Read the articles I posted above. The dealers get fined and can lose allocation.

 

@_Allegedly Thanks for those two articles. That first one is PURE prose. I hope that writer earns a million from writing alone. I will forever remember "hotter than two hamsters farting in a sock". That guy is a literary genius! Also, I get the "no export" exactly for those reasons. It's the part where they put their name on the title for the first 18 mos for a first right of refusal that sticks in my throat like too much brisket. Ok, I'll never be the writer he is...

 

@clubguy - There are two parts of this particular agreement. I'll call it "No Export" and "1st Right Refusal".

"No Export" part should cover the China scenario. I agree with the "what should they care, they made their money" philosophy. I know in technology there are all sorts of export rules and can just imagine how much of this is JLR vs. Local Dealer Dude (LDD). For the "No Export" clause, I'm just a consumer who holds onto vehicles Way Too Long. I subscribe to the "Drive the **** Out of Them" theory. My first LR was a 1964 Series IIA '88. I spent 3 years doing a complete frame up restoration on it. There is NO WAY I will spend that much time on the 2022 nor does my backyard garage have the tech of a Star Trek engineering room to accomplish it anymore. I will drive it until it is not economical to which I hope is well after warranty! We'll see...

"1st Right of Refusal" I'm bipolar on. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read it - its up to me to set a price. If BillyBob wants to pay $100 for it and LDD will also pay $100, fine. I trust LDD's check won't bounce. (Ask me about the stripper who bought my 4x4 Sportsmobile Van one day and payed me in a Crown Royal bag full of $10's and $20's!! Technically, it was her band boyfriend, but she had the cash.) The part I would have REALLY liked to know before hand was that they put their name on the title. Again it's not a show stopper, but I would have shopped Dealers on that one just because of the future potential for a PIA. (Translation - Pain in the Aftside).

 

The version I was taught by a true Southern Gentleman called Claude Lamure Westbrook was, "hotter than two rats fu***** in a wool sock" but I do understand the need to clean it up for a respectable publication.

 

This thing becomes a contract, when both parties sign it.
It takes 2 to tango.
However, how enforceable it is in the court of law ? No idea. It may vary from state to state, and how good of a lawyer ones have, and how much JLR wants bad publicity. Basically 2 parties can sign a contract on a lot of crazy things and some times, it may stand as a contract.
If I would want this car so bad, I would probably work around this issue in several ways: (a) finance it through my credit union / bank - no bank in the world would go with this clause (b) lease it, and then turn around the next day and buy it.
On a lease agreement the ONLY one on the title is the Bank ( Chase in the case of JLR).
Now, to export a car in China, and make a ton of money in the process ? Yeah, it may be a one time deal. Maybe ...
Think for a second: how many people do you know doing these deals with China , or even Russia .... or whomever? Not read on the internet, or from the cousin of the sister's boy friend ?
I seriously doubt that this is the real reason why they put this clause in front of you.
What I think it is? with such a shortage of desirable vehicles, that dealership want to make sure that they will get even more profit, if someone want to sell that vehicle, while it is still new(ish).
Let's be honest : lots of ppl do not deal with eBay, or even CarMax. They go to the dealer, trade it (sell it) and get a new(er) car.
The thing is, they don't want you to go to the OTHER dealer, to sell it.... they want you as a residual income, if possible.
The only problem that I see here, sums up to: what's in it for me ? what do I gain ? Because I am still paying premium for that car....
But then again, this is just my 2 cents.

 

Without reading the entire document/agreement it is difficult to draw any conclusions from this thread.

The third paragraph baffles me. It reads:So, let's say you accept the terms, sign the agreement and take the vehicle home with you. Then, one week later, you decide to sell. You go to the dealer to let them know. The dealer then makes you an offer--let's say 75% of the original purchase price. What do you do? Well I would think you reject the offer, because the last paragraph states that the dealership's name will then be removed from the title within 30 days. You're good to go. You could then put the car on eBay and try selling it for 25% over purchase price.

As I said, can't tell from just a snippet of the agreement what this is really all about. My wife is a lawyer, so if I am asked to sign a similar agreement I will pass it on to my attorney for review first...

 

@TheMoke - Handing over important docs to your spouse for review is ALWAYS a wise thing (regardless of legal education). That's how I read it. In fact, I don't think you need to accept the offer even if it is 125% of the current offer! As others have stated in the thread, nothing prevents you from doing business. They just have to have right of first refusal. I'll try to scan the entire thing and "white-out" the personal details. Stay tuned.

 

 

I had to sign the same thing. They said they have had issues with Saudis exporting them. I figured it was common in Houston because of the oil industry.

 

Resurrecting old thread as we've just moved to Houston. Long time time Landie/Range owners. Time has come to replace our 2020 Range Rover HSE with a new one (we buy new and keep for 4 years). Went to local Houston dealer (last one was bought from our then local California dealer). As a precondition to placing our order was given one of these "Agreements not to export and security agreements". We are both lawyers - the agreement we were given says (1) that if in any way (even if, for example, after it is stolen from us) the car ends up outside the US then we owe 18% and all attorneys fees/other costs (2) we give LR Houston Nth a 12 month right of repurchase - while we can accept/reject that offer we still have to deal with (3) LR Houston Nth has a lien on our title. BTW the car would be in our name, no other lien involved.

So leaving aside the risk the car is stolen and exported and we are required to pay a big check for something we did not do, even in the way we keep our cars, we still would need to go back to LR Houston Nth after 12months to get their name removed from our title.
Firstly never seen this before from any car purchase (including our prior Ranges) and while I'd be ok with giving an obligation that we will not export the car, the rest of the terms are not acceptable to us. And the dealer is not prepared to alter the document to be a simple no-export obligation.

Is this common in 2024? Is it it just Texas? Were we unlucky with the first dealer? Do folks just accept this?