by "JR1" (type35bugatti)
Published 12/01/2017 at 10:24
by "JR1" (type35bugatti)
Published 12/01/2017 at 10:24
No Tags
STARS: 1
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Thought all of you might find this interesting. Also as a budding legal mind I can’t help but wonder if this is an unjust restriction on the right to transfer property?
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
12/01/2017 at 10:33, STARS: 0
hmm. he sold it to pay some bills eh?
IDK, cena doesnt seem to be the kind of person to do something like this. me thinks ford has a stick up their arse
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 10:34, STARS: 0
"PS9" (PS9)
12/01/2017 at 10:35, STARS: 0
You have the right to transfer property you own...that is, unless you signed a contract stating you don’t. If buying a GT involves an end user licensing agreement or something like that, then Ford can control who can (and can’t) sell a GT.
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
12/01/2017 at 10:36, STARS: 1
I kind of suspect that the way the contract was legal in the first place (we offer you discount, you don’t sell, etc. etc.) was that the ownership was in some way limited. Either through lien or some other token continued ownership by Ford through the contract period of 24 months.
"jimz" (jimz)
12/01/2017 at 10:45, STARS: 0
It’s so interesting you’re like the third or fourth person to post about it.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/01/2017 at 11:02, STARS: 2
Considering there was an application process to even be selected by Ford to buy the car. I’m not surprised. It was included in the pre-purchase application/contract that you can’t sell the car for 24 months.
It’s pretty simple, if you aren’t willing to fulfill the terms of your contract, don’t enter that contract. Whether or not we as outside parties think it’s a BS contract is completely irrelevant, and it’s well within Ford’s right to enforce it.
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:15, STARS: 1
Crap I missed that post!
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:15, STARS: 0
Haha shows you how much I have been on Oppo today that I didn’t see it already posted
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:16, STARS: 0
I get why Ford is doing it but he bought the car. He should be able to do with it what he pleases.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
12/01/2017 at 11:16, STARS: 1
Eh, for the best. I started a shitstorm. Please don’t contribute.
...he says after posting a link...
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:17, STARS: 0
Just because it is in a contract though doesn’t make it legal but you are right that would likely be Ford’s argument.
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:19, STARS: 0
Eh if the contract is illegal it shouldn’t be enforceable regardless of the fact that two parties signed it. I think it is BS people buy cars and then immediately sell them for a profit but this is a free market economy the owner should be able to do as they please.
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/01/2017 at 11:20, STARS: 0
Could be. Maybe the vehicle is in fact leased and not a fee simple ownership. I haven’t seen the contract so I don’t have any clue.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/01/2017 at 11:43, STARS: 1
It’s not a rare event that a limited run car such as this has such a clause in a purchase contract.
"415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)" (415s30)
12/01/2017 at 12:34, STARS: 0
Well these kinds of cars have a major problem with buying them up and then flipping for profit when none are ever being made again. My solution is for Ford to make MORE! Ferrari invites previous buyers to purchase a new halo car, probably has a similar clause. I wonder if it has some kind of contract length.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
12/01/2017 at 12:52, STARS: 1
As far as business law is concerned, it is enforceable, especially for a luxury product. Contracts are only unenforceable if they are illegal, made under duress/undue influence, or are so unfair as to be (what a court thinks to be) ridiculous. Cena knew what he agreed to, and not selling it for 2 years isn’t an unreasonable stipulation, regardless of it being his property. Ford isn’t obligated to sell him a gt.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/01/2017 at 13:23, STARS: 1
Good, they had a contract, he broke it.
"PS9" (PS9)
12/02/2017 at 20:24, STARS: 1
The contract isn’t illegal. There aren’t any laws guaranteeing your ability to transfer property regardless of what agreements you sign with other parties. You have freedom to buy and sell property in the market until you’ve agreed to sign some of that freedom away, which is what John Cena did when he contractually obligated himself not to sell the GT.
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/05/2017 at 09:56, STARS: 0
I am surprised with how few Ford is making. It is disappointing
"JR1" (type35bugatti)
12/05/2017 at 09:57, STARS: 0
I just figured there would be a bigger property issue with the restriction on transfer.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
12/05/2017 at 12:22, STARS: 1
Nope. a contract can supersede quite a bit of your “rights” if you are willing to sign it.