John Cena Ready to Take Ford to the Mat Over Supercar Contract

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Late last year, Ford Motor Company decided to sue professional wrestler and actor John Cena after he decided to sell his GT supercar. Hoping to keep ownership of the vehicle exclusive, the automaker included a clause in the ownership contract that expressly forbade anyone from selling it within two years of taking delivery. Cena decided to flip the vehicle early, causing Ford to go after him in the courts on breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

His position appeared to be indefensible. Ford’s lawsuit even alleges that John apologized after the automaker took him to task, saying, “I completely understand and as stated am willing to work with you and Ford to make it right.”

However, the winds may have shifted in his favor. Cena is reportedly asking the judge in the case to throw out the lawsuit on the grounds that his contract never included the clause that forbid resale within the first 24 months of ownership.

“Ford’s action rests entirely on an alleged resale restriction that Ford failed to have its dealer incorporate in the dealer’s sales agreement,” the dismissal motion reads. “Ford failed to cause its selling dealer to include any resale restriction, so Ford has no claim.”

That assertion may be accurate. Instead of of a signed contract that includes the clause, Ford’s keystone evidence appears to be a screenshot of an online agreement referencing the two-year retention clause. However the automaker’s filing later mentions a signed a Ford GT order confirmation where he agreed “By signing this Order Confirmation Form you are verifying the following: … (B) You 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.”

However, Cena’s legal team claims Ford failed to mention that Ford tasked the selling dealer to establish the “purchase price and all other terms of sale.” Apparently, that includes those resale restrictions stipulated by Ford — which the dealer doesn’t appear to have included in the final contract.

One aspect both sides appear to agree on is Cena being chosen specifically due to an almost-promise he made that he would promote the vehicle and the brand. Ford allowed him to purchase the limited-production model after he filed an application that included photos and video of himself promoting high-end cars and his assurance that the GT would go “to an owner who truly deserved it and would care properly for the car.”

While Cena did post a video of himself praising the car on the Bella Twins YouTube channel after taking ownership of the model, he sold the car a few weeks later. The lawsuit claims it was done so he could liquidate it for cash “to take care of expenses.”

Ford is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and wants to buy back the GT for Cena’s original purchasing price, minus whatever profit he made from it when it was sold. Cena is asking to have the case thrown out.

[Image: Bella Twins via YouTube]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 27 comments
  • Jalop1991 Jalop1991 on Feb 15, 2018

    So, let me get this straight: Ford doesn't want to sell cars directly to the public, except when they do.

    • See 1 previous
    • Cash Cash on Feb 17, 2018

      @arach And the govt won’t let them because dealers got state legislatures to pass laws barring car companies from selling cars except through dealerships. Dealers did this to protect themselves from Henry Ford. Postwar recession in 1919 caused car sales in US to collapse. Most car companies stopped production for a few months. Not Ford. He kept his assembly plant operating, forcing dealers to take delivery of cars they couldn’t sell. If they didn’t, Ford would strip them of their franchise. In many small towns, the car dealer, even in 1919, is the biggest business. Lots of money and political clout. Every state soon passed laws denying car makers the right to sell cars except through franchised dealers and making it next to impossible for car companies to strip dealers of their franchises. I learned this from, of all people, Robert McNamara, the architect of Vietnam. I happened to meet him and we got to talking. At Ford in the 1950s half his time was spent fighting the dealers. He absolutely hated them and had Ford’s lawyers try to find ways around the franchise laws. Total failure. When he resigned the Ford presidency to become JFK’s secretary of defense, Ford continued to give him one new car every year for the rest of his life. Even that transaction needed to be run through a dealership.

  • CrystalEyes CrystalEyes on Feb 18, 2018

    Maybe they figured if they couldn't get the publicity from his endorsment, they could get it from a suing him instead. Just kidding. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law

  • Ige65815723 Oh, lookie, another EV fanatic disconnected from reality.The "reality" being the low fruit has been picked by Tesla. The market has little desire for EVs at 2X/3x the price of ICE and zero desire for EV trucks. To quote Fords CEO, sub $20k Chinese EVs are an "extinction level event" for the Big3.
  • 28-Cars-Later "“It’s a very serious offense,” Friedlander said. “It’s not a parking ticket, let’s put it that way.""Well if it doesn't involve jail time, what's the difference?
  • Syke Seriously looking at one for next spring (and I've pointedly NEVER owned a full-sized pickup). Pity I'll be trading in a Bolt.
  • Cprescott The truck was a deal when first launched. It is not a deal now and appears to be only good to be an urban cowboymobile instead of a serious truck based on range issues.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X It is a money losing venture. Like a country that is $35 trillion in debt and still able to give away tens of billions of dollars when asked.
Next