🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The provision seemed designed to deter scalping for a car expected to be available only in limited quantities after CEO Elon Musk’s statement that Tesla “dug our own grave with the Cybertruck.”
It was still in the Tesla Motor Vehicle Order Agreement Terms & Conditions earlier today, but was removed from the document while we worked on this article.
Tesla may have decided to remove the clause after several news reports spread word of the change over the weekend.
Before the deletion, the document said Cybertruck buyers had to offer the car back to Tesla before any attempt to resell the vehicle within one year of delivery.
You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater.
“For the Cybertruck’s first year on the market though, governmental documents indicate that Tesla will only offer dual- and tri-motor all-wheel drive models which will carry higher starting prices.”
Saved 66% of original text.
I just got my Tesla back after 11 months in the shop waiting on Tesla to provide the parts needed after a relatively minor fender bender. I love that car, genuinely, but NOBODY should be buying a Tesla until they get their supply chain shit together. It’s certainly the last time I buy a car from a manufacturer that isn’t well-established (sorry, Rivian, Lucid, etc.)
This thing was announced over 4 years ago. Tesla has been taking preorders for 4 years. It’s a little late to change the agreement. Then again, I can’t imagine ordering this thing 4 years ago and still wanting it after everything Elon has done.
There wasn’t really any “agreement”. You just paid (refundable) $100 to save your place in line. The “agreement” doesn’t come until you take delivery of the vehicle.
I still can’t believe what it looks like… It’s like a computer graphic from the early 90s.
When they first announced it I wondered why they were using such low-budget CGI concept art to promote it.
Like Max Headroom lol
I wont stand for besmirching Max like that.
Agreed. Especially considering how good (and available for purchase) the F150 Lightning is.
@Stillhart @dark_stang Also have you seen that stupid thing? siiiigh
I actually liked the looks 4 years ago when they announced it but by now I’ve kinda gotten bored of it. The design has aged even before the vehicle is out.
The f150 is huge, unnecessarily huge. But still better than this thing yes. I wish somebody would make an electric truck or ute the size of an old Ranger or S10.
@dark_stang yeah good call, at least the battery is reverse compatible for powering your home
Wild that the F150 is the biggest selling automobile in North America by a long shot. Would be great to at least get these folks off fossil fuels but…
Walking back yet another stupid action by Tesla. Why is it nearly everything Musk touches becomes so moronic? He wants to get to Mars so bad, he should just strap his ass to a rocket and aim it and go, and never return.
I knew Elon was a prat the second he sued Top Gear and lost over a Tesla review.
Top Gear were kinder than they really should have been.
He sued Top Gear because they staged a failure on what was a vehicle that already had a glass reputation for range. It was a completely legitimate case that they should have won.
For anyone just reading the headline, it’s already been deleted:
[…] a now-deleted update to the electric carmaker’s terms of service said the firm could sue customers for $50,000 or more if they resell during the first year of ownership without first getting written permission from Tesla. The provision seemed designed to deter scalping for a car expected to be available only in limited quantities after CEO Elon Musk’s statement that Tesla “dug our own grave with the Cybertruck.”
Telsa isn’t even close to being the first automaker to do this, it is to prevent scalping on pre-orders.
Corvette https://canadiancorvetteforums.com/threads/one-year-restriction-on-selling.63133/
Porsche https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a45429246/porsche-to-fight-911-st-flippers-with-leasing/
The aim of the clause was to prevent scalping of the truck.
This is something I’m surprised hasn’t happened more often. Just look at how gung-ho Ferrari is with their lawsuits.
