Ford sues WWE star John Cena after he allegedly sold $460,000 sports car for cash

[Doctor Amadeus]

So many people have zero idea how contracts work. I believe Lamborghini and/or Ferrari do this for all/certain cars as well, it's a pretty shitty stipulation but hey, you signed it.

Here's a fun fact, if you sign a contract that says "... this document at this URL", the party can change that document at any time, and you inherit agreeing to it. Never sign a contract saying go to this URL to view the full terms.

That isn't true actually, companies can have you sign all sorts of shit that isn't actually enforceable, which is exactly why this is in court.

Wouldn't mind having $450.000 laying around

[melodramocracy]

So many people have zero idea how contracts work. I believe Lamborghini and/or Ferrari do this for all/certain cars as well, it's a pretty shitty stipulation but hey, you signed it.

Here's a fun fact, if you sign a contract that says "... this document at this URL", the party can change that document at any time, and you inherit agreeing to it. Never sign a contract saying go to this URL to view the full terms.

It's done for some vehicles from those companies, but the differences are fairly important.

Ferrari and other companies have exclusive lists where they get to handpick who owns the next new car. Much like what Ford is doing with the GT, the owners garage history is taken into consideration.

The difference is that 'breaking' whatever contract is in place simply gets someone blacklisted from having the opportunity to buy another new limited edition vehicle, a result that I'm fine with. One individual got blacklisted recently by Aston Martin for selling his spot in line for a Valkyrie to someone who hadn't been an 'approved' buyer. None of these manufacturers are claiming 'loss of brand value' in court when an owner decides to sell, especially when your brand is famous for the Pinto, and currently facing a class action lawsuit from GT350 owners for overheating transmissions.

Ferrari also has vehicles that are owned by people, but extent of it is that you go to a track, Ferrari unloads your car, you drive it, get out, and go home in something else. Those are not street legal cars to begin with, so once can see how that sense of ownership might be viewed a bit differently.

The last thing anyone with a clue should want is the the idea of limited ownership becoming common practice, or even gaining a foothold of acceptability in the auto world.

[Dug]

Leave my guy Cena alone

[Super Kami Dende]

?? did you read something I didn't or?

Moreso the joke just went far over your head.

Kind of a weird contract. But eh..

[Logwyn]

Moreso the joke just went far over your head.

Kind of a weird contract. But eh..

Someone out there would have bought the car for 1 million just because Cena drove it to get McDonalds.

[Hammerfest]

Well, if he broke an agreement then he broke an agreement. While this is bad, I wouldn't say it's as bad as anything Charlie Rose, Garrison Keilor or Al Franken have been accused of doing lately.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Yeah fuck it. All contracts should be null and void in a court of law. I mean they literally forced him to sign it at gun point.

Not all contracts are equal.

[Orange Joe]

Moreso the joke just went far over your head.

Kind of a weird contract. But eh..

My bad for not keeping up on all the internet memes.

Funny though you got more offended than the person I quoted.

[Minikin]

Hopefully Ford loses this case mightily. While certainly not the only one out there pulling this sort of shit, they have a track record of artificially keeping production numbers low in an effort to impact depreciation. They do this on the Mustang 350 / 350R's, and the GT as well.

Sorry, putting limits on ownership is not something that should be allowed to become common practice in the auto industry. Your car isn't a piece of goddamn software. When someone pays for it, it's theirs, the end. Switch your so called supercars over to lease-only, or shut the fuck up.

Though I agree with what you are saying, you are missing the point in what Ford is trying to do.

Ford with the GT has been trying to make a mark in the market that is normally the common place of higher end Ferraris, Paganis and such. This is a very European especially Italian dominated market. Ford is not the only one trying to do this, Acura with the NSX is trying to do so too (not via contract but my technology). For ages European manufacturers have held not just the power but the brand name market of upscale hyper luxury or performance cars. Ford by name alone cannot match ferrari. It is not possible when you can go down any road and see a Ford Escape, Ford Taurus, Ford Mustang and thus a Ford GT. So what they do is implement a system very like how Ferrari chooses its buyers.

Mind you, this is not for every Ferrari this is for their exclusive hypercars. For example the Ferrari California, or the 458 have no such restrictions. But the Enzo or the La Ferrari, it is not enough to simply have the money. The GT similarly, you have to match certain criteria. Further more then you are picked by the brand to receive it. You are not simply a car owner, you are almost a brand representative (using the term loosely).

John Cena knew this, hell every person who has the decency to call themselves a car guy has known this for more than at least 3 years. It was not simply contractural obligation it was more than that. And honestly, any car guy would totally understand why Ford is pissed off and honestly they would support Ford (me included). Ill explain why. Its not about coning someone into a contract, that is just the name of the game and realizing that is part of the processes. I as one, want the European monopoly on that part of the market to end. People do not buy American or Japanese cars simply because of brand snobbery yet many of these are well honed engineering machines. Acura, Nissan and now Ford are trying to break that, with the NSX, GTR and GT respectively. American muscle cars have been the butt of many jokes but starting performance cars like the corvette, hellcat followed up by a car like the GT is extremely good for business here.

Thus it is good that Ford is doing this, and I hope they made headway into this. If you look at the history of the GT, that car is as anti ferrari as lamborghini's inception was.

Which is why youll notice that the lawsuit doesnt just simply state, contractural issues, it specifies directly as "brand market loss". You will also notice that the amount hes being sued for is not some crazy exorbitant amount. They are simply trying to make their brand better and but American cars on the map again. I hope they succeed.

For most this wont be a thing, because 1. car guys are in the minority, 2. most people dont carry much love for people who populate this market and have made it the exclusive club it has become, but thats just how it goes. Either you become strong enough to own one and enjoy one (if that is your thing) or you dont.

My argument is that Cena's state of ownership of the vehicle should supercede the manufacturers ability to dictate what is or is not done with that item once they sell it. You certainly must know that plenty of signed contracts have been found not binding or overturned in courts of law. And those court decisions tend to be based on opinion as well, just as all laws are.

other manufacturers do it too. Top gear was not allowed to race the Mclaren P1, the La Ferrari and the Porsche 918, simply because Ferrari said that whoever would loan top gear their Ferrari for that test will forever be banned from owning another. Now as per top gear, they finally conducted the test because they found a guy who owned all three, had more money than he knew what to do with, and decided he doesnt give a rats ass about what Ferrari said.

Ford is not Ferrari though. Ford saying "youll never get a Ford again" is alot less powerful than "Youll never get a Ferrari" again.


In the end the automotive world is coming to a head. Mclaren and Porsche agreed to the test, Ferrari didnt. There is alot of hidden meaning in that. With american cars getting better and japanese cars making a mark the Eurpean brands are feeling the heat. Ford is working towards that goal, it just encountered an invisible speed bump.

[Super Kami Dende]

My bad for not keeping up on all the internet memes.

Funny though you got more offended than the person I quoted.

lolwut? How is saying you missed a joke me being offended lmao. I just felt like knocking your smugness down a bit.

Also, its not an internet meme.

[Minikin]

removed added to previous

[Sandraudiga]

Yeah fuck it. All contracts should be null and void in a court of law. I mean they literally forced him to sign it at gun point.

It's not quite the same thing, some contracts are not enforceable based on local laws. You can sign them without worry because the contract itself isn't in line with local/state/federal laws. I am not sure if this is the case here, but there are many places in the world where this would be the case.

[Xar226]

He agreed to the limits on ownership. He signed a contract not to sell the car for 2 years and you think Ford is to blame because they forced him to sign a contract [...] So you have no idea what contracts mean or have never signed a contract?

The fact that it exists in a contract does not make it legal. There are plenty of terms that courts will refuse to enforce. For example, California refuses to honor most post-employment non-compete clauses. It doesn't matter if you signed it 100 times with a notary sitting next to you and a retina scan to verify your identity -- it's a no-go. Illegal terms are always void (thus the term "void where prohibited" in so many legal texts). And all contracts are potentially void if there is no meeting of the minds or if the contract is wildly lopsided.

In this case, the question is one of the doctrine of unconscionability. What Ford is attempting to do is called a contract of adhesion, which is a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract where the other party has no ability to negotiate its terms. These contracts receive special scrutiny with regards to unconscionability because of their one-sided nature. The buyer in this case gets absolutely nothing of value from this contract term; indeed, the only reason they would possibly sign it is because the seller claims they have to, and the power differential in this situation, where Ford is the sole manufacturer of the product, is entirely on the seller's side. Those are all good evidence of unconscionability. We'll see whether or not a court chooses to enforce a contract provision giving up consumer rights in return for no discernible benefit, but things aren't nearly as simple as you make them out to be. I think he has an excellent case if he chooses to take it to court, though frankly it's probably cheaper not to bother.

[melodramocracy]

Though I agree with what you are saying, you are missing the point in what Ford is trying to do....

This is a good post. I agree with plenty of what you state here. I personally feel like Ford missed the boat entirely with the GT by trying to make it an next level -exclusive supercar rather than a direct competitor to the Corvette, a car they really don't have an answer for. While that may sound ludicrous in some sense, keep in mind that Chevy does (and has for a while) fielded the C7R in IMSA as well as showing at Le Mans, often competing very well against the new GT as well as all the other big hitters. The Corvette platform sells relatively well considering its limited use and price, and Ford could have gotten in on that action by lowering the price a bit, and simply making more of them.

I suppose we'll have to look back at what history thinks of them. The early 2000's Ford GT's are still very highly regarded, and held their value amazingly well without having to resort to such forced exclusion efforts, though even there demand outpaced production numbers early on.

Getting off topic here

In the end the automotive world is coming to a head. Mclaren and Porsche agreed to the test, Ferrari didnt. There is alot of hidden meaning in that.

I agree. It's always a bit suspect when mfr's don't allow scrutiny, or, for example, in some cases bother posting lap times. While it can be argued that a bit too much stock is put in such things, and variables outside of the realm of control can have a negative impact (weather, for example), it tends to be viewed that there's something to hide more than anything else.

[Nazrark]

I don't see how they can't enforce it. Ferrari does the same thing with their limited edition vehicles. You can't resell the Enzo, La Ferrari or FXX before a certain time frame. Even then you get put on a list of low priority for buying new Ferrari if you do sell them.

[Minikin]

This is a good post. I agree with plenty of what you state here. I personally feel like Ford missed the boat entirely with the GT by trying to make it an next level -exclusive supercar rather than a direct competitor to the Corvette, a car they really don't have an answer for. While that may sound ludicrous in some sense, keep in mind that Chevy does (and has for a while) fielded the C7R in IMSA as well as showing at Le Mans, often competing very well against the new GT as well as all the other big hitters. The Corvette platform sells relatively well considering its limited use and price, and Ford could have gotten in on that action by lowering the price a bit, and simply making more of them.

I suppose we'll have to look back at what history thinks of them. The early 2000's Ford GT's are still very highly regarded, and held their value amazingly well without having to resort to such forced exclusion efforts, though even there demand outpaced production numbers early on.

Getting off topic here




I agree. It's always a bit suspect when mfr's don't allow scrutiny, or, for example, in some cases bother posting lap times. While it can be argued that a bit too much stock is put in such things, and variables outside of the realm of control can have a negative impact (weather, for example), it tends to be viewed that there's something to hide more than anything else.

thank you for the kind words sir.

yea the corvette has always been one hell of a bargain, and honestly the only quibble people have used (in some cases very unfairly) is its lack of interior refinement, thus now the "politically" correct term is, performance bargain. I feel like ford aimed more for a little above the corvette with the GT though, by using the realm of exclusivity. It is now their halo car.

the original GT40 was built because of the slap in the face ferrari gave to ford, when they approached them for acquisition. Can you imagine? The prancing horse owned by the blue oval? What a world that would have made...

It is a media bit related because they twist stories. Now if one googles Ford GT, one of the first things that come up are "WWE Star sells Ford GT weeks after getting it". And just like that Ferrari bit refusing to compete, that media twist hurts a general home brand trying to take on a luxury behemoth with multiple hundereds of racing pedigree. Dont get me wrong, i love ferrari for the passion they deliver to the automotive world. Just a bit sad that the playing feild is now a little bit more uneven due to a media mishap.

Hopefully they recover and the upcoming mid engined corvette and the ford gt take the battle to the European authorities along with the NSX and the GTR.

edit: i just realized your avatar is "Godspeed you black emperor" I love those guys! Untold amount of hours spent studying with Moya and Antennas to heaven on repeat

[Deleted]

Tu turu tuuuuu

[Orange Joe]

lolwut? How is saying you missed a joke me being offended lmao. I just felt like knocking your smugness down a bit.

Also, its not an internet meme.

Yes. cause a question is being smug. Bolded part is you being offended. You were offended because you thought I was being "smug"


btw you haven't knocked anything down.

[Lochton]

My question is how they even found him to serve him his papers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-car-for-cash/

He signed a contract that he didn't follow, nothing more to say. Enjoy the time in court.

[AeneasBK]

No, I don't believe that a post-sale contractual agreement for limiting a vehicle's use should be actually be enforceable in court. Plain and simple.

No one forces you to sign the contract stating just that though.

I think if anyone has a problem with this they should buy their cars without said contract. /thread