Hacker News Reader

There are many precedence, Porsche being one. I’m sure their lawyers aren’t naive.

We want to ensure that cars are available to reach true enthusiasts, to be driven and enjoyed for years to come. For this reason, those allocated a 911 S/T in the US will be required to adhere to an agreed minimum retention period, set at one year

https://www.drive.com.au/news/porsche-stops-supercar-scalper...

View on HN

I'm not sure you read the article? The article states that Porsche solved this by treating the first year of ownership as a "lease" with ownership transferring to the buyer after 1 year.

Or in other words...no lawsuit...And no restrictions on resale, since leased property can't be sold by the lessee.

> their lawyers aren’t naive.

Lawyers, being very much not naive, knowingly write contracts that are unenforceable in court. They're ok with that because they know the majority of those who sign the contract assume it's legally enforceable and never challenge it.

No, they write it because they are confident they will prevail in court. They wouldn’t leave it to chance. That’d be naive. Why do you think nobody has successfully challenged Ferrari and Porsche? Scalping is very lucrative after all

Reply on news.ycombinator.com