Comment on Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year
filister@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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 trunks supposed to be of a very soft aluminium which is supposed to soften slightly the impact on a pedestrian in case of an accident?
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.
…I think this is a right move, as scalpers became a real plague during Covid.
Tesla have no right to sue somebody selling their own property. This is just another attack on the concept of personal ownership by corporations.
If the car is leased, fair enough, but the fact Musk thinks he can do this shows how all the power is with the wrong people.
If it’s leased, they can’t sell it anyways
I expect Cybertruck will sell in places with a big truck culture. The US, Canada and Australia probably I think they will sell terribly in Europe where trucks are generally quite rare and disliked because they’re not practical on public roads. I also foresee that the EU might get pissed off with Tesla’s laissez faire attitude to safety critical stuff like - “unbreakable” glass, door releases, position of indicators, pedestrian safety and force them to change design to be comply with more stringent regs.
I don’t see this being very popular in Australia. It misses the mark for why people buy a Ute or dual cab here.
Maybe it’ll stop scalpers. More likely it has made the scalper’s market at least 50k pricier to offset Tesla’s desire to double dip on these trucks
The lawsuits won’t succeed due to the first sales doctrine
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.
They absolutely design cars with some pedestrian safety in mind. That’s why hood ornaments went away and bumpers moved away from solid steel.
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but they have a metric along the lines of “X% of pedestrians survive impacts up to Y speed” that they need to meet.
I can’t find this rating anywhere. It was proposed this year but that’s all I can find.
Yeah, I’d love to see the cars safety certificate.
It’s basically the Sun Crusher of cars
cheesebag@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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? 🤔
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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.
bazus1@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Why yes, I too would buy a deLorian look-alike with a Mr Fusion prop on the back.
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The dreeeam
Thetimefarm@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Lol ferrari took away Steve Wyns Las Vegas dealership because he flipped his LaFerrari for an extra million. I will never not find that hillarious.
wewbull@feddit.uk 11 months ago
That’s a business relationship.
Vorticity@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m guessing it’s in the terms and conditions when you buy the vehicle. In which case I’d say that Tesla is within their rights. If you don’t like the terms, don’t buy the car.
Tankton@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Simply referring to terms and conditions when complaining about a company move is such a weak argument. Honestly half of the terms are void by European laws anyway.
averyfalken@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Terms and conditions that are illegal ate not valid and this goes against the first sale doctrine
cheesebag@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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
gian@lemmy.grys.it 11 months ago
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.
cheesebag@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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
gian@lemmy.grys.it 11 months ago
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.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
Doubt suing will do better