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

[GTPNewsWire]

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

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

This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on May 17th, 2018 in the Car Culture category.

 

[wingman1659]

I'm glad this is mentioned in the article.

THANK GOODNESS this car ended up in the hands of an enthusiast who clearly put this car out in the public eye and drove it to it's capabilities.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't think Ford can tell people what they can or can not do with their own cars. If Cena paid full price for the car, he can do whatever he wants. I really don't think the law suit will favor Ford. It makes no sense.

What if he had burned the car down? Would Ford be OK with it? Isn't it better the car is bought and driven by some else? Or is it only bad because the money is not going their (Ford) way?

Really awkward thing for a company to do.

 

[McLaren]

I don't think Ford can tell people what they can or can not do with their own cars. If Cena paid full price for the car, he can do whatever he wants. I really don't think the law suit will favor Ford. It makes no sense.

What if he had burned the car down? Would Ford be OK with it? Isn't it better the car is bought and driven by some else? Or is it only bad because the money is not going their (Ford) way?

Really awkward thing for a company to do.

If he signed a contract, they absolutely can. Ferrari and Porsche already do it, and blacklist anyone who breaks it.

 

[SleezyBigSlim]

Ever since the Corvette broke this cars lap time jist mere weeks later (without even trying if GM is to be believed) suddenly the Ford GT has lost its luster to me. Only by letting Kaz put this on GT Sport I can become a fan of the car again.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Really awkward thing for a company to do.

I think it's much more awkward to sign an legally binding agreement saying you'll abide by Ford's rules, then completely turn around and break them without caring about the legal repercussions.

 

[Dennisch]

I don't understand why Cena hasn't been flipped off into oblivion by Ford. If they can buy the car back at selling price, give that contract breaker his money back and then throw the car into an auction, just to stick it to that asswipe.

 

[zzz_pt]

If he signed a contract, they absolutely can. Ferrari and Porsche already do it, and blacklist anyone who breaks it.

Then they can blacklist Cena I guess. But no one can sell you something and tell you what you can or can not do after you paid for it.

I doubt those types of contracts are even constitutional. If Ford did what Ferrari does, that's totally different. They're not the same thing.

I think it's much more awkward to sign an legally binding agreement saying you'll abide by Ford's rules, then completely turn around and break them without caring about the legal repercussions.

Yeah. I doubt that signature works after you have the keys in your hand for a product you paid for. If you pay for something, it is yours. You can do with it whatever you want.

Ford's clause is, IMO, irrelevant legally speaking. I'm no lawyer though.

If Ford had a clause that read: " you have to drive this car every Sunday, wearing sunglasses and pink shorts", you could add your signature bellow it. It would be just as meaningless IMO.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm no lawyer though.

Very important to point this out. Clearly you don't understand how contracts work. You read them, and if you agree, you sign it. That forces you to abide to all the rules and regulations that are in the contract. And if you don't agree, you don't sign it, and in this case that means no GT for you.

It really is that simple, and that spandex wearing knucklehead didn't understand it.

 

[Famine]

Then they can blacklist Cena I guess. But no one can sell you something and tell you what you can or can not do after you paid for it.

Ford doesn't. It tells you what you can and can't do with it before you pay for it. You agree, sign the contract and pay... or you don't.

Cena's case hinges on his claim that the Ford dealer he bought it through neither mentioned this clause nor did he sign any paperwork regarding it. The case is ongoing as far as I know.

 

[zzz_pt]

Very important to point this out. Clearly you don't understand how contracts work. You read them, and if you agree, you sign it. That forces you to abide to all the rules and regulations that are in the contract. And if you don't agree, you don't sign it, and in this case that means no GT for you.

It really is that simple, and that spandex wearing knucklehead didn't understand it.

Not really. I'm no layer but there are contracts which don't have any serious, legal weight if you go to court. Their more of a "honor" thing than a legal one. Also there are contracts containing illegal clauses everywhere.

For instance, a lot of people sign job contracts with "you can't discuss you salary" type of clauses. Those are not legal in most countries AFAIK. But they exist by the millions. Do you think they would hold in court? No. They're there just for power play.

@Famine is it constitutional to even offer such contracts? I thought, especially in the USA, that if you bought anything it was yours. Whatever you signed before paying for the car, telling you what to do with it afterwards, should be irrelevant after you paying the product's full price.


It just seems a very odd type of clause. Very very odd.

 

[Dennisch]

You don't think that a company as big as Ford can afford lawyers who can write up a contract that's completely written within the boundaries of the law?

Unless the contract forces Cena to hand Ford his first born daughter for pedo prostitution, or something silly like that, I don't see why you can't understand why this contract Ford handed to their customers can be legal.

 

[zzz_pt]

You don't think that a company as big as Ford can afford lawyers who can write up a contract that's completely written within the boundaries of the law?

Unless the contract forces Cena to hand Ford his first born daughter for pedo prostitution, or something silly like that, I don't see why you can't understand why this contract Ford handed to their customers can be legal.

Oh no. Precisely because Ford has the money, they can (lets see how it ends) get away with and enforce these type of contracts. Being an American company probably will have an impact too. I don't know of or imagine any other company doing this.

I know come companies have a period of exclusivity up to 2 years. But those are typically services. Not products, objects. A car is not a service, that's why it's a stretch and awkward.

 

[Dennisch]

Oh no. Precisely because Ford has the money, they can (lets see how it ends) get away with and enforce these type of contracts. Being an American company probably will have an impact too. I don't know of or imagine any other company doing this.

They enforce absolutely diddly-squat. Don't like the rules and regulations that come with this special product? This product isn't the thing you're looking for.

 

[zzz_pt]

They enforce absolutely diddly-squat. Don't like the rules and regulations that come with this special product? This product isn't the thing you're looking for.

Don't like the "don't talk about your salary" clause? Then this work isn't for you. It doesn't matter if that specific clause is sketchy or illegal. We want you to do with what we want.

Also, they want to control what a guy who paid 100% of the car does. That's not normal. Tell me of any other car, motorcycle, etc manufacturer who does this exact same thing.

And tell me if you'd like it to be the norm. Because if Ford does it, anyone can do it.

 

[Dennisch]

Don't like the "don't talk about your salary" clause? Then this work isn't for you. It doesn't matter if that specific clause is sketchy or illegal. We want you to do with what we want.

This has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Andyc709292]

Ford should send an 'unknown' exec to bid and buy it back, job done tastefully and everyone is happy.

After the fact they can announce what they did, great PR for not ripping the owner off and also maintaining some brand integrity.

 

[Famine]

@Famine is it constitutional to even offer such contracts?

Constitutions - and particularly the US Constitution - are documents that deal with how governments treat people, not how people (or companies) treat people.

I thought, especially in the USA, that if you bought anything it was yours. Whatever you signed before paying for the car, telling you what to do with it afterwards, should be irrelevant after you paying the product's full price.

That's what Contract Law is for. There's a part of contract law called "consideration", where one party agrees to do something for a second party in exchange for the second party doing something for the first. In this case "consideration" would be one party (GT Owner) agreeing to drive, talk about, promote and not flip a vehicle in exchange for being sold the vehicle. It's a little unusual in that the first party is doing the ambassadorial role AND paying for the car, while the second party (Ford) simply makes the car (sort of) for them, but not particularly strange.

Contracts don't become irrelevant on the exchange of money. They become guaranteed on the exchange of money.

For instance, a lot of people sign job contracts with "you can't discuss you salary" type of clauses. Those are not legal in most countries AFAIK. But they exist by the millions. Do you think they would hold in court? No. They're there just for power play.

Although a contract is involved, this is employment law, not contract law so not really relevant. I've never had an employment contract with this clause in it, for reference.

 

[zzz_pt]

In this case "consideration" would be one party (GT Owner) agreeing to drive, talk about, promote and not flip a vehicle in exchange for being sold the vehicle.

So if the buyer doesn't drive or talk about the car, can Ford go to court? How much do they have to talk or drive? Is it public?

To me, none of these clauses make any sense. I don't even know how it's legal to have such a contract. It all seems too weird especially in the USA, the bastion of individual freedom and capitalism.

The employment case I mentioned was just an example of a clause that I know it's common in some industries that doesn't hold any water if taken to court. It's just a way to try and control the person who signs the contract and keep low wages.

I've never heard of such clauses in any transaction other than service provider's.

PS: You're completely right about the Constitution. Should have said Law.

 

[Famine]

So if the buyer doesn't drive or talk about the car, can Ford go to court? How much do they have to talk or drive? Is it public?

I'm unaware of the precise details of the contract buyers sign with Ford, but the application form specifically included sections on social media following and intent to drive the car, and part of Ford's lawsuit against John Cena includes the phrasing: "... Ford has suffered additional damages and losses, including, but not limited to, loss of brand value, ambassador activity, and customer goodwill due to the improper sale.". That suggests that there is a brand ambassador requirement within the contract. If so, then yes, Ford could sue if this activity doesn't happen - although the amount would be up to the lawyers to prove and the courts to decide.

To me, none of these clauses make any sense. I don't even know how it's legal to have such a contract. It all seems too weird especially in the USA, the bastion of individual freedom and capitalism.

Again, that's a notional conflict between criminal law - freedom - and civil law, in this case contract law. If a contract includes considerations that one party doesn't fulfil, that's a breach of contract and liable for legal action.

 

[McLaren]

Then they can blacklist Cena I guess. But no one can sell you something and tell you what you can or can not do after you paid for it.

I doubt those types of contracts are even constitutional. If Ford did what Ferrari does, that's totally different. They're not the same thing.

If you sign a contract, then yeah, they more than likely can; why else would you agree to sign it with such a rule in place? The whole point of signing a contract is agreeing to the terms & conditions in it. Having a signed contract is one of the biggest pieces of self-saving evidence one can have when it comes to the legal system in this country because it immediately shows both parties agreed.

Obviously, there are somethings in a contract that won't hold up in court regardless of both parties agreeing, but I'm pretty sure Ford's lawyers covered themselves to avoid any inclusions in the contract a court would deem unenforceable.

As for Ferrari & Ford, it's the exact same idea; you agree to not sell the car for 2 years unless back to the manufacturer. The only difference is Ferrari has not taken a client to court over selling their cars. Instead, they blacklist the owner from ever being picked for another limited edition car.

 

[Danoff]

So if the buyer doesn't drive or talk about the car, can Ford go to court? How much do they have to talk or drive? Is it public?

To me, none of these clauses make any sense. I don't even know how it's legal to have such a contract. It all seems too weird especially in the USA, the bastion of individual freedom and capitalism.

The employment case I mentioned was just an example of a clause that I know it's common in some industries that doesn't hold any water if taken to court. It's just a way to try and control the person who signs the contract and keep low wages.

I've never heard of such clauses in any transaction other than service provider's.

PS: You're completely right about the Constitution. Should have said Law.

Contracts and clauses within contracts become invalid for a lot of reasons. In the US you cannot ever sign away your rights, for example. A lot of contracts say that you give up your right to sue, but of course you can sue. You can always sue. There are two reasons that I know of that contracts still include this. One is to confuse you into thinking you can't sue, and the second is so that if you do sue they'll try to get it tossed out of court because you agreed not to. Signing a contract that says you won't sue will not cause your lawsuit to be refused by a court though, they'll still hear it, they have to.

Any contract you sign under duress is invalid. Exactly what constitutes duress is more difficult to pin down, but you can't be forced into signing a legal contract. Other reasons "failure by one or both parties to disclose a material fact; a mistake, misrepresentation or fraud; undue influence or duress; one party's legal incapacity to enter a contract; one or more terms that are unconscionable".

Consideration is also required to make a contract enforceable. There's no such thing as a one-way enforceable contract, where one person just agrees to give someone else something for nothing in exchange. Such a contract can't be used to force that person to do so.

Also the signatories have to be of legal age, of sound mind, and the terms have to be actually possible to fulfill. Also the contract can't require illegal activity.

In the case of Ford, I don't think any of this applies to nullify the contract.

 

[Moglet]

Yeah the weird contract thing is the only thing putting me off buying one.

 

[Mires]

So, basically, they want me to drive their car(which is why i would want to buy it), to talk about it (well, such car is a conversation starter by iys roots), and not sell it. They want me to be driving advert for them and ask money for that... hey Ford, gimme some discount and I'll drive your car and talk about it daily, until it breaks

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm unaware of the precise details of the contract buyers sign with Ford, but the application form specifically included sections on social media following and intent to drive the car, and part of Ford's lawsuit against John Cena includes the phrasing: "... Ford has suffered additional damages and losses, including, but not limited to, loss of brand value, ambassador activity, and customer goodwill due to the improper sale.". That suggests that there is a brand ambassador requirement within the contract. If so, then yes, Ford could sue if this activity doesn't happen - although the amount would be up to the lawyers to prove and the courts to decide.

Again, that's a notional conflict between criminal law - freedom - and civil law, in this case contract law. If a contract includes considerations that one party doesn't fulfil, that's a breach of contract and liable for legal action.

I'm aware of contracts some people sign to be ambassadors of certain car brands. They have to show off the car in social media, talk about it and promote it as best as they can for a certain period of time. The most recent case I know of is Shmee's and the new BMW M5. That's basically what he's doing with the car.

The difference usually is that the car is not owned by that person. The company simply gives them access to a car but they can take it back. Ambassadors can't obviously sell these cars.

With Ford, they want the same thing while at the same time getting the full price money for the car. It seems really weird to me that such a clause has any effect in court if the person actually owns the car.

I'm not saying that contracts are meaningless in general. Just this one seems odd. Again, I never heard such a thing being legal before.

If you sign a contract, then yeah, they more than likely can; why else would you agree to sign it with such a rule in place? The whole point of signing a contract is agreeing to the terms & conditions in it. Having a signed contract is one of the biggest pieces of self-saving evidence one can have when it comes to the legal system in this country because it immediately shows both parties agreed.

Obviously, there are somethings in a contract that won't hold up in court regardless of both parties agreeing, but I'm pretty sure Ford's lawyers covered themselves to avoid any inclusions in the contract a court would deem unenforceable.

As for Ferrari & Ford, it's the exact same idea; you agree to not sell the car for 2 years unless back to the manufacturer. The only difference is Ferrari has not taken a client to court over selling their cars. Instead, they blacklist the owner from ever being picked for another limited edition car.

Yep, there are clauses signed that do not hold up in court. I am of the opinion no company should be allowed to tell you what to do or not do with a product after you paid full price for it. You effectively own it, so it's yours and you alone should decide what to do with it.

And again, you're equating 2 completely different ways of dealing with a customer who sells a car the company doesn't want the customer to sell. Ford sues you, infringing on your right to sell what is yours. Ferrari simply decides not to sell you a car in the future. Of course Ford doesn't put out as many exclusive cars as Ferrari, but that's their problem. It shouldn't be the customer to "pay" for it.

Contracts and clauses within contracts become invalid for a lot of reasons. In the US you cannot ever sign away your rights, for example. A lot of contracts say that you give up your right to sue, but of course you can sue. You can always sue. There are two reasons that I know of that contracts still include this. One is to confuse you into thinking you can't sue, and the second is so that if you do sue they'll try to get it tossed out of court because you agreed not to. Signing a contract that says you won't sue will not cause your lawsuit to be refused by a court though, they'll still hear it, they have to.

Any contract you sign under duress is invalid. Exactly what constitutes duress is more difficult to pin down, but you can't be forced into signing a legal contract. Other reasons "failure by one or both parties to disclose a material fact; a mistake, misrepresentation or fraud; undue influence or duress; one party's legal incapacity to enter a contract; one or more terms that are unconscionable".

Consideration is also required to make a contract enforceable. There's no such thing as a one-way enforceable contract, where one person just agrees to give someone else something for nothing in exchange. Such a contract can't be used to force that person to do so.

Also the signatories have to be of legal age, of sound mind, and the terms have to be actually possible to fulfill. Also the contract can't require illegal activity.

In the case of Ford, I don't think any of this applies to nullify the contract.

First of all, thanks for the details. It helps having a better understanding of the situation.

I wonder though if Ford could make it 20 years instead of 2. Or 50 or 100. For sure there would be people buying it. But what would the Law say about it? I imagine nothing at all, since it says nothing about the 2 year either.

Ford had the cheese and th knife on their hand. They could make any type of clause/contract they wanted because the people interested couldn't get the car anywhere else. That's why I think it's abusive to demand the customer/owner not to sell the car he owns.

What's the interest really for Ford? Avoid flipping? That seems rather strange. Flipping is not illegal and it only increases the market value of the car. Unless they're not confident on the product they're selling somehow.

What if Cena (or another customer) needs to sell the car and the money for some reason? Can he do it or does he need permission from Ford, despite having paid full price for the car?

Companies usually try to control the market value of their products by making exclusive series in low numbers and through huge marketing campaigns. I don't know / remember any brand prohibiting the customer of selling the product he just bought to avoid flipping or any other reason.

Maybe I'm looking at this from a too peculiar and naïve angle. But something in this situation makes me think it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[TheCracker]

What's the interest really for Ford? Avoid flipping? That seems rather strange. Flipping is not illegal and it only increases the market value of the car. Unless they're not confident on the product they're selling somehow.

What if Cena (or another customer) needs to sell the car and the money for some reason? Can he do it or does he need permission from Ford, despite having paid full price for the car?

Companies usually try to control the market value of their products by making exclusive series in low numbers and through huge marketing campaigns. I don't know / remember any brand prohibiting the customer of selling the product he just bought to avoid flipping or any other reason.

Maybe I'm looking at this from a too peculiar and naïve angle. But something in this situation makes me think it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Ford, and other manufacturers who do the same, do it to avoid all the cars just getting snapped up by investors who will just hide those vehicles away, probably unused, until they decide the market is at a point where they can return a decent profit.

Ford want their flagship to be seen - hence why they take it racing and why they have such an obvious social media clause in the contract. They want the publicity. They probably don't make much, if anything, on selling those few cars in the first place, their motivation for the entire project is to show Ford's performance abilities and for that to enhance the Ford brand. Ferrari, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota etc etc don't invest millions in motor racing projects for the sake of it, they just want to sell large volumes of road cars off the back of that image.

Cena (or any owner) can sell the car whenever he/they want, it's just that Ford have first refusal.

 

[zzz_pt]

Ford, and other manufacturers who do the same, do it to avoid all the cars just getting snapped up by investors who will just hide those vehicles away, probably unused, until they decide the market is at a point where they can return a decent profit.

Ford want their flagship to be seen - hence why they take it racing and why they have such an obvious social media clause in the contract. They want the publicity. They probably don't make much, if anything, on selling those few cars in the first place, their motivation for the entire project is to show Ford's performance abilities and for that to enhance the Ford brand. Ferrari, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota etc etc don't invest millions in motor racing projects for the sake of it, they just want to sell large volumes of road cars off the back of that image.

Cena (or any owner) can sell the car whenever he/they want, it's just that Ford have first refusal.

What other manufactures have done this?

Also, does Cena even fit inside the car? lol The seat doesn't move AFAIK and he's a big dude.

 

[TheCracker]

What other manufactures have done this?

Pretty sure Ferrari write similar clauses in their contracts for short-run special models.

Also, does Cena even fit inside the car? lol The seat doesn't move AFAIK and he's a big dude.

He's only 6ft. I'm sure there are taller owners

 

[McLaren]

Yep, there are clauses signed that do not hold up in court. I am of the opinion no company should be allowed to tell you what to do or not do with a product after you paid full price for it. You effectively own it, so it's yours and you alone should decide what to do with it.

Lol, that doesn’t work that way. If you agree not to sell the car and signed a document stating so, then you open yourself to consequences.

All GTs are essentially leased vehicles for 2 years. You can do whatever you want besides selling them.

And again, you're equating 2 completely different ways of dealing with a customer who sells a car the company doesn't want the customer to sell. Ford sues you, infringing on your right to sell what is yours. Ferrari simply decides not to sell you a car in the future. Of course Ford doesn't put out as many exclusive cars as Ferrari, but that's their problem. It shouldn't be the customer to "pay" for it.

More like you’re changing your wording bc you’re in a topic you have no former knowledge of.

You keep talking about rights yet ignore the fact a GT owner signs a legal document agreeing not to sell the car. You sign yourself into an agreement with a company for their product. Ford’s lawyers wouldn’t put such a clause in if they knew it couldn’t be upheld.

Here’s a fun fact; you can draw up a similar contract with another random dude with the first refusal as well over an item if he ever decides to sell it and you want it back. Its not some rights issue.

Just because another manufacturer with the same clause doesn’t sue you doesn’t make them any different. Ford will blacklist Cena from ever owning a new limited edition car as well.

 

[Tornado]

What other manufactures have done this?

With the F50 in particular Ferrari was infamous for it.