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.

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    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
      34
      ·
      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
        14
        ·
        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.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t matter what kind of product it is.

          ToS holds no weight in the EU.

          If Elmo sues, he will just get denied. Because it is a garbage statement.

        • 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
      4
      ·
      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