DDP and SSP on Secondhand Purchase

[Babyrocko1908]

That sticker is not what the original buyer bought. What they bought was laid out in their sales agreement. This sticker shows what the options are, because the hardware exists in the car. It is not a bill of sale. It is a disclosure of hardware in the car. That is literally it.

The dealer who bought the car did not read or ask for the original sales agreement, and instead assumed that every option had been paid for. That is completely the dealer’s fault. When buying a car, you do your due diligence; check carfax, inspect it for mechanical and cosmetic issues, and so on. One of those things is also ensuring it isn’t stolen, has a free and clear title, and has the feature you think it does *and that they work.*

That is all the dealer’s job. They failed to do that here, and then sold the car after advertising it as having features it didn’t, due to a mistake they made.

I’m not sure how to make that any clearer.

Me either. I think folks just don't under what exactly the Monroney Label is.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Lucid owes you no other duty here. Your sales agreement is with the Chevy folks.

Exactly. That is the law. The label is a disclosure between the manufacturer and THE ORIGINAL OWNER.

 

[AustinAir]

That sticker is not what the original buyer bought. What they bought was laid out in their sales agreement. This sticker shows what the options are, because the hardware exists in the car. It is not a bill of sale. It is a disclosure of hardware in the car. That is literally it.

The dealer who bought the car did not read or ask for the original sales agreement, and instead assumed that every option had been paid for. That is completely the dealer’s fault. When buying a car, you do your due diligence; check carfax, inspect it for mechanical and cosmetic issues, and so on. One of those things is also ensuring it isn’t stolen, has a free and clear title, and has the feature you think it does *and that they work.*

That is all the dealer’s job. They failed to do that here, and then sold the car after advertising it as having features it didn’t, due to a mistake they made.

I’m not sure how to make that any clearer.

Was the sticker not the original sticker from the original buyer?

 

[Tâm]

...If the Monroney showed the car came with 21's but the previous owner swapped to 19's, is Lucid still liable?...

The original owner didn't disable the DDPRO an SSP. The dealer didn't either, Nor did the current buyer. The only one who did after the buyer took it home 2 weels was Lucid.

What I would be interested in knowing is when did the new owner take possession of the car? Was DDPRO and SSP active when he bought it, test drove it, etc.

The answer is in the post #1:

"About two weeks ago, I purchased a 2023 Lucid Air Touring 2nd hand, but it was practically new - only 370 miles."

"The features were working when I test drove the car and bought it, but fast forward to today - neither are working. "

This whole thing should be taken as a cautionary tale when purchasing a used car especially this one. Always do your due diligence before you sign on that dotted line.

Lucid must be transparent that DDPRO and SSP features are on a trial basis and the date that the payment must be made should be shown in the software menu in the car and the app.

Hiding that info is unethical.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Was the sticker not the original sticker from the original buyer?

Again, it doesn't matter!!!!!!!!!!! Lucid has no duty outside of warranty coverage to any subsequent buyers.

I find it interesting that folks who bought these cars used are still getting access to the free charging that Lucid, to my knowledge, hasn't shut off but are upset that they aren't keeping access to features they didn't pay for and didn't verify was paid for by the previous owners.

Next, Lucid has a team of Lawyers. They know what they're doing. They wouldn't allow the company this much legal exposure.

Finally, if you want access to the hardware disclosed on the Monroney Label, pay for it!

 

[Bobby]

The original owner didn't disable the DDPRO an SSP. The dealer didn't either, Nor did the current buyer. The only one who did after the buyer took it home 2 weels was Lucid.



The answer is in the post #1:

"About two weeks ago, I purchased a 2023 Lucid Air Touring 2nd hand, but it was practically new - only 370 miles."

"The features were working when I test drove the car and bought it, but fast forward to today - neither are working. "



Lucid must be transparent that DDPRO and SSP features are on a trial basis and the date that the payment must be made should be shown in the software menu in the car and the app.

Hiding that info is unethical.

It would be nice if Lucid would indicate directly on the pilot panel whether Dream Drive Pro and Surreal SoundPro are in trial mode or full mode. This would solve the problem.

 

[Tâm]

Was the sticker not the original sticker from the original buyer?

It doesn't matter where that sticker comes from. Lucid can reproduce you one today if needed.

The VIN is clearly printed on the sheet, no matter where it comes from.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Hey all -

About two weeks ago, I purchased a 2023 Lucid Air Touring 2nd hand, but it was practically new - only 370 miles. I was provided the original "sticker" from the dealership which sold it, which provided proof of all of the exterior/interiror/functional/safety and optional features. Most importantly, it was clear that Dream Drive Pro and Surreal Sound Pro was listed as an included optional feature that was paid for.

The features were working when I test drove the car and bought it, but fast forward to today - neither are working. I called Lucid Customer Care and they mentioned these were trial periods and it didn't appear that the original owner purchased them. I shared the original sticker with Lucid and they're looking it, but it's not guaranteed that I'll get these features.

Now obviously that's a big deal - I valued these features at $14K when I made the offer and both the sticker and the carfax indicated they were in there. But Lucid is telling me these weren't full features of the vehicle.

Has anyone encountered this before? I hope there is a simple way to verify these things (or that some signals got crossed at Lucid) because otherwise it calls into question the validity of selling these cars on the secondary market.

OMG, I almost bought this car. Yes, this car..... I walked. They gave me the creeps.

I spoke to them on phone several times but I did like the sales tactics: they told me they had another buyer who was going wire all the money for it "tomorrow" but the so-called,alleged mysterious buyer refused to put down ANY money for a deposit, so, they told me, if I wanted to buy it, I could. But I had to give a big deposit and right then and there. They wanted a deposit even before a proforma was sent. When I got the pro forma, loads of bizarre fees. Under all those circumstances, was not buying a $100k Lucid from Chevy dealer in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Tâm]

It would be nice if Lucid would indicate directly on the pilot panel whether Dream Drive Pro and Surreal SoundPro are in trial mode or full mode. This would solve the problem.

Free trial should not be "free." Owners would have to stare at the "free" trial message every time they get into the car!

 

[Bobby]

Free trial should not be "free." Owners would have to stare at the "free" trial message every time they get into the car!

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. If in the settings menu it said the status of the systems, trial (and an ending date) or full, it would clear up some of these questions.

 

[Tâm]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. If in the settings menu it said the status of the systems, trial (and an ending date) or full, it would clear up some of these questions.

Sorry. I misunderstood how some free music trials would constantly nag listeners to switch to paid subscriptions to get rid of the nag, and some software would show up the reminder that payment needs to be paid to get rid of the nag at each launch. That's a very annoying and heavy price for "free." Thus, I was thinking about a very intrusive nagging message on the pilot screen not exclusive to the software menu only but to each car start-up.

However, I agree that trial information in the car's software menu should suffice.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Lucid sold your vehicle to the previous owner not you. Other than warranty obligations, Lucid has no other obligations to you. Your issue with the dealer who sold you the car and frankly yourself for not double checking the Vin with Lucid prior to selling and your purchasing the car.

1. I am a business lawyer and what @Babyrocko1908 said is black letter law. Lucid was not a party to your transaction. Lucid has no idea what the first owner or dealer did to the car. Or removed, or broke, or modified. Other than Warranty, all contractual obligations, duties and implied covenants apply to the parties, not subsequent owners. Chevyland misrepresented the car, even if unintentionally done. It should have verified with Lucid. It hoped the Monroney was accurate. Hope is not a valid or legal strategy
2. I walked from the car because I could not get clear answers. .
3. At the exact same time as this transaction, I bought my 2023 AT from a well known MB dealer that took it in trade from a longstanding customer. Dealer was incredibly upfront. I had confidence.
4. I called Lucid and verified the options. Took minutes.
5. I called Lucid service and verified the service records. Took minutes. TIRE BUBBLES OF COURSE.....

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

This whole thing should be taken as a cautionary tale when purchasing a used car especially this one. Always do your due diligence before you sign on that dotted line.

Exactly.

 

[Tâm]

1. I am a business lawyer and what @Babyrocko1908 said is black letter law. Lucid was not a party to your transaction. Lucid has no idea what the first owner or dealer did to the car. Or removed, or broke, or modified. Other than Warranty, all contractual obligations, duties and implied covenants apply to the parties, not subsequent owners. Chevyland misrepresented the car, even if unintentionally done. It should have verified with Lucid. It hoped the Monroney was accurate. Hope is not a valid or legal strategy...

I am not a lawyer, but I watch lots of TV, and a repo man doesn't just break into a private fence and garage to repossess a car.

O.J. Simpson claimed that he was taking back the memorabilia that was stolen from him, but he ended up in jail because he didn't follow the legal process and he broke into the hotel room without permission instead.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

You really went a long way there to portray Lucid as a thief, didn’t you?

We have no idea what the deal is with this car. Because we don’t have the original sales agreement. That’s the only place where we could show with any clarity whether or not the pro features were paid for by the original owner.

If the dealer took the original owner on their word that they had paid for these features without verifying that fact via the sales agreement, they screwed up. If the new owner didn’t ask for the original sales agreement from the dealer, they screwed up. Lucid has zero motivation to lie about what features had been paid for by the original owner.

I do not believe a subsequent buyer's due diligence stops at getting the original sales contact. The subsequent buyer was not a party to that agreement. It's only a snapshot of the prior dealings with parties that the second owner has no privity of contract.

Maybe the original owner misrepresented the car to Chevy? I can see a clear possible cause of action there. Maybe Chevy should have done a lot more due diligence buying a virtually new car for $35k off of MSRP.

Moreover, we do not know what happened between the original seller (Lucid) and first buyer AFTER the original sales contract was executed.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I am not a lawyer, but I watch lots of TV

Thanks for sharing. I am a corporate lawyer, 40 years, and I don't watch much TV. (I do watch YouTubes on early rock concerts!).

Please understand that your argument, while passionate, turns 500 years of contract law on its head. I feel for the second buyer here. He may have been wronged. But not by Lucid. Could Lucid have done "better" here? Alleging Could have / should have is a great way to get laughed out of court.

My money for bad guy is the first owner. Purely a hunch. If those features have truly gone walkabout. When I called that dealer, I did not get a warm feeling - not as a lawyer, but as a used car buyer that understands caveat emptor.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Thanks for sharing. I am a corporate lawyer, 40 years, and I don't watch much TV. (I do watch YouTubes on early rock concerts!).

Please understand that your argument, while passionate, turns 500 years of contract law on its head. I feel for the second buyer here. He may have been wronged. But not by Lucid. Could Lucid have done "better" here? Alleging Could have / should have is a great way to get laughed out of court.

My money for bad guy is the first owner. Purely a hunch. If those features have truly gone walkabout. When I called that dealer, I did not get a warm feeling - not as a lawyer, but as a used car buyer that understands caveat emptor.

As a lawyer, I've been trying to keep my explanations as easy as possible for the non-lawyers here to understand. My day job involves developing policy and writing legislation. As such, I take every precaution I can to keep my terminology on this forum as simple as I can so a layman can understand it. With that said, reading your thoughtful analyses and breakdown of basic contract law has been rather refreshing.

 

[Genghis]

I am not a lawyer, but I watch lots of TV, and a repo man doesn't just break into a private fence and garage to repossess a car.

O.J. Simpson claimed that he was taking back the memorabilia that was stolen from him, but he ended up in jail because he didn't follow the legal process and he broke into the hotel room without permission instead.

But he did stay in at a Holiday Inn Express...
Sorry for the interruption on the topic, but I couldn't help myself.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

But he did stay in at a Holiday Inn Express...
Sorry for the interruption on the topic, but I couldn't help myself.

Often times when I read this forum, I can't figure out how cracks me up more you or @Cosmo Cruz

Let me goto bed!!

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Let me goto bed!!

My wife told me that if she sees me one more time posting replies to the forum at 2am, she is taking away my iPad.