Exactly, the issue here isn’t specific to Tesla. Also, adding a contract clause prohibiting a buyer to quickly flip a vehicle would for sure disincentivize scalpers and thus benefit those who are in the market to buy and own such vehicles in good faith.
That being said, there is a fundamental problem with trying to enforce a clause in a contract after the contract has been completed, at least in American law. Even if it’s determined that such a contract isn’t completed until all its clauses are fulfilled, despite you being in full possession of the good that you bargained and exchanged for, that runs into an issue regarding property rights.
Let’s say you go through the normal process of purchasing a car and now you own it. Let’s say you even paid for it in cash so you own it outright. Yet, Tesla gets to decide what you are and aren’t allowed to do to or with the property you now own for the next twelve months. What if that gets increased to 2 years while you’re patiently during that time? 5 years?
Of course those are all just hypotheticals but they show the scalpers’ argument for what would result from enforcing a post hoc contract provision like that which OP is referring to.
I hope that this doesn’t come off as an attack or objection to your comment because I agree with it. I suppose I just want to highlight the “other side” to the matter.
TLDR: there are two balancing interests at play here: protecting prospective buyers from scalpers and discouraging scalping, versus adhering to the established values/legal precedent for property rights. In any case it’s a complicated issue and one that’s reflected in the current state of the car market now.
Exactly, the issue here isn’t specific to Tesla. Also, adding a contract clause prohibiting a buyer to quickly flip a vehicle would for sure disincentivize scalpers and thus benefit those who are in the market to buy and own such vehicles in good faith.
That being said, there is a fundamental problem with trying to enforce a clause in a contract after the contract has been completed, at least in American law. Even if it’s determined that such a contract isn’t completed until all its clauses are fulfilled, despite you being in full possession of the good that you bargained and exchanged for, that runs into an issue regarding property rights.
Let’s say you go through the normal process of purchasing a car and now you own it. Let’s say you even paid for it in cash so you own it outright. Yet, Tesla gets to decide what you are and aren’t allowed to do to or with the property you now own for the next twelve months. What if that gets increased to 2 years while you’re patiently during that time? 5 years?
Of course those are all just hypotheticals but they show the scalpers’ argument for what would result from enforcing a post hoc contract provision like that which OP is referring to.
I hope that this doesn’t come off as an attack or objection to your comment because I agree with it. I suppose I just want to highlight the “other side” to the matter.
TLDR: there are two balancing interests at play here: protecting prospective buyers from scalpers and discouraging scalping, versus adhering to the established values/legal precedent for property rights. In any case it’s a complicated issue and one that’s reflected in the current state of the car market now.