Ford doing something about greedy dealers and flippers?

[NewBernWolf]

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.

There IS no 'no resell clause.' There have periodically been vehicles that someone decided to buy and flip for profit. Auto manufacturers benefit from the collectibilty of whatever it is that private buyers get away with doing. But, the bottom line is that once you own it, it's yours to keep or sell - at least in the United States. So what makes speculators scum?

Sponsored

 

[DryHeat]

I question whether anything about this is legit. ... this just doesn't seem like attorney approved legal language, particularly as it relates to retail orders.

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 agree with @MLowe05 on the legality of this restriction. The language of the clause doesn't appear badly drawn to me. It is missing a hardship clause, but is written such that Ford doesn't have to enforce it if they don't want to. And the idea that Ford would put this out without running it by lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing -- unlike all of us here -- seems very far-fetched.

But for me, the question isn't "Why would anyone agree to it?" To me, the question is "If I want to buy this truck, will I let the existence of this no-resale clause stop me?"

I have no present intention of buying a vehicle and selling it within a year. I also don't believe Ford would enforce the clause in the event of true hardship. So, no... the clause wouldn't stop me from doing what I want to do.

 

[NewBernWolf]

I agree with @MLowe05 on the legality of this restriction. The language of the clause doesn't appear badly drawn to me. It is missing a hardship clause, but is written such that Ford doesn't have to enforce it if they don't want to. And the idea that Ford would put this out without running it by lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing -- unlike all of us here -- seems very far-fetched.

But for me, the question isn't "Why would anyone agree to it?" To me, the question is "If I want to buy this truck, will I let the existence of this no-resale clause stop me?"

I have no present intention of buying a vehicle and selling it within a year. I also don't believe Ford would enforce the clause in the event of true hardship. So, no... the clause wouldn't stop me from doing what I want to do.

That's why I question whether this thing really is verbatim from Ford.

 

[DryHeat]

That's why I question whether this thing really is verbatim from Ford.

I don't understand... Why is it that you question whether it's really verbatim from Ford?

And are you really suggesting that someone (not Ford) has forged/altered this dealer letter? What makes you think that is even plausible?

If the problem is the missing hardship clause ... well ... that actually might be a pretty good idea. Putting in such a clause invites people to try to use it. But this way Ford still has the ability to waive the no-resale clause in hardship cases that would make them look bad. They can always add it later if they think it will help them with PR.

[EDIT] Regarding Ford looking bad... I just read an old article about Ford enforcing a similar clause against John Cena over his Ford GT. Cena paid Ford some money and it went to charity. Good PR.

 

[hcforde]

Check out this on the legality

https://www.schiffhardin.com/insigh...-sales-agreement-survives-antitrust-challenge

 

[Billy]

Isn't a new Maverick (and other Ford cars and trucks) owned by Ford until sold by a Ford dealer? And then the dealer pays Ford for it. I thought that I read awhile back that a dealer wasn't paying Ford in the agreed time period and lost their right to get new Fords. Otherwise, a dealer would have to get financing on all new inventory.

 

[CACTI_HYBRID]

Dealers can and will charge whatever they want for a vehicle. We understand "Suggested" and that a dealer may choose not to adhere to the suggested price. The problem comes when customers orders a vehicle, the price is written down and signed, and then the dealer increases the price when the vehicle arrives and is ready for delivery. Waiting 6 months or more to get an ordered vehicle is bad enough. Having the rules change at the end of the game... Not cool, ethical, and if not illegal it should be.

 

[hcforde]

Isn't a new Maverick (and other Ford cars and trucks) owned by Ford until sold by a Ford dealer? And then the dealer pays Ford for it. I thought that I read awhile back that a dealer wasn't paying Ford in the agreed time period and lost their right to get new Fords. Otherwise, a dealer would have to get financing on all new inventory.

If I remember correctly the dealer does his own financing from banks and they are called floor plans. I am not sure if Ford finances floor plans or not.

 

[DryHeat]

Isn't a new Maverick (and other Ford cars and trucks) owned by Ford until sold by a Ford dealer? And then the dealer pays Ford for it. ... Otherwise, a dealer would have to get financing on all new inventory.

For retail units, at least, the dealership owns the cars on their lot. They purchase them from Ford, then sell them to you.

As for the financing, it's called "floor plan lending." A bank or other lender provides the funds for the dealer to purchase the stock units and the dealer pays interest on the resulting loan. If the dealer sells down their inventory, they have to pay off part of the loan -- because those stock units are the collateral for the loan. The lender periodically sends an agent out to inventory the stock to make sure that all the expected units are actually there.

 

[DreamWeaver21]

I am pretty sure it is completely enforceable. Those of you who are saying "once it is sold, Ford has no right to say what happens to it" are correct; however, the agreement is made BEFORE it is sold and it would be enforceable.

How many of you live in a house with a HOA? You can buy the house in cash if you have the means but that doesn't mean that the agreement made prior to the sale isn't enforceable. The agreement can spell out what kind of grass you have to have, what colors you can paint your house, etc. It is your property but you are bound to the conditions of the purchase agreement. The truck situation is no different.

If you don't like the terms, don't buy the property, real or vehicle. Will Ford sue Joe the Plumber for breach of contract? Probably not. Could they if this agreement was a condition of sale? Yes!

 

[Eagle11]

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.

This is what I have been saying, but of course, I was told I was making trouble.

 

[DryHeat]

Will Ford sue Joe the Plumber for breach of contract? Probably not. Could they if this agreement was a condition of sale? Yes!

Good point.

My guess is that if Ford does decide to require and enforce this no-resale clause they will concentrate their fire on people who sell the F-150 Lightning for significantly more than they paid for it.

They really want to discourage scalping, not normal resale. Scalping hurts their brand, normal resale doesn't.

 

[999]

Amazing how many adults don't understand contracts. Like, at all.

 

[James Smith]

The point is that a company should not be dictating what you can and cannot do with your vehicle. I understand if it is a lease. But if you purchase the car, particularly if you do so with either cash or non-Ford financing, the car does not belong to Ford or the dealer.

No one should be OK with this, but nothing surprises me these days.

I think it OK for Ford to put some kind of restrictions in a contract to prevent " Flipping "
But it should be OK to resell the Ford Lightning in the first year, at the same cost as the buyer paid for it. .No selling at seems a bit much ,
As Ford has proposed, It's an odd arrangement, almost as if it were a Lease for the first year even though a person has bought the truck . Just my opinion

 

[James Smith]

Amazing how many adults don't understand contracts. Like, at all.

Exactly . Ford has every right to make a Contract like that to prevent Flipping. If a person does not like it, they do not have to sign it and do not have to buy the Lightning.
I think it would be better if a person could sell at their cost or less, in that first year. I'm sure Ford has it figured out, and my opinion is just that.

Sponsored