I thought to myself the same: surely, I paid for the thing, and I own it; can someone else tell me what I'm to do with it?
But then I realized that there are covenants that some home buyers have to agree to. In principle, it's similar--you agree to do, or not to do, some things with the very thing you own. But, aguably, covenants are for the benifit of the collective (say, a residential area), not for the seller or their reputation.
That CC&Rs are legal is crazy to me. The fact that one homeowner (or these days the original developer) can opt into a contract that binds every future owner of the property in perpetuity is too damn much. Yes I understand the mechanism, that the owner is agreeing not to sell to anyone who won't agree, so in theory every owner has "consented", but forever is a long ass time and it makes these things really far reaching. I strongly support more limits here.
If they put it in the agreement then yeah they have legal grounds. I believe there is precedent for this as well, I think some of the super car manufacturers do the same thing.
>If they put it in the agreement then yeah they have legal grounds.
Not necessarily. To stretch the idea to the extreme, imagine they put in, that if you purchase the car, after one year you have to become a slave forever owned by Tesla. There would be no legal ground for them to sue you if you don't "check-in" at the factory after the one year passes.
This seems like they anticipate first customers to be deeply dissatified with the product and resale price tanking right after the relese making it hard for them to sell new stock.
Or maybe the things will just pile up unsold after a while. There's a glut of electric cars right now. The electric Ford F-150 is more useful yet not selling well.
F-150 Lightning are not selling well because they are insanely overpriced for what you get. Ford claimed it would start around $35k but the lowest trim I've seen was $80k and they're supposedly selling it at a loss.
CT will likely sell primarily to people who don't want/need a truck but are buying it for novelty and have money to spend.
I think Elon made a mistake with this one (and has even alluded to that). Pursuing CT over the $25k was a bad idea that might set Tesla back some years.
Most car companies share models with other companies just re badged. E.g. Toyota 86/subaru brz. Holden astra/opel.
Tbh most car companies actually design and release bugger all. Toyota for example have run basically the same model vehicles for like 20+ years. With each year just modifying the last iteration. They rarely develop more than one vehicle at once from the ground up.
Holden, Vauxhall, and Opel are the same company with different badges depending on the market. Toyota 86 and Subaru BRZ are jointly developed car models.
Volkswagen Group develops a lot of different car models. Sure, they are using the same platforms across subbrands, but the subbrands compete with each other within the VW Group.
Yeah maybe but we're talking about Teslas limited models, not if we can kinda sorta half squint and hand wave and say maybe if Tesla had twice as much it'd round to half as much
Unlike Teslas, Toyotas are generally pretty good cars which tend to run reliably and have parts that fit together properly. So, there's no need for them to completely start from scratch on each new model generation although many of the parts are changed. Currently they offer 16 different vehicles in the US market (more if you count Lexus and foreign markets), 3 of which are shared with other manufacturers. New generations of each are typically launched about every 6 years for the high volume vehicles.
> I think Elon made a mistake with this one (and has even alluded to that). Pursuing CT over the $25k was a bad idea that might set Tesla back some years.
Yeah, it's pretty clear in interviews and such he realizes the CyberTruck will be extremely lucky to break even. Just not a good move.
If Tesla didn't run entirely on hype I suspect they could have just shut the CT program down once realising it was a bad idea. They would lose face if they stopped now, but perhaps they will have learned a lesson and we'll see a more researched and subdued approach to their future offerings.
The cyber truck was partly, maybe even mostly, a publicity stunt to divert attention away from some of the other troubles tesla was facing at the time. At least according to the book Power Play, although some have said the book isn't very accurate
Unlike other car manufacturers who go through dealerships, Tesla has an up-to-date view on orders and deliveries (from/to actual customers) versus production. They check this weekly and adjust accordingly[1]. I don't see why they would let unsold cars pile up.
[1] I don't have an exact reference, but this was explained in one of the earning calls after they started cutting prices at the start of this year.
In 2023, Tesla will end up with 40% unit growth year over year. Their cars on not "sitting on lots". Yes, there have been price reductions, but their free cash flow clearly illustrates their ability to put crazy pricing pressure (leading to recent capitulation by GM and Ford on their expansion plans) on everyone outside of Chinese EV makers.
This would fail the first sale doctrine. Once you purchase it, it's yours, licensing it is different. If you have purchased the vehicle, it's yours to do as you wish.
It seems more a weird spin on right of first refusal that is added to the original sales contract. It’s a ROFR with a pre-negotiated price. The pre- negotiated price is the odd part. Generally a first refusal gives the ROFR holder the right to buy the asset at the selling price the other buyer is willing to pay. This is a bit different.
according to that article, technically Cena and Ford agreed to a settlement where Cena would pay an unspecified amount of money to Ford and Ford would donate the money to charity. Cena had paid to buy the car from Ford, and sold the car presumably at a profit if it was at market value, so we can't actually tell what happened. Ford did make their point, so your comment is good.
That article also says "After initially saying it would only produce the car for two years, Ford responded to heavy demand by doubling that life span to four total years of production. At a rate of 250 cars per year, the full run will equal 1000 vehicles." That seems to be a bit of a broken promise to initial buyers of the initial run of cars, as more would decrease their resale value.
There's been some related discourse about how Ferrari may be making significantly more "limited edition" cars than they claim. I'm not sure whether it matters whether demand exceeds supply by 2x or 4x.
Did you actually bother to read the link you posted? They did not win in court, and most likely would not have been able to. They settled in a way that allowed both parties to save face.
> For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees
that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to
purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven,
reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards. If Tesla
declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla.
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. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any
future vehicles
There's such thing as unlawful clause. I'm hoping that in the future courts will strike more clauses as unlawful with penalty to the company that made them. So the companies think long and hard about including them in their purchase terms.
First sale doctrine is related to the sale of physical articles of copyrighted items.
The appropriate body of law for purely physical goods is "equitable servitudes on chattels" (aka post-sale restraints). Generally illegal, but some restraints are allowed.
For example, a ban on resale is generally not enforceable, but a right of refusal is (however, if the seller refuses to buy back the item, the buyer is free to sell to whoever they want). Additionally, sellers can simply refuse to sell additional items to the buyer, which is what Ferrari, Jaguar, and other luxury car makers do. (Watchmakers also do this.)
They have the right to refuse the price the original buyer has an offer from a third party purchaser.
I.e., if I buy Model Z from Tesla, and then arrange to sell it to Sally for $200k (meaning that is the price Sally agrees to pay), Tesla has the right to swoop in and match the $200k and buy it instead.
Interesting. That doesn't seem to be the contract Tesla is using: they depreciate it by milage at 25 cents a mile and also deduct the cost of the refurbishment.
No, there could be something else that applies to physical goods, but it's not the "First Sale Doctrine", which is specifically about limitations in copyright. [0]
If I harvest a generic apple and offer it with a contract stating that the buyer will not allow anyone else to eat the apple, there's no copyright involved, and thus no First Sale Doctrine either.
To be clear, First Sale Doctrine does apply to physical goods: the doctrine pre-dates copyrighted digital goods. The idea was that a publisher couldn't prevent someone from reselling their paperback copy of a novel after they've read it (for example).
Of course, it in theory could apply to digital goods as well, but most copyrighted digital goods you don't actually buy, you just license. Good luck reselling a Kindle book. You have to strip the DRM first, which, while possible, violates the DMCA.
First sale doctrine definitely used to apply to software. Back when software came in shrink-wrapped boxes.
And alas and woe that the tech industry and courts have conspired to build such a sad world where essentially criminal violation of business model rules. That we haven't rights, when software has any services or systems it connects to.
I deeply appreciated a shout-out from Web scraping for me but not for thee to Mark Lemley in early aughts I guess, pointing out that the biggest trick the tech world ever played was switching from being governed via property rights (where established consumer rights like transferability apply), to contract rights, where the person making or selling something can ensnare you however they please & you get no say & no rights. Software has been a mass tool for infernalizarion of this world & this forever worsening of conditions needs to be pushed back against, needs some force to oppose it's ever widening sway. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/08/web-scraping-f...
While the First Sale Doctrine applies in principle to software, in practice nowadays it's very difficult to exercise that right. A lot of it is subscription-based, and reselling your subscription is pointless. Other stuff is DRM-encumbered, and/or tied to an online account in some form, so you can't really resell it successfully, at least not without breaking the DRM, which is in violation of a different law. And the manufacturer would claim that you've licensed the software, not actually bought it, anyway.
Resellers do something of value. They purchase a thing and hold it for some time protecting it from being snatched of the market and make it available to rich purchaser after that time who might otherwise have trouble of obtaining the item at that time.
They provide service for the rich at the expense of the poor. Which is probably not very nice but half of the capitalism works on that premise.
Ah yes. All those heroes scalping Xboxes, PS5s, Switches, GPUs, and event tickets for the last few years deserve a statue or holiday to honour their tireless commitment to improving society.
Without their botting, buying out inventories, and order limit evasion, someone who’s not wealthy might be able to enjoy the latest in entertainment or buy gifts for their children. Can you imagine?
To whom? The only one who benefits is the scalper.
The original seller is perfectly capable of doing price discovery on their own; the fact that they've decided to sell below market price is their prerogative.
It is their prerogative and I certainly wouldn't support any law saying that tickets or consoles must be sold for X price.
It is also the prerogative of others to want to pay more to secure their chance of getting that item rather than only have a chance to get it, and the prerogative of others to earn money providing that service.
The original seller is only one stakeholder in the process and I don't have a reason to hold their wants above anyone else's.
People work to make money so they can buy goods and services, which are made by other people who are working so that they can buy goods and services. That's the foundation of I think every economy on the planet with the exception of maybe North Korea, not really sure what's going on over there. Different jobs paying different incomes then acts as a bounty to draw people to do things they otherwise wouldn't and that there aren't many people willing or able to do. Higher pay lures people to spend longer in school, to go work somewhere terrible to live, to sit in a cube all day, which then benefits us all in the form of more consoles and tickets to buy.
Removing pricing as a way to determine who gets scarce goods and replacing it with random chance undermines this. Why spend the extra years in school to be a nurse instead of a wards man? Why spend the extra years to be a doctor instead of a nurse? Why spend the extra years to specialise instead of being a general practitioner?
And that's just replacing it with random chance. Replacing it with a system where what you get depends on your ability to be available the minute something is released, or to line up for hours, or to drive from store to store, is far worse. It now doesn't mean what you get is detached from how much you participate in the workforce, it means working a lot, or at something hard or important actually decreases your change of getting a playstation or Taylor Swift tickets.
Then separately there's also people liking things to different degrees and the determination of who gets which. If we both earn about the same about, you're a massive Taylor Swift fan, I think she's pretty good but nowhere near as good as Crash Bandicoot, and you don't mind playing a game every now and then; then in a world where we're both in the market for some entertainment and there's one Taylor Swift ticket and one PS5 available, you should get the ticket and I should get the PS5. If those are distributed by price, that's very likely to happen. We're both likely to be willing to outbid each other for our preferred item and be happy with the result. If it's determined by "log in at release and hope for the best" then there's only a 1/4 chance that's the outcome. Its more likely to be one of; I get both, you get both, or we each get our less preferred item.
So on one level that's why I'm in favour of people taking things distributed by chance and distribute them by price instead. However I don't think anything I just wrote would teach any reader who has been through high school anything. I don't think it will cause any revelation. I think most people would agree with me for most other goods and services. Hell there are many (majority?) of straight up socialists who want to use income and price to allocate who gets what, they just don't want to leave the income and price determination up to the market or let you use that income to purchase means of production.
Which means the question is "why do I feel the same way about tickets and consoles that I do about basically everything else that is bought and sold; when many internet commenters don't?" and I think the best answer is that I did not grow up middle class and I do not have middle class sensibilities. People who can spend $300 or $1300 on a concert ticket are both decently well off as far as I'm concerned whereas I think many of you can put yourselves in the shoes of the former and see the latter as rich. I have no strong conviction that recently released consoles and brand name artists should be attainable. I don't think anyone from my family or my childhood has been to a concert by a big enough name that tickets were scalped. I don't think not being able to buy your kid a PS5 is some sort of moral failing of society.
All of this is not to say I don't want the middle class to have the things they want. Again I think allocation by pricing leads to more people in general getting more things they want in general. But it means I lack the emotional impulse to think "market efficiency be damned, we need to do something about this!" on the topic of consoles and tickets like I would otherwise have for homelessness, people working multiple jobs to stay afloat, etc.
I just can't fathom someone paying a premium for a particular VIN number. Is it just me?
Even with FU money, I mean, what are you going to do, carry your registration around so you can show people your VIN number?
Or maybe invite them outside and ask them to stick their face down where your feet usually go into the car so they can get a real-life glimpse of that amazing VIN number that you have?
I don’t understand the strategy because one would have to pay $800 per year to California for the LLC. Does this only work if you live in one of the handful of states that don’t have any minimum tax or annual fees for LLCs?
LLC franchise fees are at the same level of priority as unreturned library books, and the legal consequences are even lower than that
There is no reason to form an LLC in the state you’re physically in just because the state said so (unless the consequences really are so meaningful)
If they notify you of a fine, go ahead and pay it and reincorporate in-state then
but I know people that even paid payroll taxes with an out of state LLC and the franchise tax board never said anything
even the courts might have a provision for you to retroactively gain limited liability by reincorporating in the state just to represent in court after being sued
always remember that states are in competition with each other for business, and this transcends their due process and opinions. they do things to attract business. california already attracts business and keeping that is more important than worrying about a Wyoming or Delaware entity operating in their borders
Well, that’s the core of the question. Isn’t a sale a transfer of ownership? Once it’s sold it’s not theirs any more. This goes both for Tesla and Ferrari, and everyone else.
Well for a quick point of comparison there are very numerous and very strict rules about what you’re allowed to do with a Mac. Or iPhone. Or Android. Or windows device. All of them forbid you from learning about how they work, much less changing how they work. Not sure about legality but certainly it’s against the license. Which is what you transacted right? You don’t “own” your iPhone for any reasonable definition of the word “own”. But you bought it, or so you think, but what you really did is pay money and sign an agreement. I doubt Apple thinks that you actually own the device once you buy it.
That’s an issue and a lot of people and regulators are actively fighting against it.
Also, any of those restrictions are hardware/software enforced. You can do whatever the hell you want with it if you happen to find how to circumvent those limitations.
Sales contracts can have terms that are in force after the transfer of the asset. A more classic example is when the car seller also extends you credit. They are allowed to repossess the car if you stop making payments, even though you are the owner.
Technically if you take credit/a loan to pay for the car, you are not the owner of the car, the bank is, and you’re just in possession of the title, so it’s not exactly the same as this situation.
Right, it’s not exactly the same, but a title lien is not the same as a title in the name of the lender, and we still consider the car to be owned by the buyer during the loan period for every purpose except the right to discontinue the loan. I was hoping a more familiar example might help that person understand that sales agreements are a widespread practice and enforceable (for better and worse.)
