Tesla again threatens to sue Cybertruck buyers who try to resell the cars | Hacker News Reader

Tesla again threatens to sue Cybertruck buyers who try to resell the cars

arstechnica.com

31 pointsuxp8u61q8 comments

The thing I don't get, what's the motivation behind this policy? Is it because of scalping?

I think that's what they're trying to prevent. They don't want news stories describing how people are paying XX,XXX over asking to get one.

It’s smart and commendable behavior in a way even if the means are a bit extreme.

It might be about scalping, but also people willing to pay more are also more likely to wait if they have to, and keep future sales prices high, and people looking to sell are more likely willing to buy different vehicles. If Tesla stops other people from correcting the market, it's easier for them to take that profit; the issue is fundamentally that they can't move prices as fast or as flexibly as a decentralized free market can, so need to suppress it to compete for those margins.

Yes, it's about scalping. It's become a standard practice for novel, in-demand, pricey vehicles.

The policy seeks to ensure that buyers are driver-owners and not dealers-flippers.

For the crowd that desires a CT to drive, its a good policy.

This blows my mind.

Car dealers, hate them or not, provide you with the paperwork and contract before money changes hands.

Reading this:

> One person who posted in the Cybertruck forum was unhappy that they only received the version of the order agreement with the lawsuit warning after paying a $250 order fee.

> The buyer told us that he paid a $250 order fee on Friday and previously paid a $100 reservation fee. According to the order agreement, Tesla doesn't have to refund those types of fees if a buyer cancels a purchase after submitting a completed order.

(emphasis mine)

You only find out your order fee is nonrefundable when you receive the order agreement after you have paid the order fee.

There is no way that stands up in a court.

> There is no way that stands up in a court.

No lawyer, interpretation.

I'm not sure, it might stand up. Take Windows for example (in a time it was provided as CD). In most European countries, the Terms of Use are considered invalid (or "not to take into account") because they are _inside_ the packing. Law states that you need to be able the read the terms _before_ buying the product.

But for some reason (my knowledge ends there somewhere), it /23's valid in some countries to put the terms inside the packaging (e.g. US?).

I used to see such tactics for concert tickets of famous rock bands to avoid high black market prices. Would not have expected this for a 100k vehicle... Interesting demand curve!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com