950
Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
950 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
58744 readers
4567 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surely scalping can be addressed without infringing in my right to do what I like with my own damn property. Why is it better to let Tesla sue consumers than to just... limit the number of trucks a person can buy? ๐ค
Lol ferrari took away Steve Wyns Las Vegas dealership because he flipped his LaFerrari for an extra million. I will never not find that hillarious.
That's a business relationship.
No one is going to fucking scalp Cybertrucks lol
This policy exists because they expect a lot of people to be unhappy with their Cybertruck, is my guess.
Which sucks because I really wanted the aesthetic of this car to bring back more 80s-sci-fi to the vehicle market, as a lover of silly-looking vehicles.
Why yes, I too would buy a deLorian look-alike with a Mr Fusion prop on the back.
The dreeeam
It's in the terms and conditions when you buy the vehicle. I'd say that Tesla is within their rights. If you don't like the terms don't buy the car.
Simply referring to terms and conditions when complaining about a company move is such a weak argument. Honestly half of the terms are void by European laws anyway.
In this specific instance we are talking about a luxury item that absolutely nobody needs. Anyone who would be buying this would be buying it out of choice. I think this is an instance where terms conditions set by the company of such a niche product is reasonably fair.
Flip it over and apply terms and conditions like this on mainstream consumer goods then we have a bigger problem. If this works I think you may find a lot of luxury car makers initially follow suit, you can bet that companies like BMW would absolutely love to take a cut of all second-hand sales.
It's a slippery slope.
Doesn't matter what kind of product it is.
ToS holds no weight in the EU.
If Elmo sues, he will just get denied. Because it is a garbage statement.
The majority of what you buy is by choice. Why is it ok to violate your rights as a consumer, as long as the product is expensive enough? Isn't that the real slippery slope here? "Houses are luxury items that absolutely nobody needs- just rent an apartment. "
Terms and conditions that are illegal ate not valid and this goes against the first sale doctrine
Imagine applying this argument to an employment contact. "Tesla's contract says you don't get bathroom breaks & have to work in unsafe conditions. If you don't like it, don't work there". Clearly doesn't hold water. In the US, we need stronger consumer protections - right to repair, right to be forgotten, and right to safely do what you like with your own property.
Terms and conditions have been voided before, including NDA clauses. It's why they always have a severability clause, stating that if any parts of the T&C are found invalid, the rest of the T&C remain in place.
There's no way this sticks