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.

  • filister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As much as I dislike Musk, I think this is a right move, as scalpers became a real plague during Covid.

    But I am genuinely curious if they will ever sell it outside the US. This design seems far too dangerous for pedestrians and I can’t believe that EU authorities would approve it. Aren’t car hoods supposed to be of a very soft aluminium which is supposed to soften slightly the impact on a pedestrian in case of an accident? And what about if this monster is involved in front collision with some small car, like Renault Twingo here? I guess the chance of survivability of the Twingo passengers would be near zero.

    Plus correct me if I am wrong but what happens if you have a small accident? Are they going to charge you for the full cast? Why aren’t people more concerned about this? The repairability of this car looks terrible.

    • cheesebag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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? 🤔

      • Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Tankton@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ChuckEffingNorris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • cheesebag@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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. "

        • cheesebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • rish@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Scalpers will find a way. Only normal buyers will be hurt by this move. Also car companies are putting in more and more proprietary stuff that only they can repair practically, and charge a fortune for it. Tesla is leading in that too afaik.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I expect Cybertruck will sell in places with a big truck culture. The US, Canada and Australia probably I think they will sell terribly in Europe where trucks are generally quite rare and disliked because they’re not practical on public roads. I also foresee that the EU might get pissed off with Tesla’s laissez faire attitude to safety critical stuff like - “unbreakable” glass, door releases, position of indicators, pedestrian safety and force them to change design to comply with more stringent regs.

    • JiveTurkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think anything about any car is designed to soften the blow for a pedestrian. They usually have a crumple zone to dissipate energy in a collision but that isn’t designed with pedestrians in mind. Also they would likely repair this like any other vehicle since the body is made up of several panels.

      • CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They absolutely design cars with some pedestrian safety in mind. That’s why hood ornaments went away and bumpers moved away from solid steel.

        I don’t remember the exact numbers, but they have a metric along the lines of “X% of pedestrians survive impacts up to Y speed” that they need to meet.