Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year::Tesla may agree to buy the truck back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven” and any damages and repairs.
This is, surprisingly, not that unusual for vehicles in high demand. It’s to prevent flipping.
GM does it on certain vehicles as well:
(the C8 Corvette Z06, GMC Hummer EV, and Cadillac Escalade-V if you want to know without clicking the link.)
Real estate and Ticketmaster: “Fuck yeah, flip that shit and inflate our markets to insanity!”
Auto industry: “Fuck you, we do the inflating around here. Pay me!”
I’m no fan of flipping/scalping but the choice of the degradation of ownership is much worse. If they really own the car then they aught to be able to resell it.
Prediction; this will extend beyond just high end cars.
Like with other manufacturers with similar limitations, the limitation for resale is only for the first year. It literally is just to try and prevent people buying and flipping the car for a profit. If you don’t like the vehicle you can sell it back to Tesla outside the normal return window. Or wait a year and sell it to someone else.
Only for the first year is bs. I bought an object, I own it and I decide when to put it on sale for whatever reason I want, because you know, I own it.
If Tesla doesn’t like that they can stop selling vehicles to the public. Or they can come up with something creative like renting them, or only selling one of this trucks to someone who has proven to be a fan boy and have already brought 1 or 2 Tesla’s before
Or… Get this… You can just not buy the fucking car if you don’t like the terms. You’re not forced to buy a Cybertruck at launch.
Once production increases I’m sure this restriction will be removed just like most other vehicle resale restrictions from other manufacturers. Not all though, Ferrari has limitations even on things like paint color and wraps, Deadmau5 completely got rid of his wrapped Purrari because of that bullshit once Ferrari started trying to enforce it.
But none of you people will be in comments talking about the resale restrictions being removed once production is ramped, just complaining now about hypotheticals for a vehicle you never intend on purchasing to begin with because you either don’t like Tesla or Musk specifically.
Problem is, the more manufacturers pull this kind of shit the more it becomes normal. At some point your entry level yaris has some kind of stupid rules like this and maybe it spills over other industries too. Again, how about we stick to my property is my property and I decide what to do with it, the way it should be.
The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers. Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.
The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers.
I suppose it depends: would you like to at least have the item or be able to buy it only at a 3x price, if ever ?
Other high brand cars have even more stringent clauses (like, you cannot repaint the car in a certain color to not ridicule the brand). People are even perpetually banned from buying from the brand in some cases.Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.
It is not benevolence, it is a try to solve a real problem that they think it could arise.
I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.
If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.
If they wanted to solve the problem they could make more cars to meet demand (without the needless use of microchips, if that is still the bottleneck).
I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.
While yours are valid concerns, that type of restriction works only on specific items. I don’t see a car manufacturer pull the same stunt on a mass production car (or any other mass production item for the matter) because the problem this try to solve does not exist in the first place, maybe Tesla just think (true or false that it can be or based on the data they have) that the Cybertruck will be some sort of “status symbol” which would attract scalpers or the like of them.
In the end this is a battle Musk cannot win: he will be damned if he do (to ban resell in the first year) and he will be damned if he don’t (and thus allowing scalpers). He can only choose why he will be damned so he choose a way that maybe is more friendly (or less enemy from your point of view) to the consumer.
If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.
I can agree with you, but the fact that the manufacturer put these restrictions and people still buy their cars means that maybe it does not really matter to the buyers since having the car is much more important that being able to repaint it pink, in their view.
People often choose what isn’t in their best interests but that doesn’t invalidate the criticism. I am unsure if this should/could simple be illegal but I will argue social stigma should be applied to people who don’t care about themselves or others.
My concern is companies will do it anyway for their own gain, regardless of if it was actually a cure to the issue of scalping, because users will let them.
Musk’s has enough variety of questionable choices but I’ll damn him here for needlessly making low supply, the cause of scalping in the first place.
Shame though. Would absolutely love to see a guy with a garage full of these things because he couldn’t find enough crypto bros to gouge.
GM wasn’t harsh enough IMHO. They should have black listed people who immediately flipped base C8s for significantly more than MSRP. Base C8s (not Z51) going for over 100k, with miles on them, was fucking ridiculous.
I’ll say it now: car dealers are useless dinosaurs and there is no point to having them anymore. I don’t need a dealer to tell me what options I want on my car. I can select those on a webpage after I’ve reviewed the available options. I need a place to take my car for service if it’s a factory failure / warranty work. I can do the rest myself or pay another focused professional to do the work.
I really like your second paragraph!
Same with Ford F150 Lighting when it came out. Not sure if it still stands.
It’s to prevent flipping scalping
Somehow I get this weird feeling that the cybertruck will flip all on its own. ;)
Hey look, freedom!
Freedom for scalpers! Yay!
While this is an asshole move, companies like Ferrari do stuff like this too. They, for example, do not allow certain modifications on their cars and if they find out that you have done them, they will ask you to restore those parts back to originals. It is unreal how much car companies try to get from us.
Papa Enzo knows best. Don’t understand how that’s legal unless it’s some sort of lease agreement
Can I mount a towing hook for my camper?
One of the things they don’t allow is removing their logos and the ferrari name off the car, so I suppose adding a hook would be fine. I don’t know if those cars are built for it, but I do think they would allow it… Felt really stupid typing that, as if they need to “allow” anything on a car you would own.
Implying this, less attractive than a Lego brick, thing is as desirable as a Ferrari is… Insane
Ferraris are dogshit just the same as this.
This is a good thing!
It will reduce the number of flippers that but the truck just to sell it for more the next day.
ain’t no flippers coming for the cybertruck
You’re joking right? Imagine rolling up to the party in one of these.
You are getting laid that night, probably with multiple people.
Any idiot willing to overpay for that whateverthefuckitis gets what they deserve.
Jokes on them. I’d never buy one of these hilariously abhorrent piles of shit.
I used to think Teslas were cool. Now I just see the specter of Elon. Regardless, these look like a test for suckers.
I honestly would rather have a cyber truck than a generic F150. Fuck Musk though, so I’ll pass.
There’s a reason Ford sells so many F150s.
They’re great trucks.
They sell based on name recognition and history. Their father, grandfather, and great grandfather all bought a Ford so they will too. They have tens of decades of repair shops with experience, cheap third party parts replacements, and because many people just keep buying the same thing without ever doing any comparison or thinking about it.
This is great: I was so frustrated by lack of availability for XBox, from all the scalpers. Same with tickets to pretty much everything. Same with Raspberry Pi. Look at how the eEVs like the Hummer and Lightning were hurt by both dealers and scalpers making vehicles hard to get and excessively priced
So, basically you can rent one of these pieces of shit for a whole year, for free, as long as you cover the gas and mileage fees? Cool cool. I personally wouldn’t take one if you paid me to, but that seems like a good deal for some people who may want to take advantage.
So this thing is really happening huh?
Not really, no. From what I read the first shipments are kind of a stunt because they still haven’t worked out their production issues. They are having to do a lot of work on each vehicle by hand. Which means each unit is going to have costs like a Bentley but be expected to sell for the price of a Ford.
I really think this is a Potemkin delivery.
Did anyone mention that it looks like a video game car but not from a good game, like one of those racing games that came free with the console in the 90s? If I see one on the side of the road I am going to hear a voice in my head scream “Wipeout! Radical dude!”
I cannot wait to point and laugh like Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons every time I see one of these fugly pieces of shit on the road.
It’s contending against the PT cruiser for dumbest looking vehicle on the road.
I actually felt like the PT Cruiser and the Pontiac Aztek fell well within the “so bad it’s good” category. To be transparent, I’ll also disclose I also like the Volkswagen Thing and I love dune buggies.
PT Cruiser is really low on that list, IMO. The Nissan Cube is a thing. The Pontiac Aztek is a thing (although I have a soft spot for that one in particular). Heck, even the last few model years of Prius were absolutely hideous to look at (The 2023 model year looks like they finally decided to give it a more sleek and sporty look with the front and rear redesign, a welcome change).
How is this legal in the US given the first sale doctrine?
Ferrari has some similar bullshit, but you agree to it in a contract when you buy the car. If you refuse they simply don’t sell you the car.
(Ferrari chooses you, not the other way around)
If you refuse they simply don’t sell you the car.
Sure, question is of course: will they be able to do something about it if you agree to the terms and sell it anyway. I don’t think ‘breaking’ an agreement based on unlawful stipulations is actionable (ianal)
Deadmau5 was threatened with a lawsuit over his “Purrari” Nyan cat livery.
For Ferrari, if you break their stipulations, they put you on a blacklist and won’t sell you another ever again. I can’t find any other hard-and-fast things they do because there’s a lot of rumor milling, but barring you from purchases and ending your dealership maintenance seem to be “for sure”. I imagine it comes with some other stigmas from the community too. But much like real estate covenants if you agree to something in a contract, and then break it, you’re subject to civil action. In a Covenant, the contract holders are permitted to buy back your house and evict you.
If I recall correctly, Ferrari being assholes is why Lamborghini isn’t just a tractor brand.
Even at the time of the quarrels con Ferrari, Lamborghini was already producing both tractors, air conditioners and boilers.
That is correct
Yeah for the people in question (buying ferraris/teslas) that blacklisting part might be deterrence enough. Still, even in that real estate covenant construction you mention, that ‘something’ they stipulate cannot be unlawful I think.
If they simply forbade resale, it would be an unenforceable term. The obligation on them to buy it back (at an agreed price) in order to enforce the term likely makes it legal.
How does Monsanto avoid this?
They sell you seeds. You can grow things with those seeds, but you cant plant the grown plants’ seeds.
In that case, it’s a patented product that happens to reproduce itself as part of its normal operation.
In this case, it’s just shitty business behavior.
(To be clear, no, living organisms should not be patentable. But it’d be fucking hilarious if patented genes went feral.)
It’s even worse than that. You can buy seeds from the market place have no agreement with Monsanto but can’t plant those seeds.
As much as I dislike Musk, I think this is a right move, as scalpers became a real plague during Covid.
But I am genuinely curious if they will ever sell it outside the US. This design seems far too dangerous for pedestrians and I can’t believe that EU authorities would approve it. Aren’t car hoods supposed to be of a very soft aluminium which is supposed to soften slightly the impact on a pedestrian in case of an accident? And what about if this monster is involved in front collision with some small car, like Renault Twingo here? I guess the chance of survivability of the Twingo passengers would be near zero.
Plus correct me if I am wrong but what happens if you have a small accident? Are they going to charge you for the full cast? Why aren’t people more concerned about this? The repairability of this car looks terrible.
Surely scalping can be addressed without infringing in my right to do what I like with my own damn property. Why is it better to let Tesla sue consumers than to just… limit the number of trucks a person can buy? 🤔
limit the number of trucks a person can buy?
Useless. Here we have nominal tickets for events and that does not solve the problem by a very long shot, I suppose it would be the same for cars.
Ticket scalpers are blowing up because of collusion by Ticketmaster. Tickets are also a virtual product. Surely we can be clever enough to limit the sale of physical goods the size of cars
How ? But even if you succeed, what is stopping me from buying 1 cybertruck at X and resell it at 3X the next day ? And other people to do the same ? We all buy 1 car after all.
I think that here there will not be a Ticketmaster scenario, but more a scenario where a number of Musk haters will buy a cybertruck to resell it at a premium to a number of Musk fanboys just because.
So limiting the sale of it to 1 per person don’t really solve anything.
Interesting questions; let’s see:
what is stopping me from buying 1 cybertruck at X and resell it at 3X the next day ? And other people to do the same ?
Nothing should stop you from doing that, or at least trying. You are one person with one car, so there will be other stock available at a lower price for others to buy if they want. The problem of scalping becomes an issue when one person can buy a large portion of the product & artificially control the supply. If everyone decides to buy 1 and then resell higher, nothing is stopping consumers from also buying their 1 and getting lower prices from the manufacturer.
a scenario where a number of Musk haters will buy a cybertruck to resell it at a premium to a number of Musk fanboys just because.
Cybertrucks are a large ($50k) investment, and as a physical good that’s also regulated through the DMV, they are a lot more work to resell. So in this scenario you think there is such a large number of Mush haters with both the disposable income & free time for resale that they eat up a significant portion of supply. AND that there is such a large amount of consumers with disposable income & desire for a truck that they would support such a resale market. If that ever becomes a reality then… Good for Tesla? Those"haters" would be significantly contributing to Tesla’s profit.
Also, here is an academic paper that looks at the effectiveness of US anti-scalping laws on ticket sales, and it concludes future policies should focus on acquisition, not resale.
Nothing should stop you from doing that, or at least trying. You are one person with one car, so there will be other stock available at a lower price for others to buy if they want. The problem of scalping becomes an issue when one person can buy a large portion of the product & artificially control the supply.
Or when a high enough number of people buy each one a small number of the few items available in a low supply to resell them. True, the item should be some sort of “status symbol” or necessary item for this scenario to work out. I’ ve seen it in more menial situations where just a couple of people scalped on a low supply needed items (at least until production has gone to capacity).
The cybertruck situation is different from the ticket situation, you cannot produce 50000 cybertruck and then sell them, you need the space to store them, and the production needs to go to capacity so it will start low anyway. That’s because it could be vulnerable to scalping, at the beginning you have a small number of items so you need a small number of people that are willing to try to buy to resell.
Cybertrucks are a large ($50k) investment, and as a physical good that’s also regulated through the DMV, they are a lot more work to resell. So in this scenario you think there is such a large number of Mush haters with both the disposable income & free time for resale that they eat up a significant portion of supply. AND that there is such a large amount of consumers with disposable income & desire for a truck that they would support such a resale market.
Since I am talking about haters and fanboys, I would not bet that they would act rationally. I would not exclude that there are people that hate Musk so much to pull out these kind of stunts to other people that love Musk so much to be the perfect target.
Hmm, one thing I’m not understanding is that in these scenarios it sounds like every truck made is going to a scalper, and the issue is that even with one per person, the number of scalpers equals the number of cars. But why would they get dibs? A lucky scalper can’t get first dibs and buy out the whole stock before others get a chance, because it’s 1 per person. The real question is what is the portion of scalpers vs long-term owners.
Let me know if you have better numbers, but this article from back in January suggested 10k cybertrucks to be filled in 2023. Let’s say there are 10k potential scalpers, and 1M potential long-term buyers. That doesn’t mean the 10k trucks will get scalped by the 10k scalpers, it means we would expect 100 to be (again, individually) scalped, and the other 9,900 trucks to go to long term buyers. Additionally, since those scalpers only have 1, they will be competing against each other on resale price.
Since I am talking about haters and fanboys, I would not bet that they would act rationally.
I think that’s an ok assumption, but the question is more about the number of people who would act so outrageously. It seems very odd to me that there would be so many people who hate Mush and are ok dropping $50k and have the bandwidth to resell, in such numbers that they significantly match or outnumber long-term buyers.
It’s in the terms and conditions when you buy the vehicle. I’d say that Tesla is within their rights. If you don’t like the terms don’t buy the car.
Terms and conditions that are illegal ate not valid and this goes against the first sale doctrine
Terms and conditions have been voided before, including NDA clauses. It’s why they always have a severability clause, stating that if any parts of the T&C are found invalid, the rest of the T&C remain in place.
There’s no way this sticks
Imagine applying this argument to an employment contact. “Tesla’s contract says you don’t get bathroom breaks & have to work in unsafe conditions. If you don’t like it, don’t work there”. Clearly doesn’t hold water. In the US, we need stronger consumer protections - right to repair, right to be forgotten, and right to safely do what you like with your own property.
No one is going to fucking scalp Cybertrucks lol
This policy exists because they expect a lot of people to be unhappy with their Cybertruck, is my guess.
Which sucks because I really wanted the aesthetic of this car to bring back more 80s-sci-fi to the vehicle market, as a lover of silly-looking vehicles.
Why yes, I too would buy a deLorian look-alike with a Mr Fusion prop on the back.
The dreeeam
I don’t think anything about any car is designed to soften the blow for a pedestrian. They usually have a crumple zone to dissipate energy in a collision but that isn’t designed with pedestrians in mind. Also they would likely repair this like any other vehicle since the body is made up of several panels.
Scalpers will find a way. Only normal buyers will be hurt by this move. Also car companies are putting in more and more proprietary stuff that only they can repair practically, and charge a fortune for it. Tesla is leading in that too afaik.
The lawsuits won’t succeed due to the first sales doctrine
It’s shit behavior that should be illegal, but I also can’t feel bad for any moron that sees this truck and still agrees to buy it.
In this situation there would be two morons
Very true.
So because your personal taste is not in favor of this car, you don’t feel bad for people who happen to like it. Got it. Moral superiority is alive and well.
Agree with the sentiment but not the tone.
Is this to be an asshole, or to avoid people reselling the car at x2 the price because of the lack of supply during the first year?
I hate Musk, but if this is intended to prevent price go urging, it might be a good thing (see nvidia scalpers)
Even with the best of intentions, which I doubt is the case here, a company that sells you a product shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what you do with the product once you’ve purchased it. They can be selective about who they sell products to, and use that as a barrier to attempt to stop scalpers. But once I own something if I want to turn around and resell it the manufacturer should have no say in that.
That vehicle looks like its trying too hard to be futuristic.
It’s like an extremely high resolution… Of what it would have looked like in a PS1 game. This looks like this is an asset from like Deus Ex on PlayStation.
Even cars in psx games looked like normal cars. This is like that one snes 3d racing game.
Would look right at home in the original Starfox game.
It’s not cool enough to be S.T.U.N. Runner. It’s more along the lines of Atari’s 1980 vector hit, Battlezone, which was later edited into a training sim for the US Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
There wasn’t a SNES version of S.T.U.N. Runner, but hot damn that game was sick
It would be a really cool truck, and I think the looks wouldn’t be so bad, if it actually lived up to the promises.
Can’t look like trash, especially ironically, unless everything else is 200%. Same reason fashion models can dress up in trash but regular people can’t.
Can I set up an LLC and use that company to buy the car? Then, collapse the LLC, and sell the car at a giant markup to whoever’s dumb enough to buy it
How is that legal?
It was just up until last year that I dreamt of owning a Tesla. But now with all this shit and musk’s shit I’d be ashamed to own one.
