WNKent
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Kent
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Threads
- 19
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 244
- Location
- Santa Clara, CA
- Vehicles
- MME CR1 4X
- Occupation
- Airline
- Thread starter
- #1
Sponsored
Yup, but it might be a good reminder.Yup, it was discussed back in January.
https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...ghtning-reservation-holders.13083/post-317900
They have in the past with the GT40, now whether the Lightning is worth the hassle for them is open for debateIn the end it would be a legal battle either way and I doubt Ford would pony up the resources to fight it.
This is a joke, i.e. not happening.Yup, but it might be a good reminder.
No, not the same.They have in the past with the GT40, now whether the Lightning is worth the hassle for them is open for debate
Indeed, very different. Exotic manufacturers do this with highly-desirable allocations as well. And the manufacturers typically don’t take people to court, they just disallow any future allocations to the customer, and sometimes the dealer depending on the facts and circumstances. They do it not to keep people from making money, but to protect the exclusivity of the brand.No, not the same.
Ford Motor Company restricted the resales of GT40s.
Ford Motor Company is SUGGESTING that DEALERSHIPS can insert language in their contracts.
This is NOT the same thing.