6 ms·
Tesla will sue you if you try to flip your low-VIN Cybertruck
- seattle_spring 3y agoIt’d be funny if Tesla just bricked the trucks of people who do this. Scalpers are the absolute scum of the Earth in any context.
- slowhadoken 3y ago[flagged]
- scotty79 3y agoThis seems like they anticipate first customers to be deeply dissatified with the product and resale price tanking right after the relese making it hard for them to sell new stock.
- yreg 3y agoOne can put anything they want to into an agreement, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. Does Tesla even have a legal ground to successfuly sue someone for breaking this clause? It might be there just to discourage the resales with no plan of actual legal action, no?
- chrismcb 3y agoIf they put it in the agreement then yeah they have legal grounds. I believe there is precedent for this as well, I think some of the super car manufacturers do the same thing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yreg 3y ago>If they put it in the agreement then yeah they have legal grounds. Not necessarily. To stretch the idea to the extreme, imagine they put in, that if you purchase the car, after one year you have to become a slave forever owned by Tesla. There would be no legal ground for them to sue you if you don't "check-in" at the factory after the one year passes.
- penguin_booze 3y agoI thought to myself the same: surely, I paid for the thing, and I own it; can someone else tell me what I'm to do with it? But then I realized that there are covenants that some home buyers have to agree to. In principle, it's similar--you agree to do, or not to do, some things with the very thing you own. But, aguably, covenants are for the benifit of the collective (say, a residential area), not for the seller or their reputation.
- Volundr 3y agoThat CC&Rs are legal is crazy to me. The fact that one homeowner (or these days the original developer) can opt into a contract that binds every future owner of the property in perpetuity is too damn much. Yes I understand the mechanism, that the owner is agreeing not to sell to anyone who won't agree, so in theory every owner has "consented", but forever is a long ass time and it makes these things really far reaching. I strongly support more limits here.
- Simulacra 3y agoThis would fail the first sale doctrine. Once you purchase it, it's yours, licensing it is different. If you have purchased the vehicle, it's yours to do as you wish.
- fred_is_fred 3y agoIf you had read the article you’d know that other companies have done this before so clearly it works.
- belltaco 3y agoFirst sale doctrine is about copyrighted works that can be copied at low or zero costs.
- kcplate 3y agoIt seems more a weird spin on right of first refusal that is added to the original sales contract. It’s a ROFR with a pre-negotiated price. The pre- negotiated price is the odd part. Generally a first refusal gives the ROFR holder the right to buy the asset at the selling price the other buyer is willing to pay. This is a bit different.
- tanseydavid 3y agoI just can't fathom someone paying a premium for a particular VIN number. Is it just me? Even with FU money, I mean, what are you going to do, carry your registration around so you can show people your VIN number? Or maybe invite them outside and ask them to stick their face down where your feet usually go into the car so they can get a real-life glimpse of that amazing VIN number that you have?
- inemesitaffia 3y agoAll that may happen is disabled supercharging and loss of Internet Connectivity
- dmitrygr 3y agoI suspect Elon has never heard of the first sale doctorine. Got my popcorn ready.
- Terr_ 3y agoIANAL but I think First Sale Doctrine is mainly concerned with copyrights, as opposed to some kind of contract for sale of a physical good. So whether it poses a problem for Tesla will depend on whether they are trying to rely on copyrights to exert their control through the contract.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoIt applies to physical goods. Tesla will just force buyers to sign away their rights with a contract.
- Terr_ 3y ago> It applies to physical goods. No, there could be something else that applies to physical goods, but it's not the "First Sale Doctrine", which is specifically about limitations in copyright. [0] If I harvest a generic apple and offer it with a contract stating that the buyer will not allow anyone else to eat the apple, there's no copyright involved, and thus no First Sale Doctrine either. [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-first-sale-doctrine.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-first-sale-doctr...
- kelnos 3y agoTo be clear, First Sale Doctrine does apply to physical goods: the doctrine pre-dates copyrighted digital goods. The idea was that a publisher couldn't prevent someone from reselling their paperback copy of a novel after they've read it (for example). Of course, it in theory could apply to digital goods as well, but most copyrighted digital goods you don't actually buy, you just license. Good luck reselling a Kindle book. You have to strip the DRM first, which, while possible, violates the DMCA.
- andrewfromx 3y agoi wonder if I can list it on a site like https://turo.com/ https://turo.com/
- rasz 3y agoDont sell, lease it out, problem solved.
- CamperBob2 3y agoOr buy it under an LLC and sell the LLC.
- mapmap 3y agoI don’t understand the strategy because one would have to pay $800 per year to California for the LLC. Does this only work if you live in one of the handful of states that don’t have any minimum tax or annual fees for LLCs?
- CamperBob2 3y agoThe whole idea is to flip the truck ASAP for a profit well in excess of $800. In any case, you can create an LLC in any state you like, and people do. The buyer is then free to disband it.
- yieldcrv 3y agoIt works because you ignore that law LLC franchise fees are at the same level of priority as unreturned library books, and the legal consequences are even lower than that There is no reason to form an LLC in the state you’re physically in just because the state said so (unless the consequences really are so meaningful) If they notify you of a fine, go ahead and pay it and reincorporate in-state then but I know people that even paid payroll taxes with an out of state LLC and the franchise tax board never said anything even the courts might have a provision for you to retroactively gain limited liability by reincorporating in the state just to represent in court after being sued always remember that states are in competition with each other for business, and this transcends their due process and opinions. they do things to attract business. california already attracts business and keeping that is more important than worrying about a Wyoming or Delaware entity operating in their borders
- yieldcrv 3y ago
- LeoPanthera 3y agoPreviously. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38236701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38236701
- Animats 3y agoOr maybe the things will just pile up unsold after a while. There's a glut of electric cars right now. The electric Ford F-150 is more useful yet not selling well.
- wcoenen 3y agoUnlike other car manufacturers who go through dealerships, Tesla has an up-to-date view on orders and deliveries (from/to actual customers) versus production. They check this weekly and adjust accordingly[1]. I don't see why they would let unsold cars pile up. [1] I don't have an exact reference, but this was explained in one of the earning calls after they started cutting prices at the start of this year.
- valianteffort 3y agoF-150 Lightning are not selling well because they are insanely overpriced for what you get. Ford claimed it would start around $35k but the lowest trim I've seen was $80k and they're supposedly selling it at a loss. CT will likely sell primarily to people who don't want/need a truck but are buying it for novelty and have money to spend. I think Elon made a mistake with this one (and has even alluded to that). Pursuing CT over the $25k was a bad idea that might set Tesla back some years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- icelancer 3y ago> I think Elon made a mistake with this one (and has even alluded to that). Pursuing CT over the $25k was a bad idea that might set Tesla back some years. Yeah, it's pretty clear in interviews and such he realizes the CyberTruck will be extremely lucky to break even. Just not a good move.
- ehnto 3y agoIf Tesla didn't run entirely on hype I suspect they could have just shut the CT program down once realising it was a bad idea. They would lose face if they stopped now, but perhaps they will have learned a lesson and we'll see a more researched and subdued approach to their future offerings.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38236701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38236701
- yorwba 3y agoYour dupe comment is ironically a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38237781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38237781
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoPutting the proper flag on it
- chungy 3y agoHow is this legal?
- dharmab 3y agoThere isn't a law against it. See also Ferrari's rules about what you and cannot do with their cars.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pointlessone 3y agoWell, that’s the core of the question. Isn’t a sale a transfer of ownership? Once it’s sold it’s not theirs any more. This goes both for Tesla and Ferrari, and everyone else.
- 1123581321 3y agoSales contracts can have terms that are in force after the transfer of the asset. A more classic example is when the car seller also extends you credit. They are allowed to repossess the car if you stop making payments, even though you are the owner.
- yladiz 3y agoTechnically if you take credit/a loan to pay for the car, you are not the owner of the car, the bank is, and you’re just in possession of the title, so it’s not exactly the same as this situation.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Technically if you take credit/a loan to pay for the car, you are not the owner of the car, the bank is, and you’re just in possession of the title You are the owner, they just have a lien. Before that qualifies as ownership, possession takes hold.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThis smells like a PR ploy.
- londons_explore 3y agoWhy not simply auction off all of the low vin ones? Simply get everyone to enter how much they're willing to pay, and give the first ones to those willing to pay the most. That way, nobody makes any money reselling, and Tesla captures all the value.