The current NON-REFUNDABLE RESERVATION AGREEMENT reflects the ATVM requirements of both a fixed price to which people must agree, and the “binding commitment” wording. Paragraph 2 currently says:
“2. Nature of Agreement; Non-Refundable Reservation Payment
The Reservation Payment is NON-REFUNDABLE and provides you with the benefits in Section 4 below depending on the level of your payment. This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and does not lock in a production slot or an estimated delivery date. If this non-refundable reservation is among the first 65,000 reservations (both refundable and non-refundable), a base price of $7,300 is locked in. Unless you specifically opt to make this a binding commitment, you are under no obligation to purchase a vehicle from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a vehicle. If and when we notify you of the availability of the vehicle and you wish to proceed with the purchase, such sale and purchase will be governed by a separate and legally binding Purchase Agreement between you and us or between you and another authorized dealer (Elio). In the event a purchase is made, your Reservation Payment plus a bonus equal to 25% of the payment will be credited against the purchase price.
The option to make this a binding commitment is offered if your non-refundable reservation is among the first 65,000 non-refundable reservations. If a binding commitment is made, the base price shall be further reduced to $7,000.”
This paragraph is contradictory (and thus would probably not hold up in court). It talks about a binding agreement and then it talks about a separate and legally binding Purchase Agreement between us and EM. The contradiction comes from having to add the "binding agreement" wording in order to satisfy the ATVM people. Remove it and it makes sense. (I do not have a copy of the old version (to which we agreed) to compare.)
The ATVM rules were changed in June and EM may be the first organization having to abide by them. This is probably a first for ATVM people also. EM is forced to add wording only to appease ATVM. Future applicants for this loan will have "binding agreement" wording and a fixed price in their documents from the beginning. EM is having to change their documents mid-stream. (Nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game!)
I believe EM intentions regarding the agreement is the same as it has always been, they simply are trying to appease ATVM. We can blame ATVM for the confusion, not EM.
Note: Has anyone noticed EM seems to be the first in just about everything?
“2. Nature of Agreement; Non-Refundable Reservation Payment
The Reservation Payment is NON-REFUNDABLE and provides you with the benefits in Section 4 below depending on the level of your payment. This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and does not lock in a production slot or an estimated delivery date. If this non-refundable reservation is among the first 65,000 reservations (both refundable and non-refundable), a base price of $7,300 is locked in. Unless you specifically opt to make this a binding commitment, you are under no obligation to purchase a vehicle from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a vehicle. If and when we notify you of the availability of the vehicle and you wish to proceed with the purchase, such sale and purchase will be governed by a separate and legally binding Purchase Agreement between you and us or between you and another authorized dealer (Elio). In the event a purchase is made, your Reservation Payment plus a bonus equal to 25% of the payment will be credited against the purchase price.
The option to make this a binding commitment is offered if your non-refundable reservation is among the first 65,000 non-refundable reservations. If a binding commitment is made, the base price shall be further reduced to $7,000.”
This paragraph is contradictory (and thus would probably not hold up in court). It talks about a binding agreement and then it talks about a separate and legally binding Purchase Agreement between us and EM. The contradiction comes from having to add the "binding agreement" wording in order to satisfy the ATVM people. Remove it and it makes sense. (I do not have a copy of the old version (to which we agreed) to compare.)
The ATVM rules were changed in June and EM may be the first organization having to abide by them. This is probably a first for ATVM people also. EM is forced to add wording only to appease ATVM. Future applicants for this loan will have "binding agreement" wording and a fixed price in their documents from the beginning. EM is having to change their documents mid-stream. (Nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game!)
I believe EM intentions regarding the agreement is the same as it has always been, they simply are trying to appease ATVM. We can blame ATVM for the confusion, not EM.
Note: Has anyone noticed EM seems to be the first in just about everything?
