Maverick Resale Restriction by Dealer

[B. Maverick]

I took a look at the internet tubes. There are certain circumstances in which the manufacturers of super expensive cars (think Aston Martin) have restricted resale of the cars. It's not clear how those contracts were enforced. Those are also super limited vehicles in which the car makers solicit buyers and then handpick them. The non-resale is presumably a part of the original purchase agreement.
In this case (I assume) there was a contract for a sale; the dealership now wants to modify the contract with a later writing. Technically that might be allowable. If the buyer refuses to sign, the only way to get the car will be to sue, and we all know how fun that is. The other side is more interesting: you buy a car from your uncle. Once you buy it, he can't really tell you that you can't put great big tires and mudflaps on that Honda because the car belongs to you. Can he make you sign something that allows him to restrict what you can do with the car? Well, maybe; but it would be a bitch to enforce. Here, there was a sales contract for the Maverick. The dealership has no continuing interest in the car (unlike in a lease). Uh, that's a stretch to argue the can tell you what you can do with your car once you buy it.
Two points: I assumed this was in California because the original poster is from California. If this occurred in some other state, I don't know nada. In addition, if there are other lawyers on this thread who actually practice this kind of law, I'm always willing to be educated.

Sponsored

 

[MaverickGal]

They made us sign an agreement like that here in Canada when I picked up my MY22. Weird, but I signed…I am not interested in selling.

 

[PCK]

. . . In addition, there is already a contract. ...

What contract is that?- absent a significant deposit or reliance by the customer (very unlikely), your order is merely an offer, not a contract.

In any event even if enforceable, probably just an "in terrorem" thing, a threat that they would be unlikely to sue to enforce.

 

[gte105u]

Not enforceable and not willing to enforce are very different things. To not be enforceable it would have to be shown it violates the law, is in conflict with other terms, or get the court to invalidate it.

People put terms on what can be done with property post sale all the time. Frequently it is with real restate, which has its own set of laws. But the concept that the seller has stake in what happens to property post sale is not unusual and absolutely enforceable in many if not all states.

 

[Moby]

I took a look at the internet tubes. There are certain circumstances in which the manufacturers of super expensive cars (think Aston Martin) have restricted resale of the cars. It's not clear how those contracts were enforced. Those are also super limited vehicles in which the car makers solicit buyers and then handpick them. The non-resale is presumably a part of the original purchase agreement.
In this case (I assume) there was a contract for a sale; the dealership now wants to modify the contract with a later writing. Technically that might be allowable. If the buyer refuses to sign, the only way to get the car will be to sue, and we all know how fun that is. The other side is more interesting: you buy a car from your uncle. Once you buy it, he can't really tell you that you can't put great big tires and mudflaps on that Honda because the car belongs to you. Can he make you sign something that allows him to restrict what you can do with the car? Well, maybe; but it would be a bitch to enforce. Here, there was a sales contract for the Maverick. The dealership has no continuing interest in the car (unlike in a lease). Uh, that's a stretch to argue the can tell you what you can do with your car once you buy it.
Two points: I assumed this was in California because the original poster is from California. If this occurred in some other state, I don't know nada. In addition, if there are other lawyers on this thread who actually practice this kind of law, I'm always willing to be educated.

I think this must be legal . Don't you remember the ending of Grand Torino ? Clint Eastwood left the car to that kid only if he did not pimp it out !! And he was dead already !! I am in Ontario Canada ,I had to sign a (Not to resell or export)agreement when I placed my order . Don't mean shit to me .

 

[Bry@n]

This is the dealer flexing on your friend. I wouldn't sign it.

 

[Maverick Life]

My friend picked up his '23 rolled over '22 Maverick today and was told he must sign a Resale Restrictions Form to get the truck he ordered. I didn't when I picked up my '22. Has anyone else experienced the same this year?

The restriction is he can't sell for a year, and if he does and gets over MSRP he must give that extra $$ back to the dealer. And he must give 30 days notice to the dealer if he decides to sell before the year is up, and the dealer has first right of refusal to purchase it.

I've heard of a similar restriction on popular vehicles, but not on the Maverick until now. I've attached a redacted copy of the document he had to sign.

can you post the remainder of the agreement?

 

[Jenney]

When you order through a dealer are you buying from Ford or the dealership? If it's Ford I am thinking a dealer can't put restrictions on something they don't own. I really think you should call Ford and find out.

 

[MAVRICKDAVE]

it's not real don't waste your time with this fool.

 

[MakinDoForNow]

This is a dealer document. Ford got their money. Unenforceable. How would any dealer track everyone who bought a maverick to see if they sold it? Restraint of trade.​

Track by vin# on national database.

 

[JBryant]

I'm a California lawyer, though this is not my area of practice. I do not believe this would be enforceable in California, which has fairly strong consumer protection laws. In addition, there is already a contract. They can't modify the contract by threatening you. The defense would be duress. It's basically abusive BS. Sign it and screw 'em. You're buying the truck, not the dealership.

Great answer. You are my kind of lawyer - straight and to the point.

 

[FromAway]

This timeline is getting weird. Private property is a bedrock of our society. This type of contract and other things like legally enforeable Terms of Service need to be resisted at every turn.

 

[UberGadgetFreak]

I would second the recommendation of reaching out to the state AG. Each state has different laws regarding resale restriction contracts. Some states limit them to 6 months or a year in length, others limit them to only requiring you offer to the dealership before private sale, some are outright invalid once you have the vehicle title in hand with no liens, etc.

 

[B. Maverick]

A contract is an offer and acceptance. Ford/Ford Dealership offers you a Maverick, and you sign on the dotted line, accepting that offer. You need "consideration" for a contract to be enforceable. Your promise to pay is consideration, and your deposit is consideration.
The sales agreements that we are all gazing at in rapt anticipation are contracts. An enforceable contract doesn't need a particular level of consideration.
The problem is that if the buyer doesn't sign the adhesion contract (those are bad, and that's what this is), he doesn't get his Maverick.
As gte105u notes, real estate has its own rules. The only cases I found in California dealing with restrictions on resales were tied to recorded CC&Rs for residences in subdivisions. The enforcement of those covenants was based on the fact they were recorded, and thus knowledge of the terms was imputed to the homebuyer. That is, the CC&Rs were incorporated into the sales contract.
This, however, is a bait and switch, a modification of an existing contract. It's also tied to consumers. In California, I suspect the dealership would have a hell of a time collecting on the modification.
But it's irrelevant, because the buyer isn't going to want to sell his Maverick anyway.
Disclaimer: I am not providing legal advice. There, my malpractice carrier feels much better.
That's my story, and it's stuck to me.

 

[Old Ranchero]

There were rumors that Ford was going to do this with the Maverick, but this is the first I've heard of it actually happening. I'm guessing it's just the dealer.

Only times Ford the company does this is special vehicles like the GT and early display units such as the Bronco. My local dealer was unable to sell the 1st Bronco they received until it sat on display floor for 7 months. This dealer originated requirement is BS and not worth the paper it is signed on.

Sponsored