by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 12/01/2017 at 08:30
by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 12/01/2017 at 08:30
Tags: Lawsuits
STARS: 0
He had the car for about one month! Now he has a lawsuit on his hands with Ford for violating the contract which prohibits owners from selling their GTs for 24 months. Ford is demanding around $500,000 from Cena which translates to all of the profit from selling the car. That means that Cena probably sold the car for over a million dollars. The Ford GT has more than doubled in value and has out-appreciated the Porsche 918 Spyder.
Come on, you’d sell any car too if it were worth double what you paid for it after being handed the keys. The man is funding his wedding! Ford or fiancée? You know the answer.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"jimz" (jimz)
12/01/2017 at 08:59, STARS: 1
#1%problems
"NYankee1927" (nyankee1927)
12/01/2017 at 09:02, STARS: 1
Man I was really hoping to start watching eh guy on YouTube since he seemed likable enough. Now we know he is just a dick looking to flip cars and drive prices up.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:06, STARS: 3
Seriously? Fuck you Ford. You sold the car, it’s not yours anymore.
"Wacko" (wacko--)
12/01/2017 at 09:08, STARS: 11
to be fair it was in the contract he knew what he was getting into
"Straightsix9904" (Straightsix9904)
12/01/2017 at 09:09, STARS: 4
It’s a contract though. Ford sold the car at a discount in exchange for the owner holding onto it for 24 months.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:10, STARS: 0
That’s true but it’s still utter bullshit.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:11, STARS: 0
OK, that makes more sense. I know it was a contract, I didn’t know he was getting a discount. Without the discount though, contract or no it would still be utter bullshit.
"jimz" (jimz)
12/01/2017 at 09:19, STARS: 1
Toyota did the same thing with the Lexus LF-A.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:23, STARS: 0
Still BS
"jimz" (jimz)
12/01/2017 at 09:28, STARS: 8
¯\_()_/¯
I don’t really concern myself with the “plight” of people who can flip $500,000 cars.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 09:30, STARS: 6
It’s not bullshit, he’s an adult. He knew what he was signing, he agreed to the 24 month period. Oh wait, he might not’ve known what he was signing? That’s on him. With anything boiler plate, sure, sign away. But with a special clause like this I’m sure he was told, he knew.
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 09:31, STARS: 0
Cheaper to keeper already? :) I wonder if he has a bookie to pay off or something.
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 09:31, STARS: 1
If someone signs a BS contract - especially for a toy car, the BS is 100% on the part of the signer.
"merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc" (merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc)
12/01/2017 at 09:31, STARS: 0
I wouldn’t sell him short. It may be a case if he just didn’t enjoy the car. Especially when you consider the profit from the sale could go towards other vehicles, or multiple vehicles that may suit him better. How many of us would have ditched one of our cars in the past if we had the ability to double our money on it and drive something else?
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 09:33, STARS: 0
I’m glad he’s getting sued. He knew the contract. Also, how dare he? He clearly didn’t appreciate what he had.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:34, STARS: 0
Nor do I, but it’s still BS. Like Ferrari’s “selective selling” practices.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:36, STARS: 0
Sure he should have complied, but it’s still a bullshit clause. You sell it, it’s not your fucking property anymore.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:37, STARS: 0
Oh, he definitely made a dumb move here... by buying the car in the first place. The clause is still bullshit. Once sold the car is no longer the property of FoMoCo, they should have no say in what happens with it.
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
12/01/2017 at 09:40, STARS: 0
thats not the way the world works these days. property isnt as concrete as people assume.
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 09:43, STARS: 1
Without a contract, yes indeed.
With a contract, they could have spelled out he has to wear a red wig with an “I heart Ford” jacket every time he drives it. I look at this as not much different from a HOA, or even better, receiving special financing where you must occupy a house and can’t sell in a certain timeframe. It’s a thing.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:45, STARS: 0
And is that not a lump of horseshit? I say it is. You pay for something, it should be yours.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 09:47, STARS: 0
Comparing one bullshit practice to another bullshit practice does not make either one less of a bullshit practice.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 09:53, STARS: 3
I do not think it’s a bullshit clause at all. I think it encourages the right kind of buyer to buy the car (or idiots that ignore the clause). Someone that’s not motivated to make a profit on the car. Someone that isn’t motivated to tune it to 1000hp and then sell the car. It will go to someone that will hopefully appreciate the car. Although I’m sure there will be those that sit on it for 2 years as an “investment” or garage queen.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 10:13, STARS: 4
Let’s see here.
When he bought the car, he signed a contract with a large multinational corporation that presumably employs many lawyers who write contracts, which stated that he had to wait 2 years before he could sell the car he was buying. The intent of the contract was to discourage people from buying the car then flipping it for a profit.
Then he sold the car after having it for 1 month. For $500,000 profit.
Ok then.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 10:33, STARS: 0
Who said he was motivated to make a profit? If I had every intention of keeping it but someone walked up and offered me a $500,000 profit I’d take it. It’s obviously below market value. If Ford wants a piece of that pie they should bump up the price, not hold buyers hostage over it.
And as far as “getting the right buyers” goes, that would have the same effect.
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 10:34, STARS: 3
It would be legit BS if someone was being forced, but they are not. You’re free to not sign the paperwork, and shop elsewhere. Lots of choices in supercars and housing.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 10:36, STARS: 0
Like I said it was a stupid contract to enter... he made his bed and can lie in it. On principle imo the clause is still complete, utter, festering bullshit.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
12/01/2017 at 10:51, STARS: 0
I agree. I guess we will see if the law agrees.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 10:54, STARS: 1
“Who said he was motivated to make a profit?” Not sure. I didn’t.
Yes. It was obviously below market value. And it was obvious that Ford put this clause into place. So you are a dumbass for selling, if you sell before the 24 months. No two ways about it. And I personally support Ford for putting that clause in place, given that it’s a limited production run. If you don’t that’s fine.
If Ford wants a piece of that pie? WHAT PIE? They are literally selling below market value with a clause to not sell for 24 months. How on earth could that be construed as wanting pie?
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 10:55, STARS: 1
It’d be festering bullshit on a Camry. But on a limited run enthusiast car, I support this approach.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:04, STARS: 0
If you read through here I’ve said a couple times he was an idiot for both breaking the contract and entering it in the first place.
Doesn’t change the fact that the clause is bullshit. You want more money? Sell it for more money. You don’t want more money? Then let the buyer do what they want. You want the “right type of buyer”? Again, a higher asking price could accomplish the same result.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:04, STARS: 0
On a limited run enthusiast car it’s just as much bullshit.
"Straightsix9904" (Straightsix9904)
12/01/2017 at 11:07, STARS: 1
It was more of an implied discount. I mean, if John Cena can hold an asset for 30 Days and make half a million bucks then Ford sold the car at a discount in exchange for the buyer not selling the car for 24 months.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:07, STARS: 1
The law (and this is going to sound weird considering everything I’ve laid down here already) should side with Ford, unless there was some reason why he HAD to sell the car. He entered the contract. His problem.
I still hate the clause from top to bottom, inside and out, backwards and forwards and would like to beat the author of it with a stick, but he signed the paperwork...
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:10, STARS: 0
No writing, no discount. Ford sold the car below market value and it wasn’t a special deal.
Either way it’s his problem because he signed the damn thing but screw Ford with a piece of sharpened rusty rebar for that clause. You want more money? Charge market value.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 11:18, STARS: 0
No on a limited run car there’s a case to be made that it makes sense to want to sell to people that will actually hold onto the car. If you don’t like that, don’t buy a car that has a contract like that attached to it.
If I were in a position to be able to comfortably afford a Ford GT, I would sign the clause without hesitation.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:21, STARS: 0
Make the case to me. I’ll listen.
If you don’t like that, don’t buy a car that has a contract like that attached to it.
^This much I’m in agreement with.
If I both wanted, and was in a position to buy a GT, I’d tell them to rip out the clause or go fuck themselves. If I’m going to spend that much on a car I’m damn well going to own it.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 11:21, STARS: 0
You want a buyer to not turn around and sell within a month? Put a 24 month clause on the contract.
There’s nothing underhanded or subversive about that. As a buyer you just have to make damn sure the purchase won’t bankrupt you and that you are comfortable with the payments (or comfortable with the full purchase price in the absence of a loan).
The only people that this clause is annoying to are those that don’t intend to keep the car for 24 months. I don’t want those people to have this car and Ford doesn’t. What’s wrong with that?
Why is it SOOOOO bad?
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 11:23, STARS: 0
“If I both wanted, and was in a position to buy a GT, I’d tell them to rip out the clause or go fuck themselves.”
Really, let’s say for a minute the Ford GT is your DREAM CAR. For me it is certainly in the top 3 of cars I’d buy if money were no object. You would honestly have a problem with agreeing to have it for at least 24 months?
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:33, STARS: 0
Why the hell would I give a damn what the buyer did with it? It’s business. I gave them a product, they gave me the money I wanted. If they feel like selling, engine swapping, demo derby-ing or scrapping it within the hour, why should I give a rat’s ass.
I could be planning on keeping the car for a decade or more, I don’t care. You are going to take my money and tell me that I can’t do what I want with a car I SUPPOSEDLY OWN? Fuck off. I want the ability to walk away, even if I have no intention of doing so. If I wake up one morning completely bored of the car, I want to be able to sell it. If someone walks up and offers me significantly more than I paid? I’d sell it. If I was indifferent towards the car, meh profit and the car is gone. If I liked the car? Probably go back and get another one. I get profit, Ford sells another car. There is literally no reason to complain about it.
^ Actually we’re missing another point here. The GT is still in production. Who the hell would BUY one used for more than Ford is charging?
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:41, STARS: 0
Yes. I would. Though that’s just me more than anything.
It may be my dream car on paper, but who’s to say it won’t be a letdown? That it won’t really suit me? I hate having my back to the wall. I hate fake ownership, I hate subscriptions, I hate making payments, and I try never to make a move until I’m 100% positive about it—unless there’s a way out if things just don’t click. When I bought my truck I set down $22k in one lump. Probably could have gotten a better deal if I’d financed, but no thanks. It would have been one more hoop to jump through if I’d ended up not liking it, this way I could just walk away. Turns out I very much enjoy it and have no plans to sell it.
So yeah. Though the GT may have become the best experience of my life, I may have fallen totally in love and never gotten rid of it, but I’d walk away from the opportunity with that clause in there.
"Spoon II" (Spoon_II)
12/01/2017 at 12:01, STARS: 0
I’m hoping that this makes Ford rethink this contract policy. Should be a fair chunk of negative publicity thanks to Cena’s popularity.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 12:02, STARS: 1
Who would buy one used for more than Ford is charging? Someone that didn’t manage to get on the list. That would otherwise have to wait a year or more to get one.
"Wacko" (wacko--)
12/01/2017 at 12:05, STARS: 1
but this is not a F150 or a focus here, this is a special car that had a special contract. I personally don’t think it will change anything.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 12:19, STARS: 0
OK, that much makes sense. I guess. If you’ve got the cash, anyways.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
12/01/2017 at 12:31, STARS: 0
This is why I can kind of appreciate Ford adding this clause. It creates a secondary market immediately after they sell the car. The car isn’t going to someone that wants it, it’s going to someone that wants to make money. I think it’s okay that in this case that matters to Ford. With other specialty cars like Raptors and RS’s and special edition Mustangs, they don’t really care as much. But this car is special.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 12:42, STARS: 0
Push the price up remove the clause. Ford gets the money and there’s much less secondary market because the price is already where it should be.
"Straightsix9904" (Straightsix9904)
12/01/2017 at 14:47, STARS: 0
They wanted brand influencers. They specifically sold the car to John Cena so John Cena would be seen driving a Ford.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 14:51, STARS: 0
Too friggen bad. If they wanted that they should have put it straight in the agreement, “We are giving this to you for X price because you will be doing a service for us as a condition of this you may not sell yada yada...”, as it is it just seems extremely petty and evasive to me.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
12/01/2017 at 16:06, STARS: 0
Um, my fiance would never ask me to sell a car for a wedding.
"Nauraushaun" (nauraushaun12)
12/01/2017 at 20:35, STARS: 0
The Ford GT has more than doubled in value and has out-appreciated the Porsche 918 Spyder.
While that may be true I don’t think it’s fair. the GT is literally impossible to buy
"Steve in Manhattan" (blogenfreude01)
12/02/2017 at 22:28, STARS: 0
Depending on the forum (probably a selection clause in the contract) the issue will likely be whether the clause in the contract is reasonable. I have no idea on that point of law, but manufacturers like Ferrari telling you what you can do with your own car rubs me the wrong way. Nonetheless, even if the clause is reasonable, this is not going to make Ford look good. My best legal advice? Settle it quickly and quietly.
"BeaterGT" (beatergt)
12/06/2017 at 11:15, STARS: 0
Guess it wasn’t that great.