3 ms·

As previously discussed in other HN threads from last week, these penalties are DOA. Some of them, such as the liquidated "damages" clause which is clearly just

As previously discussed in other HN threads from last week, these penalties are DOA. Some of them, such as the liquidated "damages" clause which is clearly just a penalties clause, are straight up illegal. Courts will punish parties attempting to enforce a penalties clause, usually by requiring them to pay the opposing parties' legal fees.

Arrath 3y ago
I would love to see a detailed legal breakdown and examination of how many of the clauses in this contract are complete, utter, unenforceable horseshit.
signatoremo 3y ago
There are many precedence, Porsche being one. I’m sure their lawyers aren’t naive. We want to ensure that cars are available to reach true enthusiasts, to be driven and enjoyed for years to come. For this reason, those allocated a 911 S/T in the US will be required to adhere to an agreed minimum retention period, set at one year https://www.drive.com.au/news/porsche-stops-supercar-scalpers/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/porsche-stops-supercar-scalper...
- buffington 3y ago
  > their lawyers aren’t naive. Lawyers, being very much not naive, knowingly write contracts that are unenforceable in court. They're ok with that because they know the majority of those who sign the contract assume it's legally enforceable and never challenge it.
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    No, they write it because they are confident they will prevail in court. They wouldn’t leave it to chance. That’d be naive. Why do you think nobody has successfully challenged Ferrari and Porsche? Scalping is very lucrative after all
- gamblor956 3y ago
  I'm not sure you read the article? The article states that Porsche solved this by treating the first year of ownership as a "lease" with ownership transferring to the buyer after 1 year. Or in other words...no lawsuit...And no restrictions on resale, since leased property can't be sold by the lessee.
pxmpxm 3y ago
Huh? There is a ton of precedent for this - as a matter of fact Ford was chasing down famous people and auction houses for being in breach of the GT sales contract.

Arrath 3y ago

I would love to see a detailed legal breakdown and examination of how many of the clauses in this contract are complete, utter, unenforceable horseshit.

signatoremo 3y ago

There are many precedence, Porsche being one. I’m sure their lawyers aren’t naive. We want to ensure that cars are available to reach true enthusiasts, to be driven and enjoyed for years to come. For this reason, those allocated a 911 S/T in the US will be required to adhere to an agreed minimum retention period, set at one year https://www.drive.com.au/news/porsche-stops-supercar-scalpers/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/porsche-stops-supercar-scalper...

buffington 3y ago
> their lawyers aren’t naive. Lawyers, being very much not naive, knowingly write contracts that are unenforceable in court. They're ok with that because they know the majority of those who sign the contract assume it's legally enforceable and never challenge it.
- signatoremo 3y ago
  No, they write it because they are confident they will prevail in court. They wouldn’t leave it to chance. That’d be naive. Why do you think nobody has successfully challenged Ferrari and Porsche? Scalping is very lucrative after all
gamblor956 3y ago
I'm not sure you read the article? The article states that Porsche solved this by treating the first year of ownership as a "lease" with ownership transferring to the buyer after 1 year. Or in other words...no lawsuit...And no restrictions on resale, since leased property can't be sold by the lessee.

pxmpxm 3y ago

Huh? There is a ton of precedent for this - as a matter of fact Ford was chasing down famous people and auction houses for being in breach of the GT sales contract.