By on December 1, 2017

Ford GT

Ford wasn’t kidding about wanting to keep ownership of the GT as exclusive as possible. In addition to setting production numbers incredibly low, the company also carefully vetted prospective supercar buyers and made them promise not to resell the vehicle for at least two years.

While atypical of Ford-branded vehicles, clauses like that aren’t uncommon among high-end manufacturers selling an ultra-rare model. But what happens when a customer decides to ignore the contract and flip the vehicle prematurely?

Well, as wrestling-icon John Cena found out, the automaker takes you to court. On Thursday, Ford Motor Company filed suit against Cena in the U.S. District Court in Michigan over breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

According to a report from the celebrity hounds at TMZ, the manufacturer is demanding Cena hand over all profits made from the sale and pay damages. “Mr. Cena has unfairly made a large profit from the unauthorized resale flip of the vehicle, and 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,” Ford said in a statement.

It’s a little sad to see things play out like this, especially after Cena publicly expressed his love for the GT right after purchasing one. The lawsuit states that John claims to have sold the car, along with other property, to pay off bills.

The company wants to keep the $500,000 supercar in the hands of enthusiasts and high-profile celebrities for obvious marketing reasons. Cena probably seemed like a safe bet. With a celebrity status that extends beyond his wrestling career, he also has a fairly extensive collection of rare cars he could have sold instead of the Ford if he needed some fast cash.

Maybe the interior was just too crowded for his bulky 6’1″ frame. Watching video of him trying to squeeze inside the squat GT almost makes one feel claustrophobic on his behalf.

Nobody likes when a corporate entity gets litigious and it’s often easy to take the side of the individual who’s on the receiving end of a lawsuit. But Cena knew the score when he purchased the car. Ford wasn’t trying to hide the clause and the order of confirmation clearly states that GT buyers “understand that being selected for the opportunity to purchase this vehicle is non-transferable and agree not to sell the vehicle within the first 24 months of delivery.”

Unless The Rock runs into the courtroom to back Cena and body slam the prosecution in a WrestleMania-styled plot twist, Ford looks to have this one in the bag.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

68 Comments on “John Cena Sued By Ford for Flipping His GT Supercar...”


  • avatar
    statikboy

    If Ford doesn’t own the car, it’s not their business what becomes of it.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Bit more complex than that…apparently Ford made buyers sign an agreement to not flip these cars.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        Is such an agreement enforceable? That’s the question.

        • 0 avatar
          SlowMyke

          I’d say so, especially in light that the article says this is common practice. He didn’t have to buy the car, and Ford was very open that The ownership experience for this car would be different and would require a contract.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “I’d say so, especially in light that the article says this is common practice.”

            That in and of itself is meaningless. Has this kind of thing ever been brought before a court of law?

            If not, then the question remains. The fact that “it’s done all the time” doesn’t define lawfulness.

            And as you point out, it’s different me buying a Taurus and Ford wanting me to jump through some hoops, vs this guy not having to buy the car.

          • 0 avatar
            SlowMyke

            @jalop1991

            Ok, let’s put it this way- i don’t think Ford didn’t do it’s due diligence in having its contacts drafted for this car. Legally speaking, if there is no coercion, both sides agree to the contact, and no laws are broken, courts are not in the business of undoing contacts. Cena’s lawyers are going to have to prove he didn’t understand the contact to an extent that he was taken advantage of or that any reasonable adult wouldn’t also be able to agree to. I don’t see Ford having some wacko contract here that’s going to break laws. If this actually goes to court, Ford should have an easy time defending it.

            But as pointed out elsewhere, this whole thing smacks of bad PR, so I’d suspect a private settlement and perhaps some sort of public Goodwill showing between the parties to make everyone look good.

        • 0 avatar
          notwhoithink

          Probably. I haven’t seen the legal agreement, but on the surface there’s nothing inherently unenforceable about agreeing to sell someone a particular asset that comes with contractual obligations about how it’s used for a period of time. Many employers allows their workers to purchase stock at a discount on the condition that they hold the shares for a period of time before they sell them. Maybe if he was in bankrupcty and was forced to sell the car to satisfy debts debt then he might have a defense, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.

          Ferrari has taken the easier approach by simply banning you from being able to purchase their exclusive cars in the future if you are caught flipping one before the initial ownership period expires. As a further deterrent, they will also put a ban on the buyer as well.

          If it turns out not to be enforceable then we’ll start seeing supercar manufacturers leasing their halo cars to the original buyers instead of selling them with an agreement not to flip them.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            @SlowMyke:

            “Ok, let’s put it this way- i don’t think Ford didn’t do it’s due diligence in having its contacts drafted for this car. Legally speaking, if there is no coercion, both sides agree to the contact, and no laws are broken, courts are not in the business of undoing contacts.”

            IANAL. But I come from a family of them, so I think of things like this–perhaps a bit differently than the average Joe.

            I’ve no doubt that Ford lawyers did due diligence. But despite there being no coercion and both parties agreeing, some contracts run afoul of written and established law.

            And this wrestler dude, having entered into the contract, could easily come back and say “I’ve changed my mind, and the contract’s not valid, so you can’t come after me based on the terms of an illegal contract.” If in fact the contract runs afoul of established law, or if an expensive lawyer can convince a court of this, then Ford is left with egg on its face.

            Risk vs reward decisions like this are made every day. “How much will the lawyer cost vs what will be the reward, and what are the odds of winning that reward?” That’s all it comes down to.

            Businesspeople, corporations, and corporate lawyers do things all the time that, once exposed to light of day, it turns out they’re not allowed to do. It’s how things move forward in the world. If they’re never called on it, they get what they want. It’s no big deal; it’s business.

            “They all do it” is not sufficient to declare it to be lawful. And if this wrestler has tons of money or a sugar daddy to throw legal talent at fighting Ford, you never know what could happen.

            I agree, it’s all stupid. But welcome to the world. It’s just business.

          • 0 avatar
            Maymar

            jalop, also not a lawyer, and this is basically an anecdote, but I work in the fleet department of a multinational corporation, and our annual purchase contracts absolutely have minimum ownership terms. I’d have to assume we’d have had our own lawyers review them, and unless it’s just written off as the cost of keeping a supplier happy, there must be something to justify it.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Ferrari did the same with the La Ferrari I believe.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Given that a) Ford has a small army of attorneys to go over these contracts in advance, b) anyone who can drop half a mil on this car presumably afford to have an attorney go over said contract, (and c) I highly doubt ANYONE’S gonna talk John Freakin’ Cena into signing something he didn’t want to), I’ll go out on a limb and say the agreement will hold up in court.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Nowadays, probably. With taxpayers footing the bill for both the circus venue, and for a fair chunk of the clowns.

        • 0 avatar
          newenthusiast

          “That in and of itself is meaningless. Has this kind of thing ever been brought before a court of law?

          If not, then the question remains. The fact that “it’s done all the time” doesn’t define lawfulness.”

          I had similar thoughts. Without specific precedent, such a clause might be struck down by a judge or arbitrator, which would set precedent going forward.

          Ford seems to be willing to risk that, although a Google search makes it appear that Cena is having some financial issues, so more than likely, he won’t have the time or money to fight the flock of lawyers Ford has.

          I think some sort of settlement is likely.

          Although, I personally think their argument of “loss brand value” is absurd.

        • 0 avatar

          Boy, initial thought was that Cena was in a car accident, flipping the GT to end upside down on its roof…

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      Not if you signed a contract that states you cannot sell it for 2 years after delivery.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Even in an utterly undiluted lawyertopia, there has to be some limit on the frivolities and trivialities that any hack with an ambulance chaser in tow, can waste the time and resources of a publicly provided court system on.

        I’m not saying this goes over the line, as I’m neither a legal scholar, historian, nor someone with the inclination to spend too much time contemplating that; but the kind of carte blanche “he signed on the dotted line” excuse, for any and every conceivable shakedown the ambulance chaser army may wish to engage in; renders the whole concept of “rule of law” concept nothing more than a farce.

        First, make every possible reasonable attempt to protect yourself against things you wish not to happen. Then, if despite all that, you are still being wronged; it’s nice to have a court system to turn to. Don’t just use the existence of the latter, as some sort of excuse to abate all personal responsibility.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Actually, this contract sounds a lot like a homeowner’s association agreement. It’s power is that you voluntarily signed the agreement before closing on the house. You don’t have to sign the agreement, but if you don’t the sale of the house doesn’t go thru.

      Same deal here. You don’t have to sign the agreement, but then Ford has the right to terminate the sale of the car before completion if you don’t.

      In both cases, you have to ‘voluntarily’ sign the agreement if you want to take possession of the house/car. And once you voluntarily sign the paper, you’re liable to its terms and conditions.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    This story needs musical accompaniment.

    JOHN CENA!!!!
    https://instrumentalfx.co/wp-content/upload/11/John-Cena-The-Time-is-Now-WWE.mp3

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “…fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment”

    Isn’t that what WrestleMania is all about?

  • avatar

    Hmmm, lets analyze parts of Ford’s arguments.

    Mr. Cena sells his $500,000 GT for more than $500,000 and THAT damages brand value? By demonstrating that the GT commands a price far above $500,000 – how on earth can Ford claim brand value damages?

    The sale adds one more person with GT ownership experiences, so how on earth can exposing the GT to one more owner than Ford intended damage customer goodwill?

    By creating one additional owner who will have ambassador activity during their ownership, how on earth can Ford claim that damages ambassador activity?

    It is all a crock and Ford should withdraw their suit.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      I’m assuming it’s because each buyer is specifically chosen by Ford for a reason, they have a marketing value that they won’t get now that its been sold to another person.

      Even at half a million, these cars are probably sold at a loss. Ford is leverage other assets such as the owners themselves to get value.

      I’m not sure suing so publicly a celebrity is a good idea, though Ford’s lawyers have a history of shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to bad PR.

      However, Ford doesn’t want this to become a trend, as owners decide to flip this car early for a profit.

    • 0 avatar
      tod stiles

      Why? It’s a contract. Both sides gave up something and both sides gained something. Cena broke it. The real question is the damages. This will get settled, he’ll probably have to pay Ford legal fees and some amount of damages to make it go away. We’ll see i guess.

      • 0 avatar
        notwhoithink

        Damages will be easy. It will be whatever he profited above the purchase price he paid Ford, plus court fees, and maybe some additional amount for the brand damage (though that’s the hardest claim to prove). In the end they’ll make sure that he lost money in the transaction and that will likely be sufficient deterrent in the future.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        “Why? It’s a contract. Both sides gave up something and both sides gained something. ”

        That is part of a lawful contract, certainly. But by itself, that does not define a lawful contract.

        The devil is in the details–and in case law. I don’t know that there is any case law relevant to this, but I don’t know that there isn’t.

        And if this wrestler dude has enough money and thinks it’ll be a hoot to fight Ford, one of two things would happen: a) case law relevant to this situation will be revealed, or b) new case law will be established.

    • 0 avatar
      SlowMyke

      It’s not a crock. The new owner signed no deal with Ford, so they have no idea what type of owner they will be. Will they take the car out in public, which will actually foster awareness for the car and brand, or will they store the car away as an investment, not only as a rare Ford supercar, but one that was owned by John Cena. Additionally, Ford intended this car to be rare with exclusivity being part of the draw of ownership. Whether it means anything to you or not, being part of an exclusive club means a lot to many people with a lot of money. They can afford to be one of the few, and that experience is detracted by more people having easier access to get the car than all the hoops original owners had to jump through.

      Ford absolutely has a solid case on their hands. Whether or not it’s a pleasant one or a popular one, they chose to handle their product this way and the owners agreed to it.

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      “Mr. Cena sells his $500,000 GT for more than $500,000 and THAT damages brand value? By demonstrating that the GT commands a price far above $500,000 – how on earth can Ford claim brand value damages?”

      Because the Ford GT owners were put through an extensive screening process and were hand-selected by Ford to to meet their specific brand criteria. Many wealthy individuals who wanted one didn’t get to buy one because they didn’t meet Ford’s criteria. If Cena flipped it to the first guy who was willing to pay him a million dollars for it then it damages the value created by hand-selecting the clients. More importantly, it tells those clients who actually were hand selected and will be patiently waiting another 18-24 months to take delivery of their exclusive GT experience that instead of jumping through the hoops next time that they should just pay someone double to buy theirs. It undermines the entire GT brand.

      As to the other points, unjust enrichment is that he undoubtedly made a profit flipping it and that was a profit he was not legally entitled to make. Fraudulent misrepresentation would be that he took delivery of the car about a month ago, at which point he undoubtedly signed paperwork reminding him of his contractual obligations to not flip the car, and then promptly flipped it anyway less than a month later. The argument is that when he took delivery of the car he already intended to flip it contrary to the terms of the purchase contract.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      I want to see Ford, Dodge, and Honda set such contracts with their dealers that they cannot sell for more than MSRP or else.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        If the dealers sign the contracts, then so be it.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I’m not a fancy lawyer, but I don’t think you can make a contract that breaks already existing laws.

          Even if freely signed by both parties it would be void.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “I’m not a fancy lawyer, but I don’t think you can make a contract that breaks already existing laws.

            Even if freely signed by both parties it would be void.”

            I’m not a fancy lawyer, or a lawyer of any kind. But I know you’re 100% correct.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        The flip side of Honda, Dodge, etc, charging ADM is my being able to negotiate thousands off on slow selling models. Besides, how many cars have a sustainable ADM? Almost none. You only pay ADM if you have to be the first kid on the block with the new toy.

        • 0 avatar
          TonyJZX

          it ‘damages brand value’ by setting a precedent

          remember copyright violations?

          if one person flouts the contract then every GT buyer can

          Ford must pursue every infraction or the contract is toilet paper for every GT buyer

          Not saying I agree but its their polished turd.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “Ford must pursue every infraction or the contract is toilet paper for every GT buyer”

            OH yes, this does put Ford into a bind. They MUST defend their contract, even if they know it to be legal toilet paper in the first place.

            But that’s what lawyers do.

            And this forces them into risking having it declared, in case law, to be nothing but toilet paper.

            That’s why these things frequently go into settlement out of court.

          • 0 avatar
            TonyJZX

            I’m also of the opinion that this might even be a long termed con or a “work” as Hulk Hogan / Terry Bollea and taker down of Gawker might say.

            There’s a media ‘buzz’… or ‘buzzfeed’ as you might say… Ford’s people and Cena’s people get together and amicably work this out and Ford and Cena do some kind of cross promotion at the end of this… maybe Cena gets driven around in a new Edge or Explorer whatever and they all make sweet sweet advertising crossover.

            Cena is a ‘good guy’ – I see them all coming out this with both parties declared winners.

  • avatar
    ccc555

    Ferrari does this with their rare cars like the la Ferrari. In essence they are selling you an asset that’s so rare and in demand, you can probably immediately turn around and sell it for a lot more than you paid for it. Since the FXX or La Ferrari is so rare, billionaires and collectors not chosen will probably pay you more than 2x what you bought it for since it’s one of the few things in the world they can’t have. At Ford it’s tougher because there’s no threat of taking you off the list to buy the next rare model they make (which is the carrot and stick Ferrari uses) so they’ll sue you for damages. Cena had to know that the rarety of this model means it can’t just be looked at as a free gift from Ford and had conditions associated with him being allowed to buy it.

  • avatar

    This would have never happened with a Ferrari. Cena knows that Ford isn’t going to make another supercar for a long time. If you upset the folks in Maranello they won’t let you buy the next New Thing.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    If I remember my business law class correctly, isn’t there some legal term that basically means that both parties are presumably informed enough to sign an agreement? “Unconscionable clause,” or something like that?

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      Yes, unconscionable. As in one party taking unreasonable advantage of the other party.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Hard to imagine someone taking advantage of someone who can afford legal representation.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          “Hard to imagine someone taking advantage of someone who can afford legal representation.”

          Are you kidding? It happens every day.

          When you go to buy a house, and on top of that take on a mortgage, you are dealing with legal processes and concepts far beyond the ken of mere mortals. You should protect yourself by spending $1000 or whatever on a lawyer to see that everything is on the up and up.

          But people don’t do that. Every day, they enter into real estate contracts and mortgage contracts for same said real estate without so much as a thought.

          And yet, they can afford the lawyer. They just choose not to.

          And in some cases, too many cases, they are “taken advantage of”. Bad things happen, negative things happen, that wouldn’t if only they had a lawyer. They take on risk that they wouldn’t have taken on had they had a lawyer.

          They can afford one–but they choose not to. They just blindly sign there names wherever the Realtor and title company tell them to.

          • 0 avatar
            87 Morgan

            Lawyers and real estate transactions. Ick. Just drives up the cost and slows down the process. The mortgage lender is not going to change their lending agreements for one buyer whose clown lawyer is trying to justify his 1k fee and insists some piece of verbiage needs to be changed.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            A lawyer’s job is not to make the mortgage lender change his contract. A lawyer’s job is to understand risk, and to mitigate risk.

            If that means the buyer walks away, so be it.

            And it’s more than just the lender. The real estate lawyer does much more than that to help protect the buyer.

            A house is the single largest financial transaction an average person will engage in–and it’s full of compexities that the buyer doesn’t know anything about. You don’t think that $1000 to protect your interests, understand and mitagate risk in that situation, is worth it?

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      That applies for like a clause that Apple owns your first born child because you agreed to the iTunes user agreement. Not really a multi-millionaire buying a super exclusive sports car.

      This term will stand up in court. Both sides knew what was what and whether you think it was reasonable or not, it’s not like Cena needed to get this car today or he’d lose his job or something. He knew what was what and ignored it. He probably banked on being able to settle it for half of his profits.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    Generally I hate litigation, but in this case I appreciate what Ford is trying to do, make these cars cars instead of investment vehicles/museum pieces. Kind of the same thing Porsche is trying to do with the special 911s. Anything that gets cars out on the streets, even occasionally, and keeps them from being squirreled away in a warehouse somewhere is ok in my book.

  • avatar
    TDIGuy

    Now you see, I read that headline that he was driving his car like a [email protected]#$ and crashed it.

    Ford probably doesn’t want GT owners driving like hooligans, either. Wonder if that’s in the contract?

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    The vehicle I thought of as a comparison was the Lexus LFA. In North America, Lexus initially offered the cars only under a two-year lease program. They later offered cars for sale, but made buyers sign a contract where Lexus was given first right of refusal to buy the cars back, if the owners wanted to sell within two years. Cars were to be bought back at either fair market value, or the original sticker price, whichever was lower.

  • avatar
    OldWingGuy

    I just don’t get it. The lack of honor displayed here.
    You give your word, or shake hands, or sign a contract.
    Have people sunk so low that their word means so little ?

    • 0 avatar
      BuzzDog

      Thank you.

      Regardless of your opinion of Ford’s “no selling it for two years” clause, why can’t people simply live up to what they’ve agreed to, barring any valid, extenuating circumstances?

      • 0 avatar
        Malforus

        Also the car and driver article sheds more light: https://blog.caranddriver.com/bad-flip-ford-sues-john-cena-for-reselling-his-new-ford-gt/

        There was a buyback clause in the contract he signed but he was able to make lots more money by selling privately in violation of the contract.

        Cena is absolutely 100% in the wrong and admitted as such, there is no other side to this story.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    I guess he thought they wouldn’t see this.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    That was always the problem with Ford’s sales strategy for the GT: that you had to be a rich, verifiable fame whore to buy one.

    “I’m sorry sir. You don’t seem to have an attention-shaped hole in your soul. Perhaps you’d be interested in a GT-350R instead.”

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Poor guy got swindled. He paid $400K for a Taurus V6 powered Ford.

    But the arrogance of Ford is astounding. It’s not your car Ford, he can do what he wants with it. Perhaps he wanted to buy a real super car. It’s not a crime to sell the POS to get something nice.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    I just wanted to say up yours Ford! Sure, there was a contract, and it may well have been signed. Some contracts are too outrageous to be enforceable, and I think this is one. Has anyone ever been forced to sign a non-compete contract at time of employment? Has anyone ever successfully upheld a non-compete contract in restraint of someone’s livelihood? Not that I know of. Ford wanted to put the car in John Cena’s hands instead of some other rich guy because they wanted the publicity. To hell with them. It is as undemocratic and un-American as can be. Now they are seeking damages because they care about the loss of publicity. Are they insane? Mentally-impaired? Who wants to be seen as a corporation that would sue its customers? Ford, that’s who. You’d have to a complete…never mind. There are a couple million every year.

    There’s a fair chance I’ll talk to John Cena next week. Not sure if I’ll bring this up or not.

  • avatar
    jimf42

    If you sign a contract and the contract complies with the law of the state in which it is entered into. Two parties, consideration, specific dates for performance, etc…it is completely enforceable. Cena is a fool for thinking he would just breach the contract with no consequences.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      People act foolish all the time.

      And something like this isn’t foolish until a court of law says it’s foolish.

      People make those conscious decisions all the time, too–do something, and dare the other party to object. All too frequently, the other party backs down for reasons of his own.

      You don’t know until you try.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        You’d be surprised at how many oddball legal restrictions are baked into contracts, and some you are totally unaware of. Here’s a good example – “own” a copy of Rosetta Stone? Well, you really don’t have full ownership rights. Look at the legal boilerplate. You will find that you are prohibited from reselling the product. That’s why large retail sites like e-bay don’t have them for sale. The clause in the acceptance practice prohibits the resale. Sure you can find them on craigslist but that is about it.

        In this case, Ford was clear and very upfront about the ownership requirements. The buyers have the option to walk. They didn’t so they are bound by the terms of the contract they signed.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Just like you can’t sue someone once you sign a liability waiver… A court will decide if this contract is enforceable, or if it falls into the domain of non-competes and liability waivers; which get signed thousands of times a day to no effect.

          • 0 avatar

            Sorry guys, I see this as an enforceable contract. He is a big boy. This isn’t a normal car by anyone’s point of view. I’d love to see the actual contract….to see if he agreed to injunctive relief.

            I’m reminded of the folks (usually ham radio ops) who get all twisted that the Homeowners Association is making them miserable because they can’t put up huge antennas…..when they bought in, they signed agreements, and should have known of the restrictions…no one forced them to buy, like this guy, and it isn’t a contract of adhesion, like a credit card agreement where everyone knows you have no leverage.
            This is clearly a toy. Ford sold them with conditions. You took the car knowing the conditions.

            Maybe he ran out of money. Possibly he drove it twice, and realized he hated it. The world is full of toy cars with 15 years and 9,000 miles on them. In any event, a well drafted contract (which I’d LOVE to read) would have some sort of “sell back” provision, but probably for sticker, not at a profit.

          • 0 avatar

            A blanket liability waiver is not enforceable in NY State……

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “A blanket liability waiver is not enforceable in NY State……”

            Your sarcasm detector needs recalibration. Of course liability waivers are legal masturbation. Nobody gets penetrated by them.

  • avatar
    John

    These comments are a great demonstration of why it’s best to seek legal advice from a lawyer when you have a serious legal problem instead of getting it from who-knows-who-the-internet-expert-on-all-topics.

  • avatar

    Sorry guys, I see this as an enforceable contract. He is a big boy. This isn’t a normal car by anyone’s point of view. I’d love to see the actual contract….to see if he agreed to injunctive relief.

    I’m reminded of the folks (usually ham radio ops) who get all twisted that the Homeowners Association is making them miserable because they can’t put up huge antennas…..when they bought in, they signed agreements, and should have known of the restrictions…no one forced them to buy, like this guy, and it isn’t a contract of adhesion, like a credit card agreement where everyone knows you have no leverage.
    This is clearly a toy. Ford sold them with conditions. You took the car knowing the conditions.

    Maybe he ran out of money. Possibly he drove it twice, and realized he hated it. The world is full of toy cars with 15 years and 9,000 miles on them. In any event, a well drafted contract (which I’d LOVE to read) would have some sort of “sell back” provision, but probably for sticker, not at a profit.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • here4aSammich: Just had one from National. Delta cancelled my flight, so I had to drive from Detroit to Philly....
  • Inside Looking Out: What is the problem? Design was a main point in 50s-60s. Each year stylists restyled cars while...
  • bullnuke: There have been several posts over the last few days regarding Elon and his Tesla but I choose this one to...
  • Inside Looking Out: No worries, there is always “sporty” Corolla available in your friendly Toyota...
  • SPPPP: Wow, I don’t remember ever hearing about that Pro-Tec option. Odd.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States