Rivian Needs a No Re-Sale Clause Now

[moosehead]

While I'm not a fan of encumbering a purchase post close, IMO early deposit owners should hold themselves to the same standards that much of this board expected of Rivian the past 24 hours.

Sponsored

 

[Tall_Rider]

These are neither illegal nor unenforceable nor even very uncommon. They are routinely used for discounted fleet vehicles, Ford had a similar clause for the GT which it vigorously enforced, and it is putting one in for the Lightning. https://fordauthority.com/2022/01/2...ng-will-come-with-one-year-no-sale-provision/

The Ford GT was not a mass-consumer vehicle and who knows what the settlement was. Good luck enforcing this. I know a half dozen judges who'd throw the case out.

 

[TexasBob]

That would make me uncomfortable - what if my financial conditions change? I would probably be fine with Rivian buying back the truck at price paid to pass along to another reservation holder.

These contracts are generally not enforced unless someone is trying to scalp (i.e. sell well above purchased price). You can even write the contract so that there is a no resale for above purchase price clause or you can do a buy-back option as you say. Any of these can work.

 

[therealhoff]

Why not let someone turn around and sell their 75k truck for 150k, pay the capital gains tax, and be happy? Those are market forces at work. Once you own something, it seems a bit heavy handed to try to legally enforce what a person can and cannot do with their bought and paid for property.

 

[Tall_Rider]

These contracts are generally not enforced unless someone is trying to scalp (i.e. sell well above purchased price). You can even write the contract so that there is a no resale for above purchase price clause or you can do a buy-back option as you say. Any of these can work.

Not sure why you're a proponent of this restriction on trade. People should be able to freely trade their goods. What happens if there's a cataclysmic event that causers hyper inflation and your Rivian is worth $500k and you need the money. Rivian is going to go to court to stop you from selling? Is it going to take your "profit" in nominal dollars?

 

[ironpig]

Those clauses are so incredibly dumb and terrible for business. If I buy a truck and drive it for a month and decide it's not for me I have every right to sell it.

I already told my Lightning dealer that I wouldn't sign that clause and they said no problem. They don't have to enforce it. They just said "well call us first if you are decide to sell and let us make you an offer:"

 

[Dark-Fx]

That's not what the original post contemplated. But such a black-balling clause would also be difficult to enforce. And practically speaking, how do you police for this? Anyone proposing these clauses needs to drop it.

GM maintains and distributes a list of banned buyers to all of their dealers. I heard it's 48 pages long and there are severe repurcussions to dealers that sell to anyone on that list. Obviously without a dealer network, Rivian has an advantage of being able to prevent the transactions at the source.

There doesn't have to be any contract language that mentions such a ban being a potential side effect of being a reseller. They legally don't have to sell you another vehicle if you try to buy one.

 

[ironpig]

These are neither illegal nor unenforceable nor even very uncommon. They are routinely used for discounted fleet vehicles, Ford had a similar clause for the GT which it vigorously enforced, and it is putting one in for the Lightning. https://fordauthority.com/2022/01/2...ng-will-come-with-one-year-no-sale-provision/

The Ford GT is not the same as a mass produced Rivian or Lightning. The clause is totally optional on the Lightning. I'm not signing one on mine.

You have to be insane or really stupid to agree to buy an almost $100,000 car that you haven't even driven and agree not to sell it if you don't like it.

 

[Tall_Rider]

GM maintains and distributes a list of banned buyers to all of their dealers. I heard it's 48 pages long and there are severe repurcussions to dealers that sell to anyone on that list. Obviously without a dealer network, Rivian has an advantage of being able to prevent the transactions at the source.

Is this list public? I'd like to get my hands on it as I feel this would make for a nice class-action suit against GM.

 

[ads75]

As others have said, I don't think a no-sale clause is appropriate, for something I paid for. But I might not have much of a problem with one if Rivian presented me with one, with known stipulations for mileage loss, and a limited period of time, if Rivian wanted to have some stock for service loaners/test drives.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Is this list public? I'd like to get my hands on it as I feel this would make for a nice class-action suit against GM.

It's not, most of the people on it are exporters. I don't think people breaking export laws qualify to sue.

 

[Tall_Rider]

What's crazy to me is that several of you are arguing to restrict your rights as consumers. No disrespect, but are you brainwashed? This is a company selling you a product for your hard-earned cash. It just walked back (after huge backlash) a move to screw you. But you're not satisfied and you're asking for more? .

 

[aburke00]

Does anyone have insight on how this has worked out for Tesla honoring pre orders that are immediately worth more than paid upon delivery?

 

[Tall_Rider]

It's not, most of the people on it are exporters. I don't think people breaking export laws qualify to sue.

That is an interesting detail, as essentially you're getting into resellers versus consumers. That could pass muster.

 

[TexasBob]

Okay! I did not not think this would generate quite such strong feelings! Let me amend my suggestion: Rivian should implement a one-year ROFR to buy-back the vehicle at the sale price if you decide to sell it. Is that more acceptable?

Sponsored