$7300 Final Price

[floydv]

Just remember that you're committing to purchasing an Elio at $7000 if and when the company begins producing them. This is not the same as an all-in $7000 nonrefundable deposit, which I get the sense some people are interpreting this as. Your potential loss has not increased from your current all-in deposit ($100, $500, $1000); if EM doesn't produce the Elio, your all-in deposit is all you lose, which we all understood when we committed to a non-refundable deposit. You are not $7000 out-of-pocket until you take delivery of an Elio.

 

[wizard of ahs]

I'm all-in for $100 and committed to purchase. If the ATVM loan comes through or other funding sources are confirmed, I'll upgrade that to $1k.

That might not be an option when they hit the magic 65000 mark !

 

[Johnny Acree]

If, nothing else, it confirms to EM and the DOE that you are alive and still want your Elio!

 

[Bert]

Committed, locked in, happy as heck, We're still moving forward! @18155

 

[Ekh]

BINDING agreement

How is Elio going to force purchasers to honor their binding agreements?

I get how some $1000 reservation holders have no problem with the binding agreement. They already took a leap of faith.

But some of us took a more conservative approach. (For example, I went all in with a nonrefundable deposit of $100 in July 2013.) I'm locked at the $7300. That's great; thank you Elio Motors! But an additional $300 discount might not be enough incentive to sign a $7000 binding agreement for us conservative types.

So I'll ask again, how is Elio going to force purchasers to honor their binding agreements? (I'm sure the ATVM Program would like to know too.)

Elio isn't going to force buyers to honor their commitments -- it would be impractical and expensive to do so. The point of the exercise is to be able to prove to DOE that Elio Motors could force delivery and collection. But it's not a real-world issue because we don't have to pay the money until Elio is ready to deliver a car!

So -- your non-refundable deposit was already a commitment, but it doesn't LOOK like a commitment, while actually signing a commitment form DOES look like a commitment (to the DOE) and saves you $300 bucks off the price of the car. This is the government -- they imagine that all those thousands of people making non-refundable deposits are prepared to walk away from the money when Elio finally hits the streets. Some may, of course, but we all know that will be a tiny minority.

People who have made non-refundable deposits truly WANT this car ... making it a formal commitment shouldn't give any of us heartburn, and will save us money in the long run.

 

[Ekh]

I agree. I'm all in a $1000 and invested $1000 of stock. $300 is not all remotely enough to entice me to sign a binding agreement the way it is currently written.

I would only sign a binding agreement if there was an out date or production date set in stone. I know that is not realistic to set the production date in stone. But his latest offer is huge risk on the buyers part with no risk on his part with a tiny reward.

But as Paul says, he can get funding elsewhere, so I'm at the point where I would like to see him get that funding elsewhere. I will not sign a binding agreement and then be forced to receive a car in 2019 when I may have no need for it or God forbid, some reason I am no longer in a position to pay for it.

JNR -- I don't get it. Why are you risking anything more than you've already paid in? Elio can't collect if they don't deliver a car. The commitment runs in both directions, obviously.

 

[Ekh]

My take on all of this...

Do you see how so many people are hesitant to sign this commitment, even though they have already put non-refundable money on the line? This proves why the DOE wants these commitments before they commit to giving Elio Motors a loan. If enough reservationists have faith in the company to sign this ambiguous "commitment" to purchase, then the DOE can feel confident to grant Elio Motors an ATVM loan authorization.

It is a measurement of our faith, really. Do you remember the Reg A+ campaign? $48 Million pledged, but only $17 Million actually paid money when the rubber hit the road. I think the DOE wants to avoid a similar result, and so is asking for an additional level of commitment. Seems fair to me.

Good logic, Seth. I think Elio needs to do a better job of explaining what "commitment" means, and what the obligations are on both sides. Yes, I do see the reluctance of people to sign on the line. But it's not a commitment to pay in money UNLESS the car is forthcoming. No car = no money collection = no problem for the consumer.

 

[NSTG8R]

Just trying to live up to my screen name one sarcastic comment at a time.
Then again had it not been for the [NOT] comment, the newer guys/gals on the forum would've gang up on me like I was a troll.
[...tearing up with pride just thinking about it.]

 

[slinches]

That might not be an option when they hit the magic 65000 mark !

I think they just meant that the $7300 locked in price will be cut off after they hit 65k reservations. Anyone with an all-in reservation should still be able to upgrade after that since it's just modifying that existing agreement.

 

[LillyMayPatterson #1685 & #5648]

Oh, But what if it is a glorified moped or something? I can't believe I read and copied that, lol. Ya know, we had faith in this project years ago when we put our deposits down. No reason to loose it now.