"No Reseller" clause for Cybertruck

[stopcrazypp]

The problem is having to get Tesla's permission.

If you don't like your Cybertruck, do you really want Tesla to have absolute discretion as to whether to let you sell it at all?

Why would anyone give that sort of control to a company. This provision gives Tesla an unfettered right to effectively prohibit someone from selling their car and getting something else.

Well the provision doesn't give them a way to prevent a sale, only to make sure the price is not profitable for the seller. If they don't approve a third party sale, they would have to buy it themselves. The price they offer (new minus mileage) is a very reasonable offer for that. Yes, it's a provision not generally desirable in a vehicle sale, but the vehicle is so in demand, Tesla can easily deal with the cancellations. If there is a mass cancellation due to this policy or if supply catches up, they can always modify for cancel it, given the point would be moot (the vehicle can't sell in the used market for more than the new price anyways, so policy is unnecessary).

 

[gsmith123]

If there is a mass cancellation due to this policy or if supply catches up, they can always modify for cancel it,

I'd expect them to drop this policy as soon as supply catches up to demand, at whatever prices they launch CT at. At the point there's no arbitrage for scalpers to profit from so no need for the policy.

 

[Economite]

If they don't approve a third party sale, they would have to buy it themselves.

That's not what the policy says. Even if Tesla chooses not to buy the car back, you still can only sell to a private party if Tesla gives you permission to do so. There is nothing that obligates Tesla to give you permission to sell to a private party.

 

[KArnold]

I'm missing something. What's wrong with selling something I just bought for a profit? I think day traders in stocks do that every day. There are many similar examples.

And why does Tesla even care if i sell my own property? Even if that was my intent on day 1, just like every other Tesla model ever sold?

If someone had the cash and foresight to get a reservation in following the rules de jour, good for them. If they can easily sell it for cost plus x%, maybe Tesla's price is too low. But more power to them. They are taking a calculated risk - maybe they profit, maybe not.

This feels very un-American. Basic supply and demand.

Is this legal?

 

[father_of_6]

I don't think that clause will deter sales in the slightest.

I think this *WILL* deter some sales, but only the ones that were planning to flip it for a profit.

Every product with more demand than supply should have protections like this.

While I do believe capitalism is the best we can do as flawed humans, scalper behavior really bothers me. It feels like theft.

I imagine this teenage girl waiting in line to buy her $89 Taylor Swift concert ticket that she saved up for, and some hefty unkempt adult male jumps in line right in front of her and buys the last ticket. He then turns right around and offers to sell her the ticket for $350.

"I had financial hardship and had to sell my $100k vehicle for a $50k profit just a month after buying it. Whoa is me." LOL, no.

 

[NewbyMaybe]

How can they enforce this? Maybe reservations have been cancelling to the point they need free publicity?

 

[brainhouston]

Good job Tesla! I respect them for it.
Let the people who actually wanna drive Cyber truck have it.
For enforcement, Tesla can easily control this with restricting app transfer... I'd imagine not many ppl will wanna buy a car without app access...

 

[zoomer0056]

The problem is having to get Tesla's permission.

If you don't like your Cybertruck, do you really want Tesla to have absolute discretion as to whether to let you sell it at all?

Why would anyone give that sort of control to a company. This provision gives Tesla an unfettered right to effectively prohibit someone from selling their car and getting something else.

These constraints are in place because your neighbor is a scalper. Can't... can't .... can't we all just get along?

 

[SidetrackedSue]

This feels very un-American. Basic supply and demand.

Is this legal?

It is Un-American because muh rights. I have the right to buy whatever I want under whatever terms I agree to, not those of the seller. And if anyone denies me that right, well hell-fire will rain down and Krackens will be released./s

Yes it is legal. It is legal because it is a contract that the two parties agree to.

Let's follow your logic:

1. It is MY truck therefore I can sell it when I want to and ask however much I want.

If you agree with that statement, then....

2. Currently it is Tesla's truck and therefore it can sell it if it wants to under its terms. If Tesla doesn't want you to resell the truck, then Tesla can put restrictions on the sale and give you the CHOICE of buying the truck or not.

There is no "right" to buy anything in the US; the buyer and seller come to an agreement (contract) to exchange goods for compensation. If no agreement can be reached, the sale doesn't happen.

You cannot force Tesla to sell to you on your terms any more than someone else can force you to sell to them, on their terms. If I demand you sell your truck to me for $100 after a year, you can/should turn me down. I can't force you to sell it to me at my terms, we have to reach an agreement.

I can force you to sell me the truck under threat of death or dismemberment but that isn't legal. Tesla isn't threatening your life or limb, forcing you to follow through with the reservation now that you have decided that you are not purchasing the truck for personal use (apparently something you agreed to when you made the reservation.) That would be illegal. If you don't agree to the terms, you walk away from the sale with your life, limbs, and buy something else.

It seems that you don't like the terms of the agreement Tesla has offered. Therefore, you have choices:

1. follow the terms (and get your truck and figure out another way of profiting from it)

2. wait until production exceeds demand and you can buy the truck without this term you dislike so much

 

[zoomer0056]

can force you to sell me the truck under threat of death or dismemberment

If the buyer chooses to buy under such constraints it is their choice, not forced.

Where is the supporting law that says its legal to restrict sale of something you own? The constraint can easily be "you must wear a bright blue hoodie for one year after purchase".

 

[fhteagle]

Well said, @SidetrackedSue .

Again, I'm not saying Tesla does not have the legal ground to put reasonable terms in an MVPA on a sale.

I'm objecting to the way this particular clause was written, which is at best intentionally vague and at worst completely uninterpretable.

I'm objecting to the nebulous terms "wear and tear" and "repair costs", which can only be determined by Tesla. What stops them from determining your entire truck needs a "$30k" buff job to repair a 2cm scratch? Nothing in this MVPA, that's for sure.

But most of all, I'm objecting to having to get Tesla's permission to resell the truck. If they want the right of injunctive action to block a sale, I want it very clearly spelled out what a "good reason" in their words to sell the truck is. Death of the owner? Unemployment? Major injury? Accident?

Again, all this could be accomplished much more simply and clearly with a clause that says Tesla gets the purchase price above MVPA on resale within a year. Simple, effective, and does not complicate the crap out of the buyer's life.

 

[SidetrackedSue]

If the buyer chooses to buy under such constraints it is their choice, not forced.

Where is the supporting law that says its legal to restrict sale of something you own? The constraint can easily be "you must wear a bright blue hoodie for one year after purchase".

As I understand it, not being a US Contract Lawyer, or even a US citizen, the terms reached by both parties in a contract are enforceable as long as they don't interfere on government protected rights.

I cannot have a clause in my sales contract that says I will not sell to people with dark skin. That's discrimination and protected in at least some of the US states.

If I'm hung up on Blue Hoodies, I can have that condition and then spend my time and effort hunting down all those who wear red hoodies after buying my truck and taking them to court for violating the agreement and letting the court decide the compensation required (if not outlined in the agreement.) If the buyer agreed to that stupid restriction, then they can decide if they want to risk legal action or not.

As I said, there are ways of profiting off the ownership of an early production CT for that year and then being able to resell. So I don't think the courts will find the delayed resale restriction unenforceable. But as I said, IANAL.

 

[zoomer0056]

I want it very clearly spelled out what a "good reason" in their words to sell the truck is. Death of the owner? Unemployment? Major injury? Accident?

That would be pages and pages and pages of scenarios. Even then, not all scenarios would be covered. The intent, the spirit of the wording is quite clear. It's hardship that causes a need for sale.

Tesla gets the purchase price above MVPA on resale within a year.

That's rediculous. Why would you attempt to sell at a higher price and give that extra cash away? Maybe if you're a Tesla employee?

 

[fhteagle]

That would be pages and pages and pages of scenarios. Even then, not all scenarios would be covered. The intent, the spirit of the wording is quite clear. It's hardship that causes a need for sale.

That's my point. If Tesla is asking for the ability to stop the sale, they had better come to the table with an equal strength restriction on themselves. Needing pages and pages of scenarios is equally ridiculous to Tesla needing the privilege of blocking a sale.

That's rediculous. Why would you attempt to sell at a higher price and give that extra cash away? Maybe if you're a Tesla employee?

Exactly. The way I worded it stops the profiteering that everyone is so worried about, but does not stop legitimate sales at cost to your business, your family member, your neighbor, etc.

 

[SidetrackedSue]

I'm objecting to the way this particular clause was written, which is at best intentionally vague and at worst completely uninterpretable.

I'm objecting to the nebulous terms "wear and tear" and "repair costs", which can only be determined by Tesla. What stops them from determining your entire truck needs a "$30k" buff job to repair a 2cm scratch? Nothing in this MVPA, that's for sure.

But most of all, I'm objecting to having to get Tesla's permission to resell the truck. If they want the right of injunctive action to block a sale, I want it very clearly spelled out what a "good reason" in their words to sell the truck is. Death of the owner? Unemployment? Major injury? Accident?

Again, all this could be accomplished much more simply and clearly with a clause that says Tesla gets the purchase price above MVPA on resale within a year. Simple, effective, and does not complicate the crap out of the buyer's life.

I agree.

But then again, everything Tesla does when it comes to wording is suspect and needlessly complicated. There is a steady stream of posts in FB and Reddit Tesla forums from people asking why they don't have these features that they paid for when buying their car with FSD or EAP.

• Autopark: Helps automatically parallel or perpendicular park your car, with a single touch.
• Summon: Moves your car in and out of a tight space using the mobile app or key.
• Smart Summon: Your car will navigate more complex environments and parking spaces, maneuvering around objects as necessary to come find you in a parking lot.​

That wording appears pretty clear, is from the Tesla website, and yet doesn't actually mean what it says.

Not trusting Tesla with this resale clause is very reasonable and anyone who thinks they may need to sell the vehicle (i.e. current poor health, not sure it will fit their needs, uncertain they can make the payments) should not buy it in the first place. Which is sad for them, especially if they have been waiting for the past 4 years. As I understand it, the people who put deposits on CT reservations will receive that money back, so Tesla, once again, seems better than legacy dealerships when it comes to some aspects of the purchase (my neighbour lost his Rav4PHEV deposit made 2 years ago when the car still didn't arrive and he developed a fatal disease so knew he'd have no use for the vehicle when it finally arrived.)

 

[zoomer0056]

If Tesla is asking

They aren't asking. The spirit and intent is to prevent your neighbor from scalping.

 

[rjpjnk]

Them offering a buyback price of new purchase price minus $0.25/mi is very good for anyone that truly needs to get rid of it for whatever reason and not trying to flip it. Way better than any normal car depreciation.

Would deter flippers but anyone that legitimately needs to sell it within a year won’t be losing much.

There are actually 3 costs Tesla lists and 0.25/mile is just one of them. The third one is likely to be much higher than this and is open ended, "cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards."

 

[StanMI]

Purchase the truck from Tesla. Resale the truck at purchased price plus the cost of the custom floor matts you installed..........(they are very expensive matts)......problem solved.

 

[SidetrackedSue]

I don't have any skin in this game so should probably see myself out of this forum but one question I have is how will this clause affect those who are financing the car or leasing the car?

Will loan companies be less willing to finance a CT if they can't resell easily in case of repossession?

 

[E90alex]

If they really don’t want resellers, they should sell it as a 1-2 year lease only with no buyout before they can refinance it for purchase.

Then buyers then for sure legally can’t do anything with it because it’s not their vehicle to sell.