You Can Buy Yourself This Ford GT This Weekend (But You Shouldn't Be Able To)

Discussion in 'Cars in General' started by GTPNewsWire, May 17, 2018.

  1. zzz_pt

    zzz_pt

    Messages:
    7,764
    Location:
    Germany
    He's not very tall. But he's big. :) I'd be curious to see him or someone like him inside a GT.

    I'm not dumb. I know how contracts usually work. Is it that hard to understand I'm questioning that specific clause and its legitimacy? I didn't sign anything so I can question it as much as I want. It doesn't seem right to me that someone who bought a product full price (it's not "essentially a leased vehicle" as you claim) has to be hostage of a contract with a clause like that for 2 years (or 10 or 20 or 50?). I'm still wondering if you'd have the same opinion if instead of 2 years we were talking about 20 or 50. Apparently it would be legal as well.

    Any source? I did a quick search and only find links to customers who sued Ferrari. Didn't find a case where Ferrari sued a customer for selling a car.
     
  2. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    Except you’ve been told multiple times now, so I don’t see it as a case of questioning anymore.

    Whether or not you think it’s right is irrelevant. They’re selling a product and have specific rules for owning it. If you don’t like those rules, you’re more than welcome to walk away from the deal and sign nothing. If you have no intention of selling it, it’s likely not a big deal. Those who take issue more than likely want to flip it to begin with.

    This isn’t my opinion. It’s how this specific market works. Manufacturers don’t want flippers on the market bc it affects values. Porsche rewrote their VIP Program after flippers made hundreds of thousands on the 911R.

    Ferrari is notorious for it. They may not be suing clients but they have a system in place a lot of people are not fond of to combat flipping. I can give you a specific example of a LaFerrari owner being told when he wanted an Aperta, he had to either sell his coupe or his 599 GTO back to Ferrari at their offer because they had first refusal. That’s a rough game to play but many do to have Ferrari’s toys first.
     
  3. zzz_pt

    zzz_pt

    Messages:
    7,764
    Location:
    Germany
    Cleary you're in the wrong place then. This is a forum. An article was written about it and a discussion thread was opened. If there's nothing to discuss or question, when why is this open for discussion? I don't like to swallow whatever it's given to me. Also, I didn't sign anything, so I can question it. You should tell that to John Cena. It may be irrelevant to you what my opinion of this is. If so, ignore it. But don't try to act like this is not a discussion thread.

    Again, companies can rewrite their VIP programs all day long. They can't, imo, claim ownership like rights over something they have sold. They can be against "flipping" all they want. It's still legal. (I'm not really sure flipping is an accurate word to describe it because we're talking about a car who has been paid for full price to the company who set the price. It's not a speculative purchase where one of the parties doesn't know something about the car). Auctions are famous precisely because flippers (a lot of collector are just another type of flippers) get money out of it. If someone buys a GT for a million dollars, how does that affect negatively the value of those cars? It may inflate it. But that doesn't affect Ford because Ford already sold those cars in the first place. If they wanted more money they could sell it for a higher price. Or they could produce 1000 instead of 499 cars and people would pay less in case someone would try to flip a car.

    From the wikipedia



    That makes all the difference imo. One thing is suing a customer who paid for his car because he wants to sell it (from my pov the 2 year clause is simply stupid and shouldn't hold in court). Another thing is not selling a future car to that person. That avoids the flipping of the second car because that customer will never get it but doesn't avoid the first one.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2018
  4. Sick Lenny

    Sick Lenny

    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    United States
    There is nothing in the constitution that regards consumer law.
    Purchasing something, as we commonly know it, it just one form of business transaction. There is nothing (logically or legally) that says it has to be that way or anything deviating from that is illegal, much less a violation of ones rights as you seem to think is involved here. Purchases are contractual business transactions. In the typical day to day purchase the contract is implied, an it works (without lawyers and paperwork) because cuturally we know amd accept the terms whoch helps the market run efficiently. There is also nothing that says anyone has to sell something to you either (although cases of this are being worked out in courts due to muddiness of discrimination laws being involved). The free market is called free because of the ability for two entities to chose to engage in transactions with each other. Nobody is entitled to anything, and generally terms of the exchange in written and signed contracts are perfectly fine unless a court deems it inc valid due to misleading terms, violation of existing laws, predatory practices amd othet extreme cases which this is none of.
    One of the conditions of purchase is to keep the car for two years. Software licences have worked in even stronger ways for years, that is, you don't own the software, only the rights to use it and with a bunch of restrictions at that.
     
  5. zzz_pt

    zzz_pt

    Messages:
    7,764
    Location:
    Germany
    I've acknowledged the constitutional vs legal difference already.

    Software are services, which I've also aluded to in a previous post. But you don't see the same type of contracts for hardware (physical objects / products). Why is it different? Imo, if you buy a car, a watch, a painting, etc, you should be the only one deciding what to do with it. It's yours, it's in your name, so you alone should decide if you want to resell it, dismantle it or put it in the middle of your living room. All those things are legal if you own that object.

    It seems to me that a clause which says "you can't sell this object for the next 2 years" touches, to say the least, the right of the legal owner to do whatever he wants with it. In this case, resell a car.
     
  6. TheCracker

    TheCracker Premium

    Messages:
    20,962
    Location:
    South Korea
    He’ll be gutted when they stop making the Fiesta and he misses out on the run-out special edition loaded with all the leftover optional extras!
     
    INEEDNAWZZZ and McLaren like this.
  7. Rustyhole

    Rustyhole

    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Canada
    We have Doug DeMuro for that!
     
  8. Rustyhole

    Rustyhole

    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Canada
    Performance abilities and technology that will now trickle down to the inspiring Focus Active crossover. seems like a mixed message ;)
     
  9. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    It's not a discussion when you just want to repeat that someone's rights are being violated because they're being told they can't sell a car after multiple people have told you otherwise.
    John Cena wouldn't be facing a lawsuit if he did, now would he?

    That's why I said what you think is irrelevant. At the end of the day, they can and they do regardless of what your opinion is.
    No one said flipping isn't legal to begin with. Manufacturers however, do not like it because it's profiteering off their product.
    Buy a GT3 for $200,000, get it back out on the market early in production, and resell for $250,000. Find the next big car and repeat. In theory, it's easy money and easy to see why manufacturers aren't fond of it. They don't build cars for others to make a quick buck on, and enthusiasts certainly don't like it b/c they get left out on that allocation.

    Porsche's GT director has even said they want to see their cars used, not stashed away to be resold.

    Because it negatively affects the market. It drives the values up for those who wanted the car, but were unable to get one and are now at the mercy of a flipper trying to push the market well above MSRP even though the car isn't worth that much. Other people see this and attempt the same, flooding the market, and driving values downwards. Flippers are not good for the used market.

    Ferrari's system has a unique way of combating with regular models. You can flip your F430 for max profit, or you can sell it back to the dealer for a lot less (allowing them to resell it for the profit) in return for an early build slot on a new car. This helps the client build a relationship that ensures him better cars down the road quicker.
    There's a bottom line a manufacturer prefers to meet that covers the cost of the car and includes a profit. Producing more cars devalues the market. McLaren suffers heavily in this area because they don't cap their production which is why a lot of used McLarens are well under used Ferrari/Porsche values. Lamborghini suffers a bit as well from the Gallardo/Huracan.

    This is why Dodge is ceasing Demon production after 3,000 or so units. That hasn't stopped flippers from trying rake would-be owners for double MSRP.

    Ferrari did this with the F50 after the F40 was flipped, which @Tornado touched on.
    You only think there's a difference because Ford has the gall to sue. The end game is still the same; car #1 got flipped, owner of car #1 will not be getting car #2 from either manufacturer.

    Aston Martin is currently doing this with Valkyrie, per Andy Palmer:
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  10. vrossi

    vrossi

    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    United States
    Trust me. Ford wont want it back once I get done with it...
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    And even then that's probably more because Ferrari really doesn't need to so don't bother threatening it. Ferrari kicking you out of the perks they give their best customers like factory tours and early access and information to upcoming models is something Ford can't hold over people unless they think people want to go see Pablo Hernandez or whoever screw together Ford Fusions.
     
  12. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    67,390
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    And Cena's legal team isn't arguing that the clause is wrong, or illegal, or violation of consumer rights... it's arguing that the dealer never presented it to him.
     
  13. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    Which to me, would be a valid argument and require Ford to punish his dealer for failing to do so. Haven’t heard anything about the dealer though, except for John’s video when he took delivery.
     
  14. RocZX

    RocZX Premium

    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    United States
    Will Ford buy back the GT if the owner wants to sell it? All Ford said the owners could not sell the car but nothing they will buy it back, everyone could have financial hardships and they need to sell non-essential items.
    There was thousands of people who wanted to buy the GT only 500 were selected, Ford should buy it back and then sell it to one of the other people.
     
  15. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    Ford likely has a first refusal clause, so yeah, they could buy it back. The problem one might have there though, is that Ford isn’t going to give you anywhere close to what you paid.
     
  16. RocZX

    RocZX Premium

    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    United States
    It just sold for $1.65 million Screenshot_20180519-131058.png

    Edit. Before they started the auction some guy said they went to court and the judge give them the right to sell the car, there would be no repercussions and if Ford wants the car they could bid on it. And then says something like- This is America they can buy and sell what every they want.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  17. Robin

    Robin Premium

    Messages:
    16,434
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    So I guess then if Cena does eventually loose the court case the car is already out of the picture and done with, the new owner won't have any sudden repercussions right?

    Last thing I would want is Ford turning up with a tow truck, the Police and a piece of paper saying they can legally take the car! Frankly with all this hanging over it I would be wary of bidding on it in the first place, pseudo stolen goods!
     
  18. Northstar

    Northstar Premium

    Messages:
    21,594
    Location:
    United States
    This one wasn't Cena's as his is blue.

     
  19. Robin

    Robin Premium

    Messages:
    16,434
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Oh right, apologies as I haven't been following this whole saga closely.

    So who's is this one then?! Market flooded with new Ford GT's at the moment! :D
     
  20. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    It’s the third I’ve seen for sale. First one before Cena’s was a red one in the UAE. Was around a million dollars as well and didn’t last very long.
     
  21. RocZX

    RocZX Premium

    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    United States
    The seller of the GT at Mecum was the 2nd owner of it. And of course Ford is suing Mecum and the seller.
    FOX News
     
  22. RocZX

    RocZX Premium

    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    United States
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  23. McLaren

    McLaren Premium

    Messages:
    38,346
    Location:
    United States
    So the first and second owners are just flippers; car only has 8 miles? Bought the car way over MSRP at $1.1 million but with literally none available to sell (and owners now afraid of a lawsuit), passed the car through an auction to measure what the market was really willing to pay. Original owner knew he wouldn’t be able to do that but still walked away with a hefty profit.

    And I’ll bet naturally for the second owner, he’s got a strong case to be exempt as he did not buy the car or sign any contracts from Ford.