"No Reseller" clause for Cybertruck

[fhteagle]

I cannot state strongly enough how much this is a bad idea by Tesla, and how much I really hope they do not actually put this this on customer order MVPAs. Aside from the moral and PR nightmare they are opening up with those, it's just worded very very very very badly as is.

I understand the philosophical idea of wanting to deter scalpers, but this cannot come at the expense of a good faith customer who gets in a jam. I am one of said good faith customers, and absolutely cannot accept the terms that Tesla gets first right of refusal to buy it back for the first year AND Tesla gets to determine the buyback price.

Change it to "if you resell above MVPA price plus reasonable expenses, and any profit goes to Tesla", and my objection drops significantly. But as is, Tesla may have just lost a legitimate sale here.

https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=m3&saleType=Sale

More discussion, mostly in favor by people who have not thought it through, but with a very well worded opinion why this is a bad idea by an actual lawyer:

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/cybertruck-no-resale-restriction-1-year-spotted-in-purchase-agreement-language.9741/

 

[bhzmark]

welcome to the world of freedom of contract and reasonable measures to protect against scalpers/flippers taking the early inventory.

 

[dakhlkt22]

But perhaps the anti-flipper clause is only a temporary measure? It doesn't apply to any other model. Eventually the gap between supply and demand will be much closer and they can remove the anti-flipper clause for the CT. So if you don't like the clause, you can still buy the CT, just not right out of the starting gate.

 

[davezforce]

If it’s true you could possibly see thousands of pre orders canceled then

 

[outdoors]

Eventually the gap between supply and demand will be much closer and they can remove the anti-flipper clause for the CT.

Speaking of gaps. This will make me scrutinize my delivery even more. One is literally stuck with it. With the miles I put on. A buyback at the discounted miles and the unknown make it less desirable.

That being said I will still buy it as an early reservation of that means anything. Just maybe not the second one.

 

[zoomer0056]

The MVOP linked document is reasonable. If you foresee hardship now, then don't buy. If you don't like the contract, don't sign. If you're attempting to resell for a scalper profit, good luck. I you have unforeseen problems in the first year, purchase price minus 25 cents per mile driven is very reasonable.

 

[scottf200]

Searchable forum text:

For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards.

If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla.

You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles.

 

[Tha_Ape]

.....
But as is, Tesla may have just lost a legitimate sale here.

They don't care. Plenty of people in line to buy it. I don't think that clause will deter sales in the slightest. The demand is WAY too high (which is the reason for the clause).

They'll simply refund your $100 and thank you for the interest free multi year loan.

------

Don't worry, the people who really got screwed are the ones who dropped $50k on a roadster that's still vaporware. If it ever does get made, I'm sure it'll have similar clauses. The biggest difference is the amount of interest Tesla made off of their free loan.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Demand is sky high so people will still buy it. This just makes it much less attractive to scalpers. You can come back when demand wanes and Tesla likely have removed that clause.

I haven't seen much clauses that have been very effective against scalpers, but I guess we will see how this one works.

 

[E90alex]

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.

 

[Black306]

For sale: 1st year Cybertruck! $50k +cost. Need to withhold transfer for 12 months from bill of sale date.

Posting for a friend.






Ford did that (resale clause) with the ‘17 Ford GT. Sued John Cena when he sold his too soon.

 

[jjrandorin]

Anything that can be done to deter scalpers, I am all for. Some people like to shout "capitalism", and some of those same people were probably trying to scalp toilet paper during the pandemic (when you could see people trying to sell toilet paper for huge markup prices).

There is no world in which I am feeling in the least bit sorry for a scalper.

I understand the philosophical idea of wanting to deter scalpers, but this cannot come at the expense of a good faith customer who gets in a jam.

if a "Good faith customer in a jam" needs to sell the vehicle, they need to sell the vehicle, and "profit" isnt the consideration. MSRP minus mileage helps that person get out of whatever "jam" they might be in, and if they are actually in a jam, then they have removed their liability for the car loan, or gotten their purchase money back minus usage.

There is no "jam" where they needed to make profit on the vehicle, so that leaves scalpers, and I absolutely, positively dont care about them and would love it if enough people took a bath on trying to scalp stuff that it deters people from scalping stuff.

 

[Economite]

Hmmm...

So if you buy a Cybertruck and then decide that you don't like it, you can only get rid of the thing and get a more normal car if you can convince Tesla to give you permission to sell the Cybertruck?

Given all we know about the, er, unique features and design of the vehicle, along with Tesla's track record with build quality (especially of new models), this sounds like quite a handcuff. And bet their permission comes with a giant NDA.

 

[zoomer0056]

this sounds like quite a handcuff

Gotta go in with eyes open. This thread may open some eyes. If not, delivery day should disclose the year of sinner purgatory . It will be interesting to see if this subject lights up TMC when the time comes.... very soon (18 days). I'm guessing it will be a nothing burger.

 

[kabin]

Yep, it's a nothing burger for the mass of CT customers. If only concert and sporting event ticket sellers had similar contract terms.

 

[Black306]

Anything that can be done to deter scalpers, I am all for. Some people like to shout "capitalism", and some of those same people were probably trying to scalp toilet paper during the pandemic (when you could see people trying to sell toilet paper for huge markup prices).

There is no world in which I am feeling in the least bit sorry for a scalper.

So there is no world in which you would sell an item for a profit? Yea, I don’t buy that. Not including the type of scalpers in context of market manipulation (ex buying all or a lot of tickets with the sole purpose of driving prices and maximizing profit), scalpers exist when there is a large imbalance between supply and demand; they’re a symptom, not the root cause. I’d be more upset at people that purposely caused an imbalance.

I ordered a Cybertruck with the intention to keep it. But if someone is willing to give me $50k on top of what I pay for it just to have it sooner? “Show me the money!” -Jerry Maguire. I have no issue waiting for another one and that money is compensation for my time having to wait. Now if someone is willing to give me only $10k, forget it; I’m keeping the truck.

Never did understand the rush on toilet paper. Don’t have toilet paper? Use a bidet or tabo.

 

[jjrandorin]

So there is no world in which you would sell an item for a profit? Yea, I don’t buy that.

Yeah, no, I didnt say that. I said:

There is no world in which I am feeling in the least bit sorry for a scalper.

The description of scalping in this context is buying something that is expected to have limited availability for the express purpose of reselling it. There is no world where I feel in the least bit sorry for someone who buys limited edition / limited availability products for the purpose of reselling them, full stop.

Thus, I have zero issues with any policies put in place to attempt to limit this practice.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Change it to "if you resell above MVPA price plus reasonable expenses, and any profit goes to Tesla", and my objection drops significantly. But as is, Tesla may have just lost a legitimate sale here.

What you suggest does not prevent scalpers because similar to what was done for reservation selling, the buyer can just transact under the table with the seller and it would not be reflected in the vehicle selling price in a way Tesla can track. Only when Tesla is in control of the transaction does it ensure the seller does not profit from it behind the scenes and thus scalpers can't profit.

And in an emergency sale, even Tesla's scheme would be enough to address those emergencies (new vehicle price minus reasonable mileage is still higher than new vehicle minus depreciation in a normal vehicle), plus Tesla can also approve separate third party sales on a case by case basis. It's better than the blanket no-sale policies that had been done in the past (for example as mentioned for Ford GT) in which there is no out if a new owner gets into financial trouble.

 

[Economite]

What you suggest does not prevent scalpers because similar to what was done for reservation selling, the buyer can just transact under the table with the seller and it would not be reflected in the vehicle selling price in a way Tesla can track. Only when Tesla is in control of the transaction does it ensure the seller does not profit from it behind the scenes and thus scalpers can't profit.

And in an emergency sale, even Tesla's scheme would be enough to address those emergencies (new vehicle price minus reasonable mileage is still higher than new vehicle minus depreciation in a normal vehicle), plus Tesla can also approve separate third party sales on a case by case basis. It's better than the blanket no-sale policies that had been done in the past (for example as mentioned for Ford GT) in which there is no out if a new owner gets into financial trouble.

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.

 

[jjrandorin]

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.

Im sure Tesla expects some cancelations. They probably need some, actually, since the backlog is like 2+ years of production or more. People with early reservations who expected to flip this for a big profit (like a lot of people did with their early Rivians), will come up with all sorts of excuses about why this isnt fair, right, what about X or Y, etc.

As long as someone knows up front this is the stipulation, anyone who even thinks there is a chance they "might not like it" or "get in a jam" probably should vote with their wallet and cancel their order. Thats probably one of the goals from Tesla, as I said.

Once its not supply constrained (since this is not a limited edition pokemon card, or Air Jordan shoes), I would expect the stipulations to be removed.