- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I do wonder how were they going to enforce it in the first place.
You must log in or register to comment.
enforce it
aren’t teslas always connected to HQ, and they could easily be disabled?
Just like with the self driving thing, and when resold it was disabled for the new buyer even though the original purchaser paid for it
I guess I was going more for the legal reasoning rather than technical. Yes, technically disabling a computer is trivial. I just can’t see how a company can do that when it’s legal property of somebody else. That’s just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
why would laws and regulations stop muski ?
Just a guess, but perhaps it’s treated as a software license?
It might be tesla’s wishlist, but no way you can brick a car and use that as an excuse.
The car still functions so not fully bricked, but I see the argument that the purchased self driving function is bricked. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s language in the agreement that deems it as a service. Just another shitty business practice to increase bottom line.
Holy shit, they did this? How has there never been a lawsuit that made headlines? IMO, that’s theft.
I think they realized that the market will enforce it for them
I hate scalpers and dealerships more than I hate Tesla, this is a bad move.
Yeah, this type of stuff just leads to artificial scarcity and scalping. I hate that such a huge chunk of “gig” work these days is just buying shit that people want, holding it hostage, and getting a higher price for it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As we reported on Monday, Tesla’s Motor Vehicle Order Agreement terms and conditions [PDF] were updated to add a section that specified Cybertruck buyers had to hang on to their vehicles for a year before trying to resell.
A new version [PDF] spotted yesterday is identical save for the Cybertruck language; luckily for El Reg readers, we snagged a copy of the old terms [PDF] in case this exact thing happened.
Tesla reserved the right to repurchase the vehicle at a discounted price, and if a resale went ahead without the blessing of Elon Musk’s capricious car company, considerable penalties were possible.
Among the threats for unsanctioned resale were a legal injunction, $50,000 fine and being banned from buying another Tesla in the future.
As we noted earlier this week, the only justification given by Tesla in its Cybertruck restrictions was the limited availability of the vehicle, which WedBush senior equity analyst Dan Ives opined was a solid reason for the move in a discussion with Bloomberg Radio.
It’s not clear if Tesla will otherwise restrict resale, or if future updates to the terms of service will appear before the boxy behemoth finally goes on sale later this month.
The original article contains 444 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m apparently under a rock, but did they start selling this thing? I see R1T’s and F150 Lightning’s every day but I thought the cybertruck was just a concept car?
They took pre orders years ago and I think the end of the month people will begin getting them if they don’t push it back any more.
