John Cena Ready to Take Ford to the Mat Over Supercar Contract

by Matt Posky

Published: February 15th, 2018

john cena ready to take ford to the mat over supercar contract

Late last year, Ford Motor Company decided to sue professional wrestler and actor John Cena after he decided to sell his GT supercar. Hoping to keep ownership of the vehicle exclusive, the automaker included a clause in the ownership contract that expressly forbade anyone from selling it within two years of taking delivery. Cena decided to flip the vehicle early, causing Ford to go after him in the courts on breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

His position appeared to be indefensible. Ford’s lawsuit even alleges that John apologized after the automaker took him to task, saying, “I completely understand and as stated am willing to work with you and Ford to make it right.”

However, the winds may have shifted in his favor. Cena is reportedly asking the judge in the case to throw out the lawsuit on the grounds that his contract never included the clause that forbid resale within the first 24 months of ownership.

“Ford’s action rests entirely on an alleged resale restriction that Ford failed to have its dealer incorporate in the dealer’s sales agreement,” the dismissal motion reads. “Ford failed to cause its selling dealer to include any resale restriction, so Ford has no claim.”

That assertion may be accurate. Instead of of a signed contract that includes the clause, Ford’s keystone evidence appears to be a screenshot of an online agreement referencing the two-year retention clause. However the automaker’s filing later mentions a signed a Ford GT order confirmation where he agreed “By signing this Order Confirmation Form you are verifying the following: … (B) You understand that being selected for the opportunity to purchase this vehicle is non-transferable and agree not to sell the vehicle within the first 24 months of delivery.”

However, Cena’s legal team claims Ford failed to mention that Ford tasked the selling dealer to establish the “purchase price and all other terms of sale.” Apparently, that includes those resale restrictions stipulated by Ford — which the dealer doesn’t appear to have included in the final contract.

One aspect both sides appear to agree on is Cena being chosen specifically due to an almost-promise he made that he would promote the vehicle and the brand. Ford allowed him to purchase the limited-production model after he filed an application that included photos and video of himself promoting high-end cars and his assurance that the GT would go “to an owner who truly deserved it and would care properly for the car.”

While Cena did post a video of himself praising the car on the Bella Twins YouTube channel after taking ownership of the model, he sold the car a few weeks later. The lawsuit claims it was done so he could liquidate it for cash “to take care of expenses.”

Ford is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and wants to buy back the GT for Cena’s original purchasing price, minus whatever profit he made from it when it was sold. Cena is asking to have the case thrown out.

[Image: Bella Twins via YouTube]

#Celebrities #Ford #FordGT #FordMotorCo #HotLegalAction #JohnCena #Lawsuits #LegalWoes #Supercars

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 27 comments

Jalop1991 on Feb 15, 2018

So, let me get this straight: Ford doesn't want to sell cars directly to the public, except when they do.

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- Arach on Feb 16, 2018
  
  On the contrary... Ford is dying to sell cars direct to the public, but the gov't won't let them, so they try to ind every conceivable way to bypass the law!
  
  Like
- Cash on Feb 17, 2018
  
  @arach And the govt won’t let them because dealers got state legislatures to pass laws barring car companies from selling cars except through dealerships. Dealers did this to protect themselves from Henry Ford. Postwar recession in 1919 caused car sales in US to collapse. Most car companies stopped production for a few months. Not Ford. He kept his assembly plant operating, forcing dealers to take delivery of cars they couldn’t sell. If they didn’t, Ford would strip them of their franchise. In many small towns, the car dealer, even in 1919, is the biggest business. Lots of money and political clout. Every state soon passed laws denying car makers the right to sell cars except through franchised dealers and making it next to impossible for car companies to strip dealers of their franchises. I learned this from, of all people, Robert McNamara, the architect of Vietnam. I happened to meet him and we got to talking. At Ford in the 1950s half his time was spent fighting the dealers. He absolutely hated them and had Ford’s lawyers try to find ways around the franchise laws. Total failure. When he resigned the Ford presidency to become JFK’s secretary of defense, Ford continued to give him one new car every year for the rest of his life. Even that transaction needed to be run through a dealership.
  
  Like
CrystalEyes on Feb 18, 2018

Maybe they figured if they couldn't get the publicity from his endorsment, they could get it from a suing him instead. Just kidding. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.