7 ms·

Then replace a "no sale" provision with a "no sale over $X" provision. Or require resale to the dealership and exert control over the dealerships. Or... There

• andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  What legitimate reason does a person have to sell their car before the first year ends? Seems highly wasteful to me, but maybe there is something I don’t know? Edit: friends, the downvote button is not a “I disagree with you” button. This isn’t Reddit.
  • masklinn 5y ago
    One could imagine a scenario where e.g. you buy this, fall on hard time, and have to sell it to make it through. Seems like a small minority of possible cases, unless you really didn't have the means to buy it in the first place.
    • azinman2 5y ago
      They should find a way to remediate such problems then, including being able to sell it back to the dealer.
      • jaywalk 5y ago
        The no-sale agreement is between the customer and the dealer. The dealer would happily waive it if you wanted to sell the truck back to them.
  • throwawaygh 5y ago
    You decide you don't like the car. The car is a buggy piece of shit. The care works well enough but is constantly being recalled and you need a 365 work truck. (I just went into a Ford dealership to test drive a Mach-E and was told I can't because there's a seat belt recall.) You lose your job. Your parents get sick and you move in with them to help out, but they live in the middle of nowhere and you need >200/300 mi range. I could keep going all day.
    • MarkMarine 5y ago
      Lemon law protects against a number of these things
    • shmatt 5y ago
      Warranties and Lemon Laws cover the first few cases For the others, indeed buyers should see this more as a lease type contract for the first year, where you can't just get rid of it without paying a fine
      • mywittyname 5y ago
        It protects against the "buggy piece of shit" but only in very specific cases, which depend entirely upon which state you live in. Most notably, it only applies to new cars. Some states require you to be out of a car for a total of 90 days in one calendar year, and/or have the same problem occur several times. In several states, recalls don't count towards lemon law because it's a preventative measure, or only applies if the nature of the recall renders the car inoperable. Meaning, you can wait four years for a replacement of a potentially deadly airbag. You can absolutely have a buggy piece of shit that can't be lemon law'ed. Getting a car lemon law'ed is a nightmare. It's rare that you have a cut-and-dry case. Just ask people with those Ford Powershift transmissions in their Fiestas. A warranty will ensure that someone doesn't have to pay to fix the buggy piece of shit, assuming the buggy shit isn't a wear item that the dealership can claim that the owner broke. But there's still the hassle of scheduling the fix, taking the car to the dealership, hoping they have transportation for you, etc.
  • magicalhippo 5y ago
    We bought our previous car from a guy who did just that. He loved cars, so he bought them, drove them for 6-9 months and sold them. Yes he took a huge loss, but it was his hobby. A couple we know bought one of the new Morris Mini's a few years back, and one month later they discovered they were having a kid. The Mini isn't the most practical vehicle for a new family, so they sold it and bought something else before the kid was born. We just got our car totalled and we were not prepared to get a new car just yet. We might be getting a larger garage this year which would allow us to park ID.4/Ioniq 5 sized vehicles in it, so timing wasn't awesome. So we bought an second-hand vehicle which we plan to sell within a year. Things happen.
  • mistrial9 5y ago
    .. because a purchase means that the purchaser now owns the item, not the manufacturer. How has that changed? Who benefits?
• option 5y ago
  That would be too hard to track and enforce.
• iooi 5y ago
  > no sale over $X There is no realistic way of enforcing this.
  • throwawaygh 5y ago
    I already gave one example of a way to enforce it in my original post: require any resale to be mediated by Ford/dealerships. That is exactly one pivot table harder to enforce than the no resale provision itself, right? You could do a bunch of other stuff, too. E.g., require Ford to be notified of all sales. Again, this involves the impossible difficulty of one extra pivot table.
  • dymk 5y ago
    Buyers enforce it by reporting it to Ford
    • chmod600 5y ago
      Why would they do that?
      • dymk 5y ago
        Because buyers hate scalpers. Trying to placate buyers is exactly why Ford is doing this.
    • mywittyname 5y ago
      And Ford needs to file lawsuits and deal with all of that nonsense. They did the same thing with the GT, and the lawsuits outlasted the no-resale provisions. The legal system is way too slow for something like this, Ford can't prove much in damages that result from this, and the cost of suing will wipe away more than anything they could claw back anyway. This is a pointless endeavor.
      • dymk 5y ago
        Ford isn't aiming for perfect - they're doing something easy and more or less cost-free to dissuade scalpers from immediately flipping cars. Will it prevent all scalping? No. Will it prevent some scalping? Probably, yes.
• jaywalk 5y ago
  > Or require resale to the dealership I'm sure the dealership would happily waive the no-sale provision if you wanted to sell your truck back them. There's literally no reason not to.
• MarkMarine 5y ago
  What you’re suggesting is super complicated, instead they can just decide not to sue the everyman who lost their job and sold the truck, and definitely go after the scalpers that are wealthy and just trying to flip the vehicle.
  • throwawaygh 5y ago
    ...then why not just make "no scalping" the rule and do exactly what you're proposing anyways? How is that any more complicated?
    • MarkMarine 5y ago
      Because that caps the value of the truck long term.
      • throwawaygh 5y ago
        retain the one year term. this isn't rocket science.
    • MarkMarine 5y ago
      ugh. Look. No-resale within a year is not that difficult to notice and enforce. You can look at DMV records. It is easy to correlate with who bought the truck. If you've ever sold a used vehicle, you know there is all kinds of scamming going on with what people want you to write as the sale price (what they pay taxes on) vs. what it actually sells for. How in the world would you discover what someone actually paid in a private sale transaction? Sue and do discovery after? That is incredibly expensive.
      • mywittyname 5y ago
        > No-resale within a year is not that difficult to notice and enforce. Ford would have to be A) willing to actually sue someone, and B) willing to deal with the fallout when the only person who doesn't bend to their will turns out to be a widow with six kids from fucking Texas, whose legal bills are covered by a Go Fund Me and GM very publicly gives her a Silverado EV just to rub it in. Ford will absolutely win in court, but not every battle is fought in the court room.
• uberman 5y ago
  You want a tesla and that is great for you. It sounds though that this has biased you against more traditional "dealer" alternatives. Removing features like the ability to resell does not allow dealers to jack up prices. If your reaction is anything typical, it will reduce demand and soften the dealer's position. I see this very much as a pro-consumer move to limit speculators for reducing availability as they have repeatedly done with other high demand items. No one, including the manufacturer (who you likely get your loan from) wants to see you default and there will almost certainly be options to sell back to the dealer to avoid that.
  • throwawaygh 5y ago
    I specifically don't want a tesla. Nothing has biased me against traditional dealers other than dealing with them all my life.