3 ms·

My guess is that they can, as it is a requirement for buying one..

by tiku 3y ago

chx 3y ago
Anyone 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 ago
  IANAL, 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).

My guess is that they can, as it is a requirement for buying one..

by tiku 3y ago

My guess is that they can, as it is a requirement for buying one..

chx 3y ago

Anyone 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 ago
IANAL, 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).