Now even capitalism is not convenient for Mr Musk. Maybe he should only lease those trucks so he can maintain total control.

If only there was some sort of public court that could first decide sale doctrine like this

If you actually agree to Tesla's "terms and conditions" when buying the vehicle, the "first sale doctrrine" doesn't apply to you. If you sold it, the buyer would be free of these constraints, yes, but you are in for $50k.

Could they do more to make people not want to buy one?

Twitler could offer to ride shotgun.

And it'll never sell in Europe because it can't pass EuroNCAP tests.

Despite the fact that Musk was praising European sales of his vehicles the other day, he's cut the entire market out of this product purely because he wants his toddler-sketch pedestrian slicer.

The US is looking at instituting similar rules - NHTSA requested comments on the rulemaking a few months ago.

>And it'll never sell in Europe because it can't pass EuroNCAP tests.

That only applies to cars, legally this is an iPhone accessory (*).

Memo: hey boss that isn't going to work unless we charge with USB-C and offer user-replaceable batteries

Mostly visions of how badly the Cyberdreck will tank in the marketplace.

Cyberdreck, a product so bad that Musk has to threaten to sue you if you don't want to keep it.

“it is possible that the Cybertruck's range will be far less once it's towing a heavy load”

I guess it’s POSSIBLE they’ll have found a way around the laws of gravity and thermodynamics… but probably not.

It's almost as if they think that once new owners work out [1]it's a pile of crap that can barely manage to pull 5 tonnes , they'll be selling them off at half price and their own sales will tank.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuHEbfxjhoY

I'm not sure what market they're aiming at, the kind of muppet who wants an apocalypse proof vehicle isn't buying lefty woke EVs that won't work when society collapses and the lights go out, but then Musk seems to be doing his damnedest to put off the market who wouldn't want to tow 5 tons but would buy an EV with his continual rightward lurches.

And on top of that, the thing is fuckugly.

Electrics are far more likely to work in the apocalypse - they're mechanically simpler, but more importantly, don't depend on liquid fuels that deteriorate in storage. The trope of zombie apocalypse survivors finding a running car for months or even years after the event is complete fiction.

Sure, the original diesel engines were designed to run on nut oils, but what's easier to run - a solid state solar panel, or uncle Jimmy's peanut farm and fuel refinery?

Sure, the original diesel engines were designed to run on nut oils, but what's easier to run - a solid state solar panel, or uncle Jimmy's peanut farm and fuel refinery?

What's easier to make, a solid state solar panel, or a wood gasifier out of a couple of barrels and a bit of bent pipe? Failing that, there's always steampunk. EV's are absolutely the worst option for the apocalypse given you'd need an advanced manufacturing base to make wear parts like batteries. Or an awful lot of patience to trickle charge an EV battery from a couple of solar panels. And that's assuming you don't have insolation problems from any nuclear winter.

Or, y'know, you could actually run a good old fashioned IC engine, diesel or gasoline, diesels for example will run well enough on almost any oil that's thin enough, cooking oil peanut oil, kerosene, heating oil etc.

Gas/petrol engines will run on benzene, ethanol, plenty of different industrial hydrocarbons, heck they'll even run on gas, as in propane, butane, LPG, methane, you have a huge range of options.

Good luck finding enough working solar capacity that's small enough to tow behind your EV but large enough to charge it in any reasonable length of time.

Actually, diesel engines were originally intended to run on coal dust, which he could never get to work, so Rudy moved to the heavy fuel oil.

Free Cybertruck! When you buy this $50,000 used plastic bag.....

I wonder how this squares with the Florida "you can return your car in a week if you're not happy with it" law... I assume other jurisdictions have similar consumer protection laws.

Consumer protection laws? That doesnt sound very American! How are the Corporations going to run roughshod over people if they're protected by "Consumer Protection Laws"??? Let me call congress, we'll get that fixed in a jiffy...

IANAL and all that, but doesn't the first sale doctrine (in the US, I assume Blighty and the EU have something comparable) basically say that once you sell a physical good to someone you have no control over what they do with it after they take possession? I mean, if I wanted to buy a Tesla for the express purpose of wrapping it around a tree, I can do that. If I want to harvest the batteries from it and use them for something else, I can do that. If I want to pay someone to make some after-market modifications, I can do that. Once money changes hands, it's mine to do with whatever I please.

Except like all Teslas it is a computer on wheels. The computer runs software and without that the vehicle won't run. Hence won't you be subject to any software licensing rules? Goodness me even IBM/RH are restricting the passing on of open source stuff. Tesla don't even have to sue - they can just disable your vehicle in the garage with an OTA update. Job done you naughty boy.

So I can't decompile the software, but the physical hardware is still another story. And just reselling the car doesn't require me to touch the software in any way.

Either way, I suspect that Telsa would have a... ahem... uphill battle in court trying to enforce this new provision. Take any other car maker, and there's nothing stopping me from going to Dealership A, buying 5-10 cars, and then starting my own used car lot. The only real restriction would be I couldn't sell the cars as new, even if they had literally been transported from the dealership to my lot via some kind of Star Trek-like matter transporter. There are people who do this sort of thing in other areas as well. I've heard stories about people who buy clothes at a Good Will or Salvation Army type place, then turn around and sell them on ebay for a profit. The party opposite Tesla would have no shortage of examples to trot in front of a judge or jury of where this sort of thing is perfectly legal and acceptable, and then Tesla would have to explain why they're so special they deserve their own carve out to this established tradition. That's a tough sell.

If there is pent up demand*, and limited supply, then those who got in early enough to reserve one can make a nice profit by selling it to someone keen to get hold of one and with deeper pockets. Tesla obviously think it's worth the reputational damage** by trying to control that secondary market - or else take a slice for themselves.

* I do have to wonder who it is that buys them, but it appears that plenty do

** Do they have anything left to damage ?

Of course, over on our (eastern) side of the pond, good luck trying to enforce such a contract. Also, even for those unfortunate to live where you have the best laws money can buy, I would have thought that a contract change AFTER you've put down your deposit (which constitutes a contract for them to sell and you to buy) would be void anyway.

What I don't see is any mention of dirty tricks like "any vehicle bought in the second hand market without our permission gets bricked by a remote firmware update" - with a hefty "fine" to have operation restored. But again, something courts over this side fo the pond would take a rather dim view of.

My guess is that given how difficult production is they can't produce very many, and want to reduce the size of the waiting list - undoubtedly some people figured that for a small deposit they could get a place in line and maybe sell it for a profit if it is in shortage. Regardless of having a good reason, there's no way a "you can't sell it for a year" would be allowed in the US, or I assume the EU.

In the UK Liquidated damages can be put into a contract but they have to relate to genuine damage - i.e. some sort of loss made and those costs usually have to be defined in advance if you don't want to end up in court arguing about them. Typically they apply to delays in deliveries or milestones that can be quantified and the contract would have, say, £/day, or something, up to a limit specified in the contract.

The only way I can think that Musk could consider that LDs apply in this case would be that demand outstrips supply, thereby creating a grey market where buyers sell immediately at a premium thereby "depriving" Tesla of a sale and they would consider this to be damage. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there'd be an argument that the "damage" is self inflicted either by Tesla taking orders for stuff they can't deliver or by not making stuff fast enough.

It depends, of course, how the contract's written and how much money you've got to challenge the richest bloke in the world in court. In the UK it might be considered unfair under the "significant imbalance" rules but it would still need someone to go to court.

I've only seen this sort of thing from automakers of limited production supercars. It's meant to keep the very wealthy inside their formal or informal buyers programmes, where members are expected to spend a certain amount per year or purchase less desirable models in order to get on the lists for the good stuff.

That certainly doesn't apply here. This is a mass market car by a mass market car maker. So we can only conclude that Tesla suspects either that resale values will be well under their asking price, the demand for the truck will be limited enough that used sales will directly affect new car sales, or both.

It is clearly a rule to prevent Speculation: like what happens for the immediate resale of tickets before a game or concert, or famous shoes or also very new tech product of a well known company.

It is a sign of due respect for those who put 100$ dollars for booking many years ago and are still waiting.

It is very "strange" that only the audience of the register does not understand this, the Authors of Register should carefully think about this issue.

It is very strange that only Elon fanbois believe that sort of bullshit is acceptable and then try to make excuses for him instead of accepting that he's gone insane.

I know taste is a personal thing, but I can't fathom why anyone would buy such a hideous miscarriage of styling other than for having a laugh.

I wonder how many of the early pre-orders were speculators looking to immediately flip the purchase.