Ford doing something about greedy dealers and flippers?

[Dochatley]

Bottom line Ford can sell the Maverick for whatever it wants to. Now, when you order one and agree on a price it should be honored. All this add on crap and take it or leave it is BS. For the dealers that ordered one and have it on the lot, they can ask $100,000 for it if they want. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BUY IT. Seriously guys, anyone remember the PT Cruiser. They were hotter than a firecracker. You couldn’t find one and dealers were jacking up the price like crazy. They made it 2000-2010 and it turned out to be a POS mechanically. After the first year or so they were discounting them all over the place and those that paid the high markups were screwed in the end (No pun intended). Now I don’t expect the Maverick to be a POS like the PT but after the first year or so everyone that wants one will have one and these greedy dealers will be discounting them and there will be plenty on lots unless Ford limits production to keep prices artificially inflated. This Maverick frenzy is determining the market right now. So, either pay the bucks and get it now and get it in the end “ouch” or be patient and score a great deal. It’s your choice. Those of you who were smart enough to order early I hope you get what you agreed on. It’s the right thing. Those like me looking, try to be patient, we will get one sooner or later at or below sticker.

Sponsored

 

[Sjbuck2021]

Not sure Ford has a right to do this,. once the F-150 is sold it does not belong to Ford. Now, if it's a lease that is a whole different story!

I agree...I would cross it out and initial it on the contract. You own it and have the right to do whatever you want with it.

 

[DryHeat]

I agree...I would cross it out and initial it on the contract. You own it and have the right to do whatever you want with it.

You can do that, but then they don't have to sell it to you.

BTW, you probably know this, but initialling a change in a contract doesn't work unless the other party also initials it. That shows you both agree to the change. Otherwise people could just make changes after the fact, initial them, and claim the deal was changed.

 

[Sjbuck2021]

You can do that, but then they don't have to sell it to you.

BTW, you probably know this, but initialling a change in a contract doesn't work unless the other party also initials it. That shows you both agree to the change. Otherwise people could just make changes after the fact, initial them, and claim the deal was changed.

If they try this bs with me they can keep it. So far they haven't done this on the Maverick but maybe they can?

 

[NewBernWolf]

Not sure Ford has a right to do this,. once the F-150 is sold it does not belong to Ford. Now, if it's a lease that is a whole different story!

Correct. If the vehicle has been sold, Ford doesn't own it anymore.

 

[hcforde]

I work for a trailer manufacture (jayco) and we can buy a trailer at cost if we agree to keep the trailer for a year and not sell. We can sell but then there will a penalty fee which pretty much puts us at MSRP. This is so we don't become a dealer for our trailers.

Ford can easily do this, you can sell YOUR truck within a years time but there will be a penalty fee (unless you qualify for a hardship). Ford will be a lien holder until year up or if title is transferred before year, penalty fee is paid. I believe there will be a provision that you can pay fee up front if you don't want a lien holder on your title, then you can sell whenever you would like.

The only people complaining about this is the people that are flipping these things. The people that actually want the truck have no issue with waiting a year and actually encourage it so the flippers can be weeded out and we will get our trucks faster.

There will be hardship in the contract to waive the fee if really need to get rid of the truck in a year but likely getting rid of the truck within a year will cause a financial hardship of its own. You will owe more money then you get out of it.

I agree with what you have said here except what is in bold. Scrap iron has gone from $0.02/lb to $0.11.lb copper has almost tripled in price foam and rubber are in short supply for the foreseeable future. I doubt 2023 models will cost less and may go up by 10-15%.

 

[NewBernWolf]

Seems like a step in the right direction.

From the F150 Lightning forum. Link to original post below.

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/-ford-warns-dealers-against-additional-deposit-reservation-requirements-for-lightning-orders-supports-no-resale-provisions-in-purchase-contracts.7961/

I question whether anything about this is legit. Obviously, Ford has a long and detailed contractual arrangement with each Ford dealership, and this just doesn't seem like attorney approved legal language, particularly as it relates to retail orders. Plus, it's a public relations nightmare as soon as it even pretends to threaten buyers.

If fact, why on earth would Ford care about retail buyers reselling their Lightnings for a profit? That's great publicity for Ford.

There might be SOMETHING concrete here, but the wording of the entirety seems unlikely.

 

[MLowe05]

It's not really a question of whether or not Ford has the right to do this. They're not stupid and they wouldn't be backing something like this if it was illegal.

The question is why would anyone agree to it? I think the Lightning is an amazing product, and I applaud Ford for building it. But I wouldn't buy one with this sort of no resell clause. Ford can do as they wish, but I don't have to do business with them. Even though I have no intention of flipping the Maverick, I wouldn't buy it either if the same no resell clause applied to it.

I should say.. I'm not a potential Lightning flipper - I'm not even a prospective customer for it. I just find it concerning that this is where we are now and that so many seem fine with it. I would buy something else, just as I would buy something else if they tried this on the Maverick or all Mavericks had mark-ups. That's how I express my opinion.. I spend my money elsewhere.

 

[MLowe05]

Plus, it's a public relations nightmare as soon as it even pretends to threaten buyers.

This.

Taking legal action against regular customers is not going to look good. I have a hard time believing anyone at Ford really wants to do that.

 

[TacoHolder]

3 camps about this resell clause.

• The people who think it's not a big deal. I am part of this group.
• People objecting because they want to flip for a profit. You are scum.
• People objecting out of principle. Kinda see where you're coming from, but the anger confuses me.

 

[NewBernWolf]

3 camps about this resell clause.

• The people who think it's not a big deal. I am part of this group.
• People objecting because they want to flip for a profit. You are scum.
• People objecting out of principle. Kinda see where you're coming from, but the anger confuses me.

I'm interested in why you think someone who buys something and then sells it for a profit is scum.

 

[coxwm2]

Actually destination fees are on the MSRP label, have you not seen one? And the Massachusetts AG advisory speaks to market adjustments but you didn’t read it did you? Obviously you don’t want to learn but try to prove a tired and belabored point that there’s nothing you can do. Obviously, you’re wrong and those sources are just from the web and not a lexis nexis case search.

The AG’s advisory addresses these concerns by reminding auto dealers of their legal obligations to consumers, including:

1. Dealerships can’t refuse to sell a vehicle for the price advertised.
Agree with this statement. Taken in context, in 2005-2006 I worked for Dodge. It was notorious back then for dealers to advertise in the local newspaper a specific model of car at what appeared to be a great price. At Dodge, the dealership typically had ONE car that price (inventory stock number was buried in the fine print). Potential customers came into the dealership wanting to buy "that car". "That car" was most likely sold within several hours of being advertised. The point of the ad was to get foot traffic in the dealership, and it worked. Call it "bait and switch" or whatever other buzzword you choose, but in the retail world it is called "marketing".

2. It is unfair or deceptive for dealerships to post or advertise inaccurate prices or prices that the dealership will not honor.
Hence window stickers with listed MSRP. I believe this to be federal law to have the sitcker prominently displayed.

3. It is unfair or deceptive for dealerships to make misrepresentations about the value of a vehicle.
Value is determined by the market, laws of supply and demand. Currently, demand outstrips supply, hence market adjustments on some new models.

4. Dealerships must clearly and conspicuously disclose all included and excluded charges in any advertised price of a vehicle as well as the expiration date of any advertised price.
Number 4 appears to specifically target additional fees, which the dealer clearly shows on the addendum to the window sticker on all new cars. Market adjustment is included in that addendum. Market adjustments are not new they are just new to you. When I was stationed in Hawaii in the 1990's, every new car had an addendum to the window sticker showing a +/- $3,000 markup. Also, when GM released the 1987 Buick GNX, typical dealer markup was in the $20,000 neighborhood.
5. Dealerships have legal obligations to honor the terms of any contract with a consumer regarding the lease of a vehicle, including a consumer’s right to purchase the vehicle.
Contracts are legally binding, regardless of you may think about them. If Ford going to require buyers to sign a contract stating the vehicle cannot be resold for 1 year, the buyer has option of walking away, and not signing. Signed contracts have been proved in a court of law to be binding and enforceable.
6. Dealerships must comply with existing statutes, rules, regulations, and laws intended to provide protection to consumers.
MA consumer undoubtedly have differing rules than other states, based on your links to various notices put out by your AG office. Interestingly, in reading through the links, I did not see any threat of legal action being taken by the MA AG.

 

[coxwm2]

Anyone know what the S in MSRP stands for?

It's not Standardized.

Google is your friend:

Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price

 

[TacoHolder]

I'm interested in why you think someone who buys something and then sells it for a profit is scum.

Because they are the reason that these no-resell clauses exist in the first place and why threads like this one turn into shit shows.

 

[bradFORD]

It appears that many have expressed their thoughts and opinions. So, when we check out at a store or dealer then we would argue about the price or walk away. I will have all the documentation from my order, bulletin to dealers about price protection and the Ford Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (which is probably worthless) when my Mav is delivered to argue about the price or walk away. I wish the best for all of us that have ordered months ago that our dealer honors the original order (MSRP or less) when delivered!

Sponsored