Jump to content

You paid for it, but you don't own it.


John Ranalletta

Recommended Posts

I think it is a strange move by Ford to corral this situation. Not an attorney, but my gut feeling is that it would be an enforceable covenant.

Link to comment
Wayne Johnson

Once I own something I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it!  What if its a POS now I"m stuck with it for a year! 

Link to comment

Do you mean unenforceable covenant?

Not really sure why Ford would care, they made their sale, it is now the property of the owner to do as he pleases. Is Ford jealous that they didn't charge (gouge) the customer enough? Or are they worried it's a POS and new owners can't get rid of it fast enough, hurting reputation and new sales?

Link to comment
chrisolson

As mentioned in the original quote ... this is nothing new for Ford .... they sued John Cena and won

 

LINKY

 

Ford also sought and got an agreement with Mecum Auctions that they would not auction any GT owned by the original buyer within the first two years.  Even further, Mecum would consult with Ford prior to any GT auction by any owner within the first two years after purchase.

 

The obvious solution is. ....if you don't like the terms ... Don't Buy One.  :cool:

  • Like 1
  • Plus 1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hosstage said:

Do you mean unenforceable covenant?

Not really sure why Ford would care, they made their sale, it is now the property of the owner to do as he pleases. Is Ford jealous that they didn't charge (gouge) the customer enough? Or are they worried it's a POS and new owners can't get rid of it fast enough, hurting reputation and new sales?

Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Thanks.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

Federal law mandates new cars sold at retail must carry a MSRP; otherwise, Ford could sell the units at open auctions (like BAT) through dealers.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, chrisolson said:

As mentioned in the original quote ... this is nothing new for Ford .... they sued John Cena and won

 

LINKY

 

Ford also sought and got an agreement with Mecum Auctions that they would not auction any GT owned by the original buyer within the first two years.  Even further, Mecum would consult with Ford prior to any GT auction by any owner within the first two years after purchase.

 

The obvious solution is. ....if you don't like the terms ... Don't Buy One.  :cool:

Zactly why I wont live in an HOA house/neighborhood, I don’t like the terms

  • Plus 1 1
Link to comment
szurszewski

There is an easy solution to this as pointed out by Mr. Olson - don’t buy one, or at least don’t buy one if you have to agree to those terms. 
 

If you REALLY don’t like that requirement, don’t buy ANY Ford, and write to Ford and let them know. If enough people did that they’d stop. …but it would have to be a LOT of people, so I can’t imagine it happening. 
 

Good thing there are lots of other options. 

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
1 hour ago, szurszewski said:

There is an easy solution to this as pointed out by Mr. Olson - don’t buy one, or at least don’t buy one if you have to agree to those terms. 
 

If you REALLY don’t like that requirement, don’t buy ANY Ford, and write to Ford and let them know. If enough people did that they’d stop. …but it would have to be a LOT of people, so I can’t imagine it happening. 
 

Good thing there are lots of other options. 

Unless one believes this is the camel's nose under the tent.  When all the companies begin to do likewise in one way or another (restricting a buyer's right to do whatever he wishes), then this facile answer fails.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, John Ranalletta said:

(restricting a buyer's right to do whatever he wishes)

 

Isn't that what a HOA does, restricts a buyer's right to do whatever he wishes to the item he purchased?

Link to comment

If Ford requires that agreement, a wise person might require a stipulation that ford buy it back if unhappy with the purchase, with specific details of the reimbursement.

Link to comment
Scott9999

Not a lawyer, but have had some commercial and government law education in the US Navy.  A contract restricting the use and/or transfer of property is as enforceable as anything other commercial contract, subject to differing state, and/or Federal regulations.  Now, on the other the other hand, and what our friend SDCRJohn might be thinking of, contract restricting a person's freedom of movement, of employment, or similar, is difficult to enforce under US law.  There are exceptions, of course, e.g. if a person is working for a defense contractor, where knowledge he or she possesses is Federally classified, might be working under a confidentiality or non-compete clause.  Government surplus equipment is frequently sold with such contract restrictions, to prevent export.

 

Again, I'm not a lawyer specializing in contract law, I just did some things for the Navy that touch on contract law.

Link to comment
chrisolson
1 hour ago, John Ranalletta said:

...companies begin to do likewise in one way or another (restricting a buyer's right to do whatever he wishes)...

 

As i'm sure you're aware this is already playing out in the "right to repair' issue with the big offenders being John Deere, Apple and Tesla.   

 

Link to comment
jmseattle

With certain limited exceptions, consumers have no restrictions on resale on a physical item bought at retail -- first sale doctrine that the USSC affirmed just a few years ago.  The outcome of the Ford case was far from certain and the law can be unsettled for corner cases depending on the facts.  Cena settled, he did not lose, the case never reached trial.  Ford has many, many lawyers and deep pockets.  Prospect of ongoing litigation fees can be enough motivation to settle many times.  Ford may have intended argued that the GT was a rare limited edition and that the resale restriction was specifically negotiated for as an essential element of the bargain.

 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, jmseattle said:

Sorry, why what?

 

Why would Ford make an owner sign that deal? What do they care what you do with your car? They aren't Ferrari...

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
49 minutes ago, Hosstage said:

 

Why would Ford make an owner sign that deal? What do they care what you do with your car? They aren't Ferrari...

 

In a way, it could be perceived as market-friendly in that it provides a "cool down" period for prices to settle as production nears demand.  Sort of like, protecting people from themselves by not allowing them to be "scalped".   But, that's always the buyer's choice as it should be.  It can be unsettling to a manufacturer to be shipping vehicles to dealers say, with an MSRP of $55k when that same vehicle is selling for much more in the used market.  Ford could increase the MSRP because it's not a "fixed" number.  It can fluctuate at the manufacturer's whim; however, doing so might not be good PR for the company.  It seems Ford is compressing from both ends.  It wants a 1 year standstill agreement from buyers and a limit on how much dealers can ask over MSRP.  AFAIK, dealers are not required to sell at MSRP.  In the past, it was common for dealers to sell the cars to their owners and resell the cars as used units.  Not sure they can still do this.

 

Potentially, resellers could net more profit on a resale than Ford or the dealer.  While legal, it just doesn't rhyme.

Link to comment
jmseattle

On the "why", I don't know.  Ford's pleadings in the court cases may suggest their motivations but those typically state the strictly legal motivations and not necessarily the underlying agenda.  Perhaps because the GT was intended by Ford not as a profit maker but rather as a brand investment and enhancement sort of like other low and restricted production / high value halo products.  If so, maybe the selected buyers were chosen because they are somehow influencers or have lots of eyeballs on social media or elsewhere and the covenant to bind them to a holding period was to leverage that outsize marketing effect.  Allowing them to flip the vehicle destroys that expectation and turns it into a simple financial transaction rather than a PR investment.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...