaced, so long as you didn't wrench the underlying frame. But maybe they'd have figured something out.
Except my understanding is that they didn't figure any of those things out, that it was pushed out before anyone had really figured much of anything beyond "back of napkin ideas and make some (iffy?) prototypes without a clue how to manufacturer them that way at scale", and the initial concept is either entirely bust or got circumstantially busted by jumping the gun horribly on something that couldn't be delivered in anything like the promised window, and there's really no point to the cyber truck now beyond it being a truck, with a weird look and one or two features that could be bolted on to any EV truck, that happens to be being released by Tesla.
But maybe I've been misunderstanding how this has all been going?
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Speaking of rear, the thing I'm really looking forward to in reviews is to have a person my size (6'3") or taller sitting in the rear seats. With that roof slope, it should be absolutely hilarious.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
There's also twice as many Americans who potentially might buy this weird thing than there were in 1950.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
They can legally tell you anything so long as it is not actually fraud.
The question is whether they can legally ENFORCE the terms of service.
Shorter version, Muck Fusk.
Upvote
-1
(6
/
-7)