Ford requiring owners of F-150 Lightnings to not sell them in first year

[jboy210]

Ford is now adding wording to the sales contracts that requires the owner of a new F-150 Lightning to not sell in the first year. It appears to be a change to reduce private sales competing with dealers. Maybe something else they are learning from Tesla.

From this article:
'Ford’s communication with dealers offered language to create the policy: “Purchaser hereby agrees that it will not sell, offer to sell, or otherwise transfer any ownership interest in the Vehicle prior to the first anniversary of the date hereof. Purchaser further agrees that Seller may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of the title of the Vehicle or demand payment from Purchase of all value received as consideration for the sale or transfer.”'

(Source: WMrapids, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons)
(TMC Staff: Image added to promote to social media)

 

[Leeclanual]

It’s up to dealers… Ford isn’t mandating this.

 

[Tam]

...Seller may seek injunctive relief...

What are the penalties?

 

[Lloyd]

Dealers are selling them for up to 2X MSRP. How is that fair?

 

[Cal1]

Just wonder how they’d enforce it. Talked to a new rivian owner this weekend. Had it about 3 months and is getting pressured by his family to sell it for $40k more than he paid. Don’t know if he’d really be able to get that.

 

[EVer Hopeful]

They must really like their customers . . .

 

[tm1v2]

Dealers are selling them for up to 2X MSRP. How is that fair?

Exactly what @Lloyd wrote. Why is it okay for Ford's dealers to charge markup and profit extra from the current market, but not their customers? The double standard is ridiculous.

Plus life circumstances change. Yeah some first year resales will be just out for a quick buck, but others will be because the seller needs to move on from the vehicle. Stuff happens.

Now if Ford was clamping down on dealer markups, and asked customers getting Ford-enforced MSRP not to flip for a profit, sure I would understand that. Though as mentioned, life can change and there needs to be a way out. But to tell their customers not to profit extra while letting their dealers do so is a big middle finger to Ford's customers.

 

[EVer Hopeful]

...or what if someone bought one then realised it was a PoS and they wanted to unload it pronto?

 

[Empiro]

Ford is definitely trying to force dealers to sell at MSRP. I have no problems with this if applied evenly to everyone. Scalpers suck.

I know that I'm the past Ford has done this for other cars and even sued John Cena for violating the clause. No-sale clauses are definitely enforceable if the time period is reasonable and there is consideration for the buyer. In this case, the buyer is getting a car at below market price.

If someone hates it, the dealer will probably take it back no questions asked, given the current market.

 

[ATPMSD]

I am not a lawyer but, in order for such limitations in contacts to be enforceable there must be some form of compensation to the buyer, as noted by @Empiro ”…consideration for the buyer.”

Note also that once upon a time car manufacturers tried to require dealers to only sell at MSRP. Courts ruled they cannot do that.

So I believe this would need to be a condition of a lease or a loan since the buyer has the option to finance the car elsewhere.

 

[FlatSix911]

Ford is now adding wording to the sales contracts that requires the owner of a new F-150 Lightning to not sell in the first year. It appears to be a change to reduce private sales competing with dealers. Maybe something else they are learning from Tesla.

From this article:
'Ford’s communication with dealers offered language to create the policy: “Purchaser hereby agrees that it will not sell, offer to sell, or otherwise transfer any ownership interest in the Vehicle prior to the first anniversary of the date hereof. Purchaser further agrees that Seller may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of the title of the Vehicle or demand payment from Purchase of all value received as consideration for the sale or transfer.”'

Case in point:

The Flip That Flopped: John Cena and Ford Settle GT Resale Lawsuit

The wrestler apologized, and the proceeds will go to charity.

www.caranddriver.com

"According to a statement from attorneys for professional wrestler John Cena that was sent to the Jalopnik website, Cena and the Ford Motor Company have settled their legal feud regarding Cena’s purchase and resale of a Ford GT. Cena will pay Ford an unspecified amount of money, which Ford reportedly will donate to an as yet unnamed charity.

In 2017, Cena took delivery of an all-new 2017 Ford GT supercar. He then sold the car just a few months later, and in doing so violated the sales agreement, which stated that the Ford GT’s hand-picked customers, who were chosen through an application process, were not allowed to sell the car for at least two years. The contract was meant to discourage exactly this type of flipping, but everybody knows pro wrestlers don’t follow rules.

Although the amount is unspecified, Cena and Ford agreed on a monetary settlement outside an official court setting. The statement specifies that the money will go to a “worthy charity,” and in it Cena says, “I love the Ford GT and apologize to Ford, and encourage others who own the car to respect the contract.”

 

[stopcrazypp]

I am not a lawyer but, in order for such a limitations in contacts to be enforceable there must be some form of compensation to the buyer, as noted by @Empiro ”…consideration for the buyer.”

Note also that once upon a time car manufacturers tried to require dealers to only sell at MSRP. Courts ruled they cannot do that.

So I believe this would need to be a condition of a lease or a loan since the buyer has the option to finance the car elsewhere.

There are laws in practically every state that protects dealers specifically from pressures from car manufacturers. Such laws don't apply to consumers, so I would not assume just because courts ruled in favor for dealers they would do the same for consumers.

I'm reminded of the lawsuit for John Cena selling his GT, in the end Cena had to settle and pay Ford an undisclosed amount of money due to provisions in the sales contract of that car that does not allow him to flip it (no sales within 2 years):

The Flip That Flopped: John Cena and Ford Settle GT Resale Lawsuit

The wrestler apologized, and the proceeds will go to charity.

www.caranddriver.com

The court obviously didn't side with the consumer in that case, so Ford has experience to have confidence in another similar contract for yet another highly supply restrained model.

 

[jboy210]

Just wonder how they’d enforce it. Talked to a new rivian owner this weekend. Had it about 3 months and is getting pressured by his family to sell it for $40k more than he paid. Don’t know if he’d really be able to get that.

If you read through these forums, Tesla has banned people from buying new cars if they detect them buying cars too often. There is language about this in each of our contracts. I assume Ford could do something similar.

 

[ATPMSD]

The court obviously didn't side with the consumer in that case, so Ford has experience to have confidence in another similar contract for yet another highly supply restrained model.

This was an entirely different process, this was not a sale to the general public.

“..Ford GT’s hand-picked customers, who were chosen through an application process, were not allowed to sell the car for at least two years.“

During the application process the buyer agrees to special terms for the privilege of making an application. Ordering a car that is available to the public is not the same thing. I also find it hard to believe such a clause can be enforced on any order already in the pipeline.

 

[EVer Hopeful]

Why do people who seem to so value capitalism, not actually value capitalism? (just a general statement not aimed at anyone specific here)

We're fortunate enough to live in a market driven economy and that gives us power. I think adding a no-resale clause to the sales contract is pretty low trick, but like I said nobody makes us buy the vehicle. We have the option to walk, in fact we have the responsibility to walk if we don't like the agreement they want us to sign, otherwise how will it ever change?

I don't much care for scalpers either, but how do they stay in business?

 

[EVer Hopeful]

“..Ford GT’s hand-picked customers, who were chosen through an application process

Another point: you have to ask how the eventual recipients were "hand-picked". Maybe just maybe Ford saw someone famous and thought let's make him a shill for us

That process was probably not random, nor one sided

 

[ATPMSD]

Why do people who seem to so value capitalism, not actually value capitalism?

I think the core issue is not capitalism but that people don’t like a system that is not fair and above board. They also don’t like being ripped off, either in reality or in perception.

 

[ATPMSD]

Another point: you have to ask how the eventual recipients were "hand-picked".

Just FYI Ferrari often hand picks who they will sell new models too. Money does not talk as they often require the buyer be a prior Ferrari owner with experience. Potential buyers must apply and agree to terms up front.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This was an entirely different process, this was not a sale to the general public.

“..Ford GT’s hand-picked customers, who were chosen through an application process, were not allowed to sell the car for at least two years.“

During the application process the buyer agrees to special terms for the privilege of making an application. Ordering a car that is available to the public is not the same thing. I also find it hard to believe such a clause can be enforced on any order already in the pipeline.

I don't see that making a difference, in the end it's a restrictive sales contact and it was that sales contract that had the terms of sale.

 

[ATPMSD]

I don't see that making a difference, in the end it's a restrictive sales contact and it was that sales contract that had the terms of sale.

I believe the key difference is “consideration.” In these “special“ sales the consideration is getting a car that is not available to the general public as opposed to an “open” sale. Also, interestingly, this is an “optional” clause which to me further calls into question its validity.

I am not interested in Ford, I just found this topic of interest and will be interested to see what happens if they try to enforce it.