13 ms·
This is another situation where you can put anything you want in a contract, even if it is blatantly unenforceable. This is why contracts have severability clau
by mike_d 3y ago
This is another situation where you can put anything you want in a contract, even if it is blatantly unenforceable. This is why contracts have severability clauses.
- xeromal 3y agoThere's no legal recourse for them but they can 100% prevent you from buying a new Tesla ever again.
- asylteltine 3y agoThat’s fine. I would never buy one in the first place
- krasin 3y ago> they can 100% prevent you from buying a new Tesla ever again. Probably in the US. In some other countries, it's illegal to refuse a sale, if you're a store (online or offline). A buyer comes, a sale happens.
- xeromal 3y agoYeah, in the US you can be refused service unless you're protected class.
- krasin 3y agoI sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)
- lamontcg 3y agoYeah, rich assholes have really been missing out, they're so crippled by their lack of empathy and unfair inheritance of wealth and position, people should understand how hard they've had it.
- zerocrates 3y ago"Protected class" is a somewhat misleading phrase: the rule is that there are certain characteristics that you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of, not certain groups of people that are protected and some that aren't (at least mostly). Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.
- HarryHirsch 3y agoIn other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago> you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse. It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
- HarryHirsch 3y agoIn the real world you just find pretexts to fire people, and the laws are written to permit such outs. Your trust in the legal system is touching. (And then there's that Hewlett-Packard class ageism class action that was settled for 18 millions. Is that one or two days of profits?)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agobecause the real world is complicated. How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it? I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily. Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- YiraldyGuber 3y agoIn the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.) To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves. In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people. For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does. > It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it. It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.
- threeseed 3y agoNo. You can still be refused service if you're a protected class. It just can't be the only reason.
- Someone 3y agoI would expect it can’t be part of the reason, otherwise things like “we don’t sell to women on weekdays” would be legal.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agothe entire reason would still be that they're a woman. you can't refuse service to _any_ protected class on the weekends because ... you can't refuse service to protected classes for being in that protected class.
- muttled 3y agoGuess you could do a reverse "lady's night" and only charge women instead of the inverse.
- sarchertech 3y agoA person who is part of a protected class can be refused service for any reason other than just because they are a protected class. A woman walks into your bar. You can refuse to solve her because you don’t like the way she does her hair, or the color of her clothes. You can’t refuse to serve her because she’s a woman.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoThe standards and burdens are different in civil cases, and judges are not born-yesterday, gullible idiots who fall for such contrived nonsense? The bar owner would face substantial incredulity from a judge if they claimed that they were turning down business because of how someone's hair looked. That said, the plaintiffs could strengthen their case showing a significant number of women were being denied service, or evidence the owner was misogynistic.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThere's literal precedence for this, what are you on about?
- clipsy 3y agoThere is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman unless there were witnesses or recordings establishing that they did so specifically on the basis of gender. Proving discrimination, even by the lower standards of civil court, generally requires either a well-documented pattern of behavior or (as mentioned above) evidence that the customer was banned due specifically to their gender.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman Especially since, federally at least, sex is not a protected class for public accommodation discrimination (it is for employment and housing discrimination.)
- huytersd 3y agoYou can refuse a sale to anyone. The reason for refusal just can’t be discriminatory.
- dragonwriter 3y agoThe decision to refuse a sale is always discriminatory. It just can't be discriminatory on the basis of a protected class.
- dllthomas 3y ago... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThere are caveats to this. If you uniformly refuse everyone for the same reason but it unduly affects a specific class then you can still be found guilty of discrimination of a protected class. The canonical example of this is banning all headwear in a restaurant. This has been found to unfairly target certain religions and as such is considered a violation of civil rights. If you banned all headwear sporting university football teams, that would most likely fly.
- dllthomas 3y agoNo, no, I mean uniformly refusing all service to everyone for no reason. The two points at which you are not discriminating at all are uniformly providing and uniformly withholding services. Otherwise you are discriminating based on something, which may be fine or terrible depending on a whole bunch of details.
- dragonwriter 3y agoThe discrimination theory you describe sounds disparate impact, which is a feature of employment but not public accommodation law, unless the intent was to discriminate on religion and the facial neutrality if the policy was pretextual. Though the US cases on broad headwear bans I am familiar with are mostly not in discrimination, per se, but on failure to accommodate a religious practice grounds (again, a protection that applies in employment and education, not public accommodation, contexts.) E.g., https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623/supreme-court-rules-for-woman-denied-abercrombie-fitch-job-over-headscarf https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623... and
- dragonwriter 3y agoNo, in the US you can be refused service, except that you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodations on the basis of status in a protected class. Everyone is in multiple protected classes. For public accommodations, all of the following are protected classes under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion, and national origin. Everyone has a value on each of those axes, and everyone is protected against discrimination in public accommodations on the bases of each of those.
- woleium 3y agoThat’s how it is for medical supplies and medicine in the USA too, that’s how you can always get into a Costco without a card.
- muttled 3y agoAlcohol too, in 14 states: https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-costco-states/ https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-...
- cute_boi 3y agoI thought there are guards who always check card in Costco.
- aaomidi 3y agoSpecifically for medical stuff Costco lets you through.
- beej71 3y agoI could see them trying other shenanigans, like nerfing the vehicle in some way if you violate the TOS.
- armchairhacker 3y agoJust have someone else buy and "illegally" sell it to you.
- viro 3y agoumm they can 100% disable the software on the car.
- killingtime74 3y agoI'm interested, which part of this is unenforceable in the states (as an Australian)? It's quite a common clause, although not for cars and consumer goods, for competition reason.
- yreg 3y agoIn what (b2c) area is it a common clause?
- killingtime74 3y agohttps://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/revenue_from_contrac/revenue_from_contrac_US/chapter_8_practical__US/87repurchase_rights_US.html https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/rev... quickest example I could find. Also some share sales.
- jemfinch 3y agoIt's probably a violation of the First Sale Doctrine, which is well established in US law.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoFirst sale doctrine only applies to matters of copyrighted material.
- viro 3y agoit also doesn't apply to software aka all that tesla firmware
- mike_d 3y agoAmerican law has many provisions, among them the First Sale Doctrine, where once money has changed hands a seller cannot restrict your use of a product. Our Supreme Court famously applied this to inkjet cartridges, saying a printer maker can't take punitive action against you for refilling them: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1189 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1189
- mrshadowgoose 3y agoRegardless of whether it's legally enforceable or not, any legal challenges will take longer to litigate than the intended anti-scalping effect over the coming year. Until it goes through the courts, they will likely refuse the transfer of Cybertruck ownership between Tesla accounts...which is surmountable but annoying enough to discourage certain buyers.
- mike_d 3y agoRefusal to transfer ownership between accounts would amount to tortious interference, at which point Tesla would be liable for at a minimum whatever the buyer was willing to pay for the vehicle plus legal fees. This is of course a hypothetical because I doubt there will be any secondary market demand for Cybertrucks in the first year.
- voisin 3y ago> because I doubt there will be any secondary market demand for Cybertrucks in the first year. I find this surprising. Why do you think this?
- userinanother 3y agoPeople who I know that ordered one did it only for scalping rights
- mike_d 3y ago5 years ago a $100 preorder on a $40k electric truck was a sure bet. Everyone was hyped. People were willing to deal with its weird looks for an etruck. Tesla stumbled and the market is now gone. Rivian nailed the high end luxury market and commercial vehicles, F-150 Lightning filled the "real truck" niche, Hummer EV for the people who wanted something that stood out. Chevy and Dodge will have their electric trucks out next year before Tesla can ramp production. Now the $40k single motor base model isn't happening which killed off the buyers who wanted a cheap option. Not to mention the absolute dumpster fire that is Musk's personal brand, a lot of potential EV buyers won't touch him. They might still be able to sell some to die hard Tesla fans, but there isn't enough broad appeal to create a secondary market.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIt'll be amusing if Tesla sues someone and Streisand-effects themselves, as well as losing the case.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> This is another situation where you can put anything you want in a contract, even if it is blatantly unenforceable. This is why contracts have severability clauses. Severability clauses are often one of the unenforceable bits of a contract, though.