3 ms·

The risk of default in an auto loan is just as high, if not a bit more, as loan payments are typically higher than lease payments. But yes, you pay more for a

by codex 13y ago

The risk of default in an auto loan is just as high, if not a bit more, as loan payments are typically higher than lease payments. But yes, you pay more for a lease than if you bought the car outright, assuming you couldn't get a higher return on your money elsewhere. The ability to remotely lock down the car, though, probably lowers the default rate and eases recovery of the car, so leasing this car should have lower "bad debt" costs than leasing a non-DRM'd car, making the lease comparatively cheaper than other cars.

waps 13y ago
I find this risky on the part of Renault. We still have the ENAC principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contractus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contract... ). When Renault locks the electric car, they are reneging on their contractual obligations. So given that they want to recover the money, how will that work ? In court you can say "I'm not paying for (a) the period that the car was disabled, ever (b) nor am I paying anything until the car is re-enabled", and that's a defensible position. Given that the car costs exactly the same (in loan repayments) to Renault, whether it's driving or locked down, this seems beyond stupid. I wonder who their legal advisor is. Reneging on contractual obligations is something you should only ever do if you're not expecting any payments anymore. (Of course this would be the situation in Northwest Europe, I'm not sure how this works in the US, so YMMV. And of course, you can bet it's unlikely in the extreme a collection agency will see it like this). This does not constitute legal advice, and I am especially not advising anyone to do anything. I am just voicing a concern. Contact a lawyer before you do anything (there is free legal representation for people having trouble with payments to financial institutions in most locations, use it).

by codex 13y ago

waps 13y ago

I find this risky on the part of Renault. We still have the ENAC principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contractus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contract... ). When Renault locks the electric car, they are reneging on their contractual obligations. So given that they want to recover the money, how will that work ? In court you can say "I'm not paying for (a) the period that the car was disabled, ever (b) nor am I paying anything until the car is re-enabled", and that's a defensible position. Given that the car costs exactly the same (in loan repayments) to Renault, whether it's driving or locked down, this seems beyond stupid. I wonder who their legal advisor is. Reneging on contractual obligations is something you should only ever do if you're not expecting any payments anymore. (Of course this would be the situation in Northwest Europe, I'm not sure how this works in the US, so YMMV. And of course, you can bet it's unlikely in the extreme a collection agency will see it like this). This does not constitute legal advice, and I am especially not advising anyone to do anything. I am just voicing a concern. Contact a lawyer before you do anything (there is free legal representation for people having trouble with payments to financial institutions in most locations, use it).