New Ford GT

It's pretty amazing to me that people still can't understand the scenario. Ford has 3,000+ dealers that would like to have the car sitting on their showroom marked at $2.5 million for the next decade. Instead, the cars have been sold through the dealers at MSRP to specific consumers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or maybe it does) to figure out why they need to pursue it, regardless of outcome.

If someone signs an affidavit that is subsequently notarized saying they understand they cannot sell it for a specific period of time, then signs it again on their order sheet, they are intentionally breaching that agreement when they sell it within a week. If he suddenly went catastrophically broke, he could have gotten his $463,376.50 back from Ford directly. Gee, wonder why he didn't. At the end of the day, Cena sold the car purely because he got 4x the MSRP.

Good precedent that even in the best case scenario if you renege on your end of the deal, you will be getting dragged through the mud. Don't worry, more to come.

 

The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about.

 

I was afraid this comment was taken.

 

Here is a link to Ford's law suit:

https://www.scribd.com/document/366036207/Cena-Lawsuit?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=33330X911653Xa621dbbcc2931a88c192f3933f247e9c&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed

I find it interesting two groups of words in Ford's claim: "Ford's approval" and "unlawful re-sale above MSRP." There are attachments that outline how Mr. Cena's car was ordered and also a copy of the signed Affidavit and Release. Unfortunately, the attachments are posted 90 degrees to horizontal so my neck started hurting to see exactly the words Mr. Cena violated. The suit is for breach of contract and knowingly deceiving Ford into selecting his application.

 

whether or not they have a legal case, this a) makes Ford look like a bunch of whiny litigious losers, and b) proves that their ridiculous allocation scheme didn't work after all.

shame we're focusing on this nonsense and not the car, which should speak for itself.

 

Yes, very litigious to have a written, signed and notarized agreement between two parties expected to be honored. Not a complicated scenario. If you don't like the terms of the deal you agreed to, don't agree to it. Talk about losers.

At the least, there's a lot of great evidence on the net today about who you should never do business with, because their expectation is that any and all agreements they've made in the past are subject to change based on how they feel about them today.

 

Honoring an agreement. What a quaint notion.

 

I'm split on this. I think it's shady for Cena to do this and is wrong, but I also can't help but think this is karma for Ford for shutting out true loyal fans and enthusiasts.

I've said it before regarding Ferrari supercars, but the only way to prevent flippers is to make the cars lease-only vehicles like the F50 and LFA were. They belong to the company and not leasee and they can be made non-transferable.

 

I truly don't understand this train of thought. Not trying to be humble but I'm not famous, not a internet blabber mouth, not a loaded oil sheikh, superstar ath or movie star. Just a everyday Joe that bought a new '05, loved it, still own it and drive it and was awarded NFGT. I'm also not unique. I know at least 75, yes 75 just like me.

 

everyone called Preston Henn (RIP) a loser for suing Ferrari over not getting a LaFa Aperta. this is the opposite situation

if Ford didn't want to lose out on the additional profit, a better course of action would have been to raise the MSRP, and sell them to known collectors/enthusiasts and not guys with YouTube channels.

 

The whole sales process for this car was absurd and in poor taste. Sell the f-ing car at a price you can get to as many people that want it. Produce 500 a year indefinitely.

 

Except Preston didn’t have a contract signed by Ferrari promising to sell him a car. Except Cena signed multiple, binding contractually documents promising not to do exactly what he did mere weeks after taking delivery. Other than those minor details, I guess the situations are analagous in the sense they each involve a lawsuit and a car.

I’m sure you were joking, but seriously, Ford
took exactly the action it should have taken.

 

This is not the opposite situation. At all. Did Ferrari have a signed, written agreement with Henn that they would sell him an Aperta and then not do it? I must have missed that part. Ford had a written and signed agreement with Cena that he would buy the car and keep it for two years. He did not. End of story. People who argue that "oh well who ever follows that kind of deal" are liars with a total lack of integrity.

Ford doesn't care about additional profit. Again, you have to be very slow to think that's the point here.

Also, I'd like you to directly address the following using facts and figures, not generalities. Your last argument is a specious one.

A) Cena is the owner of a 2006 Ford GT, as were roughly 70% of the other people who received new Ford GT allocation.
B) Cena has a large car collection and is a well-known car enthusiast
C) Cena was also slated to appear at an upcoming event as an ambassador for Ford Motor Company

So now that we've especially that Cena is, in your words, a "known collector and enthusiast," and that he has been the long-time owner of an original 2006 Ford GT (which was the PRIMARY and OVERRIDING criteria to receive a new Ford GT), I'd like you to please list me a dozen people who got the car on the basis of a YouTube channel out of the 750 people awarded cars.

Alternatively, you can save yourself the time and not bother trying because you won't be able to.

 

if Ford doesn't care about additional profit, why are they suing him to collect it.




btw the ad hominem personal attack you made towards me are violations of this site's ToU. knock it off.

 

Do you really need me to explain the first part?

What ad hominem personal attack?

 

Seriously, this isn’t obvious to you? If Ford was concerned about the additional profits, they would’ve charged a million dollars for the car. They are concerned about the integrity of the entire process. They are suing to discourage dishonest people from breaching their unambiguous agreement.

I’m really not sure what’s difficult to understand here.

 

Not gonna address the YouTube star thing? Wonder why...

 

if Ford isn't interested in the additional profits from Cena selling his car, why is it mentioned multiple times in their lawsuit? why are they attempting to recover that profit through their lawsuit?

why would I continue to argue a point with you when you've already claimed there is no answer that will convince you?

 

You should do your best to try. That is unless you've realized that your argument was completely without merit based on specific, factual information?

 

BINGO!

Ferrari has some kind of power over flipping. It can, if it wants to, ban people from getting another new car.

What's Ford going to do?

Once this flipping starts on the Ford GT you'll see it all over the place. That is what Ford is trying to prevent in the law suit. If one guy gets away with it the speculators will run wild on the rest of the allocation.

 

Because the recovery of damages has the necessary deterrent effect and, as such, has been a hallmark of our civil justice system since its creation.

If you are told not to do something and there are no penalties for noncompliance, you will assess the situation one way. If you are told not to do something and the penalty is someone reaching into your wallet grabbing a huge wad of cash, you will assess the situation differently.

 

The ridiculous allocation scheme worked for me. I’m getting a car for MSRP.

 

congrats. it's an amazing car.

 

Please provide link to your YouTube channel.

 

Yeah, about that. Nada social media except being a FGT homer on this forum and yours. In fact, I think social media is the work of the Devil. Ha