Cybertruck owners won't be able to sell their car

[Spotty]

Want to sell your Cybertruck? You better ask Tesla for permission first or risk being sued.

 

Tesla's Motor Vehicle Order Agreement has a section that prohibits Cybertruck owners from selling their vehicle within the first 12 months of ownership without receiving approval from Tesla. Anybody wishing to sell their car within the twelve month period must receive permission from Tesla to sell the car and give Tesla the opportunity to purchase the car from them, and only if Tesla doesn't want to buy it and gives the owner permission to sell it can the seller sell the car to a third party. If you try to sell the cybertruck without Tesla's approval they will sue you for $50,000 or the value of the car (whichever is higher) and refuse to sell you any cars in the future.

 

 

 

This seems ridiculous to me. Car manufacturers should have no control over what owners do with their car after they've purchased them.

This could really screw over people who buy on credit who may want to sell due to financial reasons. People could end up trapped in loans they can't repay unable to sell the car to pay off the loan or forced to sell the cybertruck back to Tesla at a lower price than what they could have got in the open market.

 

Convince me why Tesla should be able to control the second hand market for their vehicles.

 

Some articles about it:

https://electrek.co/2023/11/11/tesla-will-sue-you-if-you-try-to-flip-your-low-vin-cybertruck/

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cybertruck-buyers-no-resale-policy/

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

[Kilrah]

If as it seems they're going to have a hard time meeting demand it's just a measure against scalpers, something we wished we had in our field pretty recently...

[Levent]

Lmao, pulling a Ford GT move on a truck... Even so I distinctly remember John Cena dumping his car without any legal repercussion.

[porina]

9 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

If as it seems they're going to have a hard time meeting demand it's just a measure against scalpers, something we wished we had in our field pretty recently...

This was my first thought. If it is likely to have demand exceed supply for a while, there is a risk those with deeper pockets would buy it just to sell on at a higher price knowing there is a captive audience. 1 year doesn't sound that bad to me. If you're not going in expecting to use it for a year, what are you doing? For cars that are not constrained, you lose a ton of value the second you pick it up and reselling will be a significant loss.

 

This could help it get in the hands of those who genuinely want to get it for themselves, not lining the pockets of an opportunist. If a buyer gets one and personal circumstances change requiring a sale, it may be more limited but they still have Tesla as a fall back option. As long as it is reasonably time limited I don't see this as a problem.

[Spotty]

Just now, Levent said:

Lmao, pulling a Ford GT move on a truck... Even so I distinctly remember John Cena dumping his car without any legal repercussion.

Looks like Ford did sue him and they settled with Cena paying the money to charity.

I think there's a difference between general public buying a standard production car vs a manufacturer providing/selling a limited edition supercar to a celebrity as a marketing stunt. If car companies want to go to celebrities and say "We want you to promote our brand by driving our car, we'll give you a free car but you have to agree not to sell it for 2 years" then I would think that is totally fair.

 

10 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

If as it seems they're going to have a hard time meeting demand it's just a measure against scalpers, something we wished we had in our field pretty recently...

I don't think agreements like this is the way to stop scalping. Clauses in contracts that prohibit people from selling their own property unless the manufacturer agrees to it is giving far too much control to companies and stripping control away from consumers.

If Nvidia launched the RTX 5090 with a contract stating that you can't sell the GPU for a year or else Nvidia will sue you I think people would be rightly pissed.

Even if the Cybertruck does end up being scalped, why should it be up to Tesla to control the market by dictating who can and cannot sell their cars? If demand is high and people are reselling at higher prices than what Tesla is selling them for then Tesla could just raise the price on new cars they sell to meet what the market is willing to pay.

If somebody wants to buy a Cybertruck and is willing to pay an extra $10k to buy it on the spot from a private seller to avoid going on a 18 month waiting list to buy it from the dealer then why shouldn't they be able to do it?

[Arika]

14 minutes ago, Spotty said:

If Nvidia launched the RTX 5090 with a contract stating that you can't sell the GPU for a year or else Nvidia will sue you I think people would be rightly pissed

I would say this would entirely depend on the timing. At the peak of the shortage where every second post was people whining about scalpers, i think a lot of people would probably have supported it.

[Kilrah]

13 minutes ago, Spotty said:

If Nvidia launched the RTX 5090 with a contract stating that you can't sell the GPU for a year or else Nvidia will sue you I think people would be rightly pissed.

Frankly no, if there was reasonable trust that this allowed me to actually get one at the price it's supposed to cost instead of either not finding one or for double the price I'd welcome it.

[HenrySalayne]

43 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

If as it seems they're going to have a hard time meeting demand it's just a measure against scalpers, something we wished we had in our field pretty recently...

This is not only a measure against scalpers, this is also a measure to ensure complete market control and pricing by Tesla. Which means:

- You are generally forbidden to resell your property. Only if Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception you might be able to sell your property.

- You first have to offer the car to Tesla, who will mandate a price which might be significantly lower than the actual market value which they will might pay you.

- Tesla does not have to buy the car and you cannot resell it without written consent.

 

Do medical bills of an relative warrant an exception? Can I sell the car if I'm unhappy with my purchase?

 

What is stopping you from leasing the car to someone, with the lease ending 1 year and 1 day after purchase at which point the lessee becomes the new owner?

[Spotty]

13 minutes ago, Arika said:

I would say this would entirely depend on the timing. At the peak of the shortage where every second post was people whining about scalpers, i think a lot of people would probably have supported it.

 

12 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Frankly no, if there was reasonable trust that this allowed me to actually get one at the price it's supposed to cost instead of either not finding one or for double the price I'd welcome it.

I'm honestly surprised at these responses. I guess I underestimated how much people hated scalpers.

 

It goes both ways though, you can't just consider it in the situation of scalping. Tesla being able to control the used market by prohibiting people from selling their cars isn't necessarily just going to stop scalpers from selling at higher prices. It could also stop people from selling at lower prices if Tesla doesn't want people undercutting Tesla's price. If the car is a flop and demand is lower than anticipated and Tesla is sitting on a bunch of cars they're having difficulties selling they might not want a bunch of Cybertrucks available on the used market at lower prices that could leach sales away from buying from Tesla directly.

I guess it comes down to whether you trust the market to control itself or if you have more trust in the manufacturer controlling the market. Personally I think the market should control itself. Yes you'll occasionally have crappy situations like the pandemic scalping of graphics cards but to me that still seems better than letting multi-billion dollar companies have control over everything.

[porina]

30 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I'm honestly surprised at these responses.

Likewise, from the other side.

 

In general I'm all for personal freedom, but there are times it doesn't work and some form of control can be appropriate.

 

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

If demand is high and people are reselling at higher prices than what Tesla is selling them for then Tesla could just raise the price on new cars they sell to meet what the market is willing to pay.

I think manufacturers like some kind of stability, as do buyers. You don't want to be an early buyer if say x months down the road you can pay 20% less. Also that level of adjustment could lead to calls of milking customers for what they can. Which isn't wrong as such, as companies do want to optimise profits, but it is not a good look to do it so aggressively. Keeping goodwill of the wider customer base also has intangible value.

 

Maybe the middle ground could be Tesla keeping the same nominal cost on the car, but there will be a separate fee for priority access. Throw in some other perks to give more perceived value from doing so.

 

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

If somebody wants to buy a Cybertruck and is willing to pay an extra $10k to buy it on the spot from a private seller to avoid going on a 18 month waiting list to buy it from the dealer then why shouldn't they be able to do it?

I'm conflicted on scalpers. I don't like them. Do they add value to the supply chain? It is mostly their personal profit but there is non-zero risk. It could be argued they're providing a "shopping service" of sorts.

[Kilrah]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Tesla being able to control the used market by prohibiting people from selling their cars isn't necessarily just going to stop scalpers from selling at higher prices. It could also stop people from selling at lower prices if Tesla doesn't want people undercutting Tesla's price.

My understanding is it's a temporary measure while supply is contstrained which makes sense to prevent scalping, not a permanent "we're gonna choose what you can do". 

Of course I could be wrong, but nobody can know. I'm sure it'd cause an uproar if it was permanent, but so far I'd believe in good faith and not raise the pitchforks straight away.

 

Also probably a bit of a marketing strategy since that's actually common in the luxury/exclusive car market, a lot of supercars you can't own unless you've personally "talked to the CEO and he likes you", can't service anywhere but at the factory, can't sell to anyone unless the manufacturer approves and likes the buyer, have to agree to never do/say anything that could paint the manufacturer in a bad light,... they could be looking to give themselves a bit of that "exclusive" image on that product.

 

The Cybertruck has always been more intended as a showpiece than an actual car you use IMO, which would fit...

[BrandonLatzig]

I mean, if you buy the truck, and agree to the contract (thus allowing the sale to go through)
You are legally binded to it for the time period

[Monkey Dust]

Seems an odd move. It's common with limited run supercars, and I understand Ferrari do it with all their cars. But it's just a truck. It's far from the first EV truck to market, can demand really be that high?

 

Conspiracy hat on... Tesla have admitted it was harder to build than they thought. Maybe they know that it still has so many problems that many owners are going to have a dreadful experience, and by only letting them sell the car back to Tesla, they can slap an NDA on the former owner when they buy it back. Tesla are known for getting incredibly angry at any negative press, including trying to sue journalists and sacking their own employees. 

[Lurking]

4 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

Seems an odd move. It's common with limited run supercars, and I understand Ferrari do it with all their cars. But it's just a truck. It's far from the first EV truck to market, can demand really be that high?

 

Conspiracy hat on... Tesla have admitted it was harder to build than they thought. Maybe they know that it still has so many problems that many owners are going to have a dreadful experience, and by only letting them sell the car back to Tesla, they can slap an NDA on the former owner when they buy it back. Tesla are known for getting incredibly angry at any negative press, including trying to sue journalists and sacking their own employees. 

+1

That was my initial thought as well. First reviews indicate very shoddy built quality, horrendous visibility. And that is before judging actual truck qualities. It is very possible the early adopter fanboys will throw their truck on the market after the honeymoon period is over. 

 

Also with the clause that they first need to offer the truck to Tesla. Who determines the price the owner would get from Tesla? 

 

If demand would be so high that they need to fight scalpers, they would just raise the price and invest that money in production capacity. 

 

Looks are polarizing and they aren't the first EV truck to the market. I seriously doubt this is like the model 3 situation where the car looks nice, is useful and truly was the first usable EV at non luxury prices 

 

Sure, some Mad Max fans will buy the cyber truck and there will be pent-up demand. But it doesn't strike me as a vehicle that consistently sells 200,000 units a year. The people who want one will buy it now, but in 2 years it will be obsolete. Reminds me of the Hummer that never had a chance to be more than a splash.

[dilpickle]

This is standard practice for many cars. Hardly anything to get riled up about.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

I would be shocked if Tesla could clear the backlog within a year. The Toyota RAV4 Hybrid backlog is like 3 years at this point. So people will likely still make a good profit from selling a one-year-old used Cybertruck. 

[Lurking]

2 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

This is standard practice for many cars. Hardly anything to get riled up about.

I'm curious what mass-produced cars have such clause? 

 

I'm not talking Koenigsegg, Ferrari or Maybach. 

[dilpickle]

2 minutes ago, Lurking said:

I'm curious what mass-produced cars have such clause? 

 

I'm not talking Koenigsegg, Ferrari or Maybach. 

Is this really a mass produced car? Seems more like a prototype being sold to beta testers.

[Lurking]

17 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

Is this really a mass produced car? Seems more like a prototype being sold to beta testers.

I believe the intent is to rival traditional truck manufacturers. So yes, Tesla wants to sell very many. If they succeed is a different story. 

 

They showed with their other cars that over the years build quality improves. And they are leading in gigacasting etc. But you are right,the early years of a new model seem bad. 

 

I'm more concerned about the general design of the cybertruck. Not because it is different, but because it doesn't offer the practicality and space use of a truck. Actual teardown reviews will tell more. 

[TetraSky]

The whole time since Elon first announced it and showed it, all I could think about was this episode of the Simpsons.

 

 

Trapping someone with car payment they can't pay back due to a sudden job loss 3-6 months down the line is real great marketing for Tesla. Plain anti-consumerism. As expected of Elon. Capitalism, ho!

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

I would be shocked if Tesla could clear the backlog within a year. The Toyota RAV4 Hybrid backlog is like 3 years at this point. So people will likely still make a good profit from selling a one-year-old used Cybertruck. 

I would question how 3 years was determined. Did enough people sign paperwork and put down a non-refundable deposit for the next 3 years of production? Or is that just what Toyota assumes? Next year a wonder Honda could be released or there is a recession and 90% of those prospective RAV4 buyers disappear. 

 

I can't believe someone is signing paperwork for in 3 years. I mean, there will be a new RAV4 model and new prices and trim levels etc 

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

I would question how 3 years was determined.

Simply the current length of the queue?

[Lurking]

35 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Simply the current length of the queue?

Queue based on actually signed and non-refundable contracts? Do you really think someone signs a contract to buy a 2027 RAV4? What purchase price and trim level etc. is that contract based on? 

 

Maybe that is a RAV4 waiting list where people told the dealer they want one. Once new cars arrive the salesperson will call them ... but at that point maybe only 2% actually buy one. Who knows, next year may be a car recession and cars will be discounted... 

 

Tesla (and also regular car manufacturers) have pre-order systems to be able to claim interest in some new model or halo car. The problem is, those are not actual orders and have no-question-asked returnable down payments. So in one second, those million "pre orders" could be nothing. 

 

Maybe there is no backlog at all and this clause is just a marketing plot to make everyone think there is huge demand. 

 

 

 

[Kilrah]

2 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Queue based on actually signed and non-refundable contracts? Do you really think someone signs a contract to buy a 2027 RAV4?

May be refundable or non-refundable, but that's been a thing for quite a while since COVID and the car parts shortages. You go today to the website / your dealer, choose and customize your car, place a deposit, and get told the estimated delivery will be 3 years from now.

[Lurking]

56 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

May be refundable or non-refundable, but that's been a thing for quite a while since COVID and the car parts shortages. You go today to the website / your dealer, choose and customize your car, place a deposit, and get told the estimated delivery will be 3 years from now.

They already know the prices and options of the 2027 model?

 

The current 5th generation was introduced in 2019. There will be a facelift soon and likely an all new model way before the 2027 model. 

 

If anything, this is just a non-binding waiting list and many people will buy a different car before in 3 years. Most buyers of economy cars buy one when life changes or the old car dies. This isn't a Koenigsegg.

 

And it seems actual wait times for RAV4 hybrid ranges from weeks to way under a year.