Comment on Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year

• SCB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • bazus1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Why yes, I too would buy a deLorian look-alike with a Mr Fusion prop on the back.

    source

    • SCB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The dreeeam

      source
• Thetimefarm@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s a business relationship.

    source
• Vorticity@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • Tankton@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
  • averyfalken@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Terms and conditions that are illegal ate not valid and this goes against the first sale doctrine

    source
  • cheesebag@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

    source
• gian@lemmy.grys.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • cheesebag@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

    source

    • gian@lemmy.grys.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source

      • cheesebag@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Doubt suing will do better

    source