Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year::Tesla may agree to buy the truck back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven” and any damages and repairs.
Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year::Tesla may agree to buy the truck back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven” and any damages and repairs.
Hey look, freedom!
Not sure what you are talking about. I have the freedom to not sign some dumbass agreement with tesla and not purchase a shitty looking cyber truck, and I will use that very freedom. No one is being forced to take this deal.
You have the freedom as long as it stays niche. Having no protections against such practices means they have a chance of becoming so commonplace as to be unavoidable.
This is what people don’t understand and is why so many freedom and privacy-violating practices have invaded modern life. That being said, a nerfed version of this clause that only prevents you from selling it for more than you bought it for would be great for preventing scalping.
as is customary nowadays with everything now
“Just don’t buy it” is a time-limited argument. If it becomes the norm to require signing a contract for ownership then you’ll have to argue “just don’t buy a car”. If you don’t like cars then maybe that’s okay but for other items that position sucks ass.
At some point, people need to band together and do something. Like $12 hotdogs and beer at stadiums. If people would just collectively say no to shit like that and refuse to buy them for a number of games, they would be forced to bring the prices back down to something more reasonable. But we as a group just cannot seem to do things until an extreme is met. To put it in perspective what I am saying is, if everyone just didn’t buy it, then it wouldn’t become the norm.
I appreciate this, and I agree with you completely. However, I think you’re greatly overestimating the strength of principles and the willingness to boycott of the average person. Which is why we have $12 hot dogs.
Yeah, I completely agree. There’s no way it would ever happen, but damn wouldn’t it be beautiful to watch if it did.
It’s an extreme edge case that car companies use when they have low units and very high demand, this applies to like 10 car models lol. Definitely no indication that it’s going to become the norm.
If there’s monetary intensive for them to control reselling then I think it’s fair to assume. Cars manufactures have already tried to charge a subscription for heated seats already in the car and presumably stopped due to a perceive a backlash which would cost them more money (for now).
In software it’s very common to be unable to resell a purchase and it should be no surprise when car manufactures try to prevent functionality being used by 2nd hand owners (if they are not already doing that).
Pfft, look at this cat over here…Why would you not want to own a life size version of a poorly made pinewood derby car-truck? I, for one, am willing to let them install a 5G chip in my brain as an accountabili-buddy. I bet I survive at least 3 months with the bill gates chip!
The dumbass agreement is the problem, not the buyer.
Imagine this:
If I were the second hand buyer of such a vehicle (yes, that means the original buyer has violated the dumbass agreement), would you say then that I am bound to the dumbass agreement too?
Freedom for scalpers! Yay!