Comment on Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 year agoLike 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 limitation for resale is only for the first year.
I hate the “slippery slope” argument, but in this case…
What if the limitation was 2 or 5 years? What if the fine was $100,000 or a million? If they get away with lesser restrictions, why wouldn’t they? The point is, companies already have way too much power over what a private person does with things they legally bought (Right To Repair, anyone?) and this seems like an escalation of that…
How about the manufacturer builds enough stock so scalping makes no sense? I belive that if I buy a product I am entitled to do whatever I want with it as long as it doesn’t brake the law. I hate scalping too, no1 did anything when it happened to GPUs or consoles or toilet paper during covid, so why are cars special?
Stock does not just appear out of thin air. Manufacturing takes time to ramp up. So it’s often not possible to produce enough for a high demand product.
So maybe don’t release a model until you have at least a decent amount of units? Still doesn’t explain why cars are any different than other products that are scalped. Why are they not lobbying to create laws against such practices?
I feel like if they want to prevent flipping for profit, make the agreement that you can’t sell it for more than you bought it for, but still allow the sale. Otherwise you’re not policing the right thing.
It’s not possible to track how much it was sold for in a private transaction
tabular@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 year ago
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.
It is not benevolence, it is a try to solve a real problem that they think it could arise.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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).
gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 year ago
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.
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.