GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,621
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on December 1st, 2017 in the Car Culture category.
Wrestling Superstar Sells His Supercar and Gets Sued For His Trouble
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 30 comments
- 3,716 views
- 12,871
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
As much as I love the GT the whole idea of Ford of all companies being this high and mighty about their car is hilarious to me. Coming in 2018: Join the waiting list for the new B-Max, exclusive to everyone with over 10,000 Twitter followers!
Corsa
Premium
- 2,104
- United States
As easy as it is to say poor Cena being picked on by huge corporate conglomerate Ford he obviously signed some form of agreement when taking delivery of the GT.
Whether signing a contract for millions, or agreeing to the AUP here, an agreement is an agreement.
Now I think he should just man up, hand over the profits and be done with it.
Your handshake should be as strong as a wedding vow.
Whether signing a contract for millions, or agreeing to the AUP here, an agreement is an agreement.
Now I think he should just man up, hand over the profits and be done with it.
Your handshake should be as strong as a wedding vow.
- 1,443
- Conquerer13
Forcing a customer to keep a car for two years is quite ridiculous in the first place, but I agree, he did break the contract he signed. Then again I don't think it's fair practice for Ford to do this in the first place. Their reasoning makes perfect sense -- wanting to keep potential buyers for the future and prevent high sale prices they have no part in -- but they're trying to control something they have no business controlling and is just part of the industry and the way of the market. If you can't produce things fast enough or in high enough quantities, this will always happen. That's Ford's responsibility, not the customer's.
It really depends how you look at it. Seems unethical from Ford and they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but at the end of the day, Cena signed the dotted line and agreed to their terms which he then broke. I'd like to see the legal ramifications and precedent set here, but I kinda feel like it'll be settled out of court.
It really depends how you look at it. Seems unethical from Ford and they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but at the end of the day, Cena signed the dotted line and agreed to their terms which he then broke. I'd like to see the legal ramifications and precedent set here, but I kinda feel like it'll be settled out of court.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Make me remember a recent Supreme Court case: Kirtsaeng vs. John Wiley & Sons inc. Kirtsaeng is a Thai student studying in the US. He imports textbooks from Thailand (sold as much lower price) and resell them on eBay in the US. These textbooks are identical to the American version except for the cover which is in Thai. The book cover clearly states something to the effects of "not for sale outside of Thailand" so the publisher (John Wiley) sued for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court found in Kirtsaeng's favor, that once a person buys something, they have full rights to do whatever they want with it. The seller has exhausted its claims on the item, the so-called first sale doctrine.
Back to this case, I think the most important factor is: who has legal ownership of the car? If it's Cena, he's free to do whatever he wants with it. Let's say he got into financial difficulties, or get tangled in a messy divorce, Ford wouldn't have any claims over his assets. Ferrari has been in the same spot in the past. The Ferrari F40 was quickly resold by flippers with greatly inflated price. When it came to the Enzo, they wouldn't sell it outright but force owners to sign a lease instead. That way, the car is still owned by Ferrari so it must have Ferrari's blessings for a resale.
Just me playing armchair lawyer.
Back to this case, I think the most important factor is: who has legal ownership of the car? If it's Cena, he's free to do whatever he wants with it. Let's say he got into financial difficulties, or get tangled in a messy divorce, Ford wouldn't have any claims over his assets. Ferrari has been in the same spot in the past. The Ferrari F40 was quickly resold by flippers with greatly inflated price. When it came to the Enzo, they wouldn't sell it outright but force owners to sign a lease instead. That way, the car is still owned by Ferrari so it must have Ferrari's blessings for a resale.
Just me playing armchair lawyer.
- 1,295
- speedy_2
What a load of crap. "Ford has suffered damages and losses." For what? Yeah he should've honored the contract, but still.....they're trying to create hype for their product. Do businesses really thrive from that crap? I'm pretty sure if you hurt the sales of the F-150, that would "damage" or create losses for the company. Yet, I've never seen any restrictions when buying one. The GT isn't a money maker from the brand, much like other cars in it's class. Cena breaking the contract aside...the way Ford deals with this will probably have a bigger impact on their brand than what Cena did. Sadly, they probably aren't even aware of that fact.
, always read the fine print.
- 4,440
- zr1chris
- zr1chris
Just another reason to never buy a Ford. The guy buys a car from them and because he turns and sells it for a profit, they sue him.
How can they claim it hurts the brand when he sold it for a profit? If anything it should be in reverse. They should sell even better since consumers now know a profit can be had with them.
How can they claim it hurts the brand when he sold it for a profit? If anything it should be in reverse. They should sell even better since consumers now know a profit can be had with them.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 9,680
- Portland, OR
- Jump_Ace
- JUMPxACE
Celebs these days. Pay up Cena! And that youtube segment was weak and short. Here's how its supposed to be done, Cena: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsqjHFMB_JYTaEnf_vmTNqgJerome
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Dear Mr. Cena,
I know we signed a contract for your services and agreed to pay you $X to do some exhibitions for us but we've decided we don't want to so thanks anyway. Bye.
Sincerely,
Company XYZ.
If you sign a contract you should read it or have your lawyer read it so you know what you're getting into. If the contract says you can't sell the car for X period and you don't like it, then don't buy it. You don't get to change your mind later just because you feel like it.
I know we signed a contract for your services and agreed to pay you $X to do some exhibitions for us but we've decided we don't want to so thanks anyway. Bye.
Sincerely,
Company XYZ.
If you sign a contract you should read it or have your lawyer read it so you know what you're getting into. If the contract says you can't sell the car for X period and you don't like it, then don't buy it. You don't get to change your mind later just because you feel like it.
- 86,826
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I should point out that Cena seems to have made a genuine mistake and sold the car, and some property, in order to pay some bills rather than cynically flipping it for profit. In the court documents he's quoted as apologising to Ford and saying he'll try to "make it right" (which would be tricky as the contract requires any sale within the two-year period to be back to Ford, but he's sold the car on to a third-party who is probably not keen on giving it back).
The suit seems to have been filed because this hasn't happened yet and Ford reckons it's also lost out on $75k of 'free' Ford ambassador coverage from Cena's ownership of the car.
The suit seems to have been filed because this hasn't happened yet and Ford reckons it's also lost out on $75k of 'free' Ford ambassador coverage from Cena's ownership of the car.
boiltheocean
Premium
- 7,756
- Samoa
What more coverage other than big guy doesn’t fit well inside a sports car are they expecting to get?
What exactly are you promoting anyway to legions of people who almost certain can’t afford the list? “Hey, even if you do succeed and become rich enough to afford the car, you can’t have it because we’ve decided that you don’t have a big enough YouTube following so we’re giving your slot up this cardigan wanker from London who will kiss our butts for it instead.”
What exactly are you promoting anyway to legions of people who almost certain can’t afford the list? “Hey, even if you do succeed and become rich enough to afford the car, you can’t have it because we’ve decided that you don’t have a big enough YouTube following so we’re giving your slot up this cardigan wanker from London who will kiss our butts for it instead.”
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Ask Bugatti, or Lamborghini, or Ferrari, or Aston Martin, or Jaguar. That's how it is up in the stratosphere of the supercar market. It creates a (genuine) sense of exclusivity that's arguably as good for successful customers as it is for the brand. The lists of potential buyers certainly seem full enough - why should the brand care if 90% of the population will ever drive the car or even see it in real life?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If they're invitation sales then yes. Cena had to put together online videos as part of his application saying how good a brand ambassador he'd be and he signed contracts confirming his agreement to Ford's stipulations. Do you think he'd get a second go?
A broken contract is a broken contract. We can see from the court papers agreed to the terms and conditions. This will do no harm to the customer base for stratospherically-expensive invitation-only cars.
- 239
- Switzerland
Maybe not on expensive cars but some WWE fans could eventually buy something else instead of a new Ford Focus, that was my point. Not that I care about Wrestling in the first place but I do understand people being upset by corporate behaviour.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,417
- Texas
Lot of folks missing out that these supercars are set at a specific price for various reasons, and they’re not keen on people essentially buying their products just to flip them for profit; the manufacturer loses that potential money and a valid buyer was passed over for the flipper. It’s not hard to put yourself in their shoes. You build a product you’re proud of, pick 20 out of 50 hyped buyers bc that’s your current capacity and then someone turns around the next day selling your product to one of those 30 people for way more money; you were just used to line someone’s pockets. Chances are you don’t want that guy buying any of your future stuff since you’re a cash cow to him.
That’s why instead of manufacturers saying, “Screw it, if folks are willing to pay double price, charge double price”, they combat flippers with these contracts. Otherwise, you get several flippers who end up affecting the market for the car for buyers who wanted it new.
Someone brought up that Ford is suing bc they’re not like Ferrari or Porsche who build exclusive cars all the time and can just blacklist a flipper next time around. I think that’s pretty spot on. I also think Ford botched it’s process a bit by selling to YouTubers/Instagrammers who had absolutely zero affiliation with Ford over previous GT owners. Those folks should’ve been picked first as your buyers given their loyalty for keeping their GTs which are easily $250,000+ cars, way over MSRP.
That’s why instead of manufacturers saying, “Screw it, if folks are willing to pay double price, charge double price”, they combat flippers with these contracts. Otherwise, you get several flippers who end up affecting the market for the car for buyers who wanted it new.
Someone brought up that Ford is suing bc they’re not like Ferrari or Porsche who build exclusive cars all the time and can just blacklist a flipper next time around. I think that’s pretty spot on. I also think Ford botched it’s process a bit by selling to YouTubers/Instagrammers who had absolutely zero affiliation with Ford over previous GT owners. Those folks should’ve been picked first as your buyers given their loyalty for keeping their GTs which are easily $250,000+ cars, way over MSRP.
- 1,492
- Jakarta
- FOUR16_
"You can't sue me, my time is now"
- 150
- United States
Oh, I agree my point was Ford does not pump out that many limited must have cars. I am not knocking the Ford or anything either. Other car companies that pump out super cars may hurt more to be banded from to be banded from. I suppose when you have a car youtube channel/blog whatever it is not good to get nixed from anyone.
- 446
- Australia
- daniel_gokssj3
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
What do all those companies have in common, that Ford doesnt share?
