60 ms·
Can they do this? I mean, they can decide to only provide maintenance and software upgrades to the original buyer in the first year. That's their business deci
by chx 3y ago
Can they do this?
I mean, they can decide to only provide maintenance and software upgrades to the original buyer in the first year. That's their business decision and the market will decide whether this makes their product less alluring or not.
But if I buy something, it becomes my property and I can do whatever the hell I want to do with it. Or did I miss a memo?
- xwdv 3y agoYou cannot do whatever the hell you want with it, what is wrong with you? You agree to a terms and service and if you violate them you will be punished by having your car blacklisted and blocked from superchargers, updates, service at Tesla dealerships, warranty void, etc. Accept it.
- cptaj 3y agoYou missed the memo of tesla being anti-consumer as hell
- andreygrehov 3y agoI own a Model Y, and I disagree. This is the first time in my life a company has treated me so well. I mean, they pretty much assign a TPM to you who is always just one text message away. Another nice thing is that if anything in the car gets broken, you simply make a request through the app. A technician(s) comes to your place and fixes everything while you drink your tea and watch Netflix. Anti-consumer? Unless you meant something else, Tesla is hilariously pro-consumer.
- tiku 3y agoMy guess is that they can, as it is a requirement for buying one..
- chx 3y agoAnyone can write anything in a contract -- but a contract can not supersede the law. My question could be restated: if someone did sign this contract and then sold their car and Tesla deactivated the car would a court of competent jurisdiction strike that clause and compel Tesla to reactivate it? (Possibly finding tortious interference as well since the first buyer could not fulfill its contractual obligation of delivering a car to the second buyer.)
- tzs 3y ago> would a court of competent jurisdiction strike that clause [...]? Probably not. The following is a simplification and approximation. A contract is a legally enforceable promise. What turns a promise into a contract is "consideration". I don't want to delve too deeply into this because something like 80% of the Contracts class in law school is trying to figure out what the heck "consideration" actually is but roughly it is a promise, action, or restraint from action bargained for by a promisor in exchange for the promise. In this case, Tesla (the promisor) is promising to transfer ownership of a Cybertruck to the buyer and in exchange for that promise wants the buyer to pay money and restrain from reselling the Cybertruck within a year. What seems to get people hung up is that if you own something you can generally legally sell that thing. But that's what makes agreeing not to sell work as consideration. Consideration has to have some value. If the purported consideration is doing an action that you were already legally obligated to do or refraining from an action that you would not have been legally allowed to take it does not have sufficient value to work as consideration. Agreeing to refrain from an action you can otherwise legally take is fine as consideration.
- zajio1am 3y agoIANAL, but i would expect that even if that clause of the contract would hold in court (and perhaps even forces the seller to pay some contractual penalty to Tesla for a breach of contract), it would still be illegal for Tesla to tamper with third-party owned car and deactivate it, because Tesla has no contract with the new owner, and the ownership was legally transferred to a third party, even if that transfer was a breach of contract. The point is that the contract is bound to the person who accepted it, not to a property itself (there are exceptions for specific types of contracts on realty).
- andreygrehov 3y agoOther car manufacturers can (e.g., Mercedes, Ferrari), so is Tesla. Nothing new here really.
- PcChip 3y agoI think ford did the same thing with the new GT