No Scalping Lightnings

[StarTrekNerd]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Scalp...-in-the-first-year-of-ownership.590945.0.html

Customers may not be able to sell their trucks in the first year.

I'm split on the no-resale provision. On face value it seems to help buyers from scalpers, but this may hurt the prospects of buyers because if they are truly unhappy with the Ford, they can't sell for a year. (I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Ford)


Ford also prohibits dealers from marking up.
This is further evidence against the dealership model.

Sponsored

 

[AdamsFan1983]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Scalp...-in-the-first-year-of-ownership.590945.0.html

Customers may not sell their trucks in the first year. Ford also prohibits dealers from marking up.

This is further evidence against the dealership model.

I'm split on the no-resale provision. On face value it seems to help buyers from scalpers, but this may hurt the prospects of buyers because if they are truly unhappy with the Ford, they can't sell for a year. (I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Ford)

They have no way to enforce. The dealer does not hold the title and has no way of telling if and when you sell. Doubly so if you use your own financing or pay cash.

 

[StarTrekNerd]

They have no way to enforce. The dealer does not hold the title and has no way of telling if and when you sell. Doubly so if you use your own financing or pay cash.

"Injunctive relief" sounds awfully litigious. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[godfodder0901]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Scalp...-in-the-first-year-of-ownership.590945.0.html

Customers may not sell their trucks in the first year. Ford also prohibits dealers from marking up.

This is further evidence against the dealership model.

I'm split on the no-resale provision. On face value it seems to help buyers from scalpers, but this may hurt the prospects of buyers because if they are truly unhappy with the Ford, they can't sell for a year. (I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Ford)

This is an optional provision that dealers may add in if they wish. And some states outright prohibit that practice.

 

[StarTrekNerd]

This is an optional provision that dealers may add in if they wish. And some states outright prohibit that practice.

Yes indeed the memo mentions seek counsel regarding state specific requirements.

 

[harkco]

I don't know that I would ever agree to something like that. Especially if I'm paying cash and have my title in hand.

 

[cryogen97]

They had the selling restrictions with the Ford GT. I didn't follow closely, but there was at least one lawsuit, never paid much attention to it. I think it was John Cena's. Found it: John Cena Taps Out, Settles Lawsuit with Ford After Selling His Ford GT (thedrive.com)

 

[Trekkie]

They have no way to enforce. The dealer does not hold the title and has no way of telling if and when you sell. Doubly so if you use your own financing or pay cash.

Ask John Cena how that worked, he sold his Ford GT and got taken to court, and settled.

 

[Taycanfrank]

I'm a big fan of this. Flipping special order or waitlist cars is a dumb thing to do.

 

[RWerksman]

Much like Rivian customer delivery dates, we're going to have to wait and see. This might be Ford attempting to deter scalpers or it might be a harbinger of actual contract language. No one outside of Dearborn knows.

One thing is for certain, this isn't related to the dealer model. This is direct. The attempt to tie to the model is silly and transparent. The model has many, many , many problems. Ford potentially requiring additional contractual elements to purchase an F150 Lightning is not one of them.

 

[Monkey]

Not legally enforceable and a violation of several laws. Big discussion about it on the F-150 forum and basically it’s an academic circle jerk of hypotheticals even though it’s already been noted that Ford is not specifically doing this and that it is a non-issue.

Ford did a bit of this with the GT…. And not for normal customers. They only did it for brand partners saying that they could not resell the vehicle within a certain period of time and/or without Ford’s approval, as long as they were an ambassador or spokesperson for the Ford brand. They only ever went after one person — John Cena — and not because he resold the GT, but because they felt the way it was all handled reflected poorly on the brand as they were trying to court him into sponsorships and promotional arrangements tied to the car and other brand specifics. All the media outlets saying that Ford restricted sales of the GT are talking BS.

Ask John Cena how that worked, he sold his Ford GT and got taken to court, and settled.

As noted in court, the resale of the car could not be held against him for selling something he owned exclusive title to. Ford was effectively suing him because selling the car reflected poorly on the company was in violation to his promotional contract.

Several people resold their Ford GT within the first year, even within the first couple months, of taking delivery. Not an issue. It is truly unlawful just about everywhere in the USA, to restrict someone from selling something they own title to. Be it cars or real estate or whatever. The Ford memo, which Ford has since recanted on, said they would support a dealership that imposed such a restriction as long as it could be done in accordance with local laws. In other words, it’s not happening.

 

[StarTrekNerd]

Much like Rivian customer delivery dates, we're going to have to wait and see. This might be Ford attempting to deter scalpers or it might be a harbinger of actual contract language. No one outside of Dearborn knows.

One thing is for certain, this isn't related to the dealer model. This is direct. The attempt to tie to the model is silly and transparent. The model has many, many , many problems. Ford potentially requiring additional contractual elements to purchase an F150 Lightning is not one of them.

Evidence against the dealership model is in reference to Ford telling dealers not to mark up (above customary ADM). The dealers have and still will do it, Ford is attempting to stop $30k mark ups but alas, customers are still screwed.

 

[sub]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Scalp...-in-the-first-year-of-ownership.590945.0.html

Customers may not sell their trucks in the first year. Ford also prohibits dealers from marking up.

This is further evidence against the dealership model.

I'm split on the no-resale provision. On face value it seems to help buyers from scalpers, but this may hurt the prospects of buyers because if they are truly unhappy with the Ford, they can't sell for a year. (I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Ford)

I agree that a flat out no-sale provision is not reasonable. But I think that it is hard to argue that a line in the contract that gives Ford the Right of First Refusal would be unreasonable.

If you want to sell your Lightning to someone, before the deal closes you have to ask Ford if they want to buy it. If Ford wants to buy it at the proposed 3rd party sale price, you have to sell it to Ford. Right of First Refusal is common contract term. No question that it would be legal or enforceable.

I think it would also be fair to put an MSRP price cap on Fords first refusal rights. If you want to sell your Lightning to a 3rd Party you have first offer to sell it back to Ford at no-higher than the MSRP.

 

[ads75]

I am split on the idea of Ford restricting someone from selling their Lightning. On one hand, if someone paid for it, it's theirs, they should be able to do what they want. On the other hand, Ford shouldn't let dealers jack up prices on reserved trucks. Ford, dealers, and customers have to try and find a middle ground. But I do wonder how many people would actually pay an inflated price on a used Lightning without the tax credit. To me, the Lightning's design is pretty vanilla/pretty safe. It doesn't seem to invoke any emotion other than "yawn". And there are people that want that, but how many want to pay close to six figures for that.

 

[LoneStar]

Implied in this post (in this forum) is will Rivian contemplate trying a No-Resale contract adder when they begin selling early 2022 vehicles to true individuals. Say for sales during the first half of 2022 or perhaps the entire first year. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if the Employee terms of purchase - besides keeping their mouths shut - was prohibiting a personal resale of it.

I really doubt that Rivian is thinking about or planning to do such a thing. Or at least I sure hope not.

Sponsored