Ford’s process for assigning the new Ford GT to customers has been among the most stringent in recent years. Many potential customers have been disappointed, some even frustrated by the company’s decision as to who gets an allocated build slot.

John Cena was one of those luck individuals chosen by Ford to receive a brand new 2017 Ford GT. The professional wrestler serves as an ambassador for Ford so it was never in any doubt that he would make the cut.

As part of the purchasing process for the new Ford GT, customers are made to sign various documents which incorporate terms known as the “Ford GT Application Program Terms and Conditions”. As part of the terms and conditions, Ford gets all owners to agree that they will retain the vehicle for 24 months.

Cena’s Ford GT was delivered in September to Elder Ford in Naples, Florida. Ford allege that some time afterwards, Cena sold the car a little more than a month later, making a profit on the transaction.

Ford allege that Cena’s breach of contract has caused it to suffer a loss of brand value, ambassador activity, and customer goodwill. It also claims fraud, innocent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Michigan manufacturer has basically thrown the book at Cena.

It’s thought that Cena doesn’t deny selling the car and has admitted that it was wrong to do so. He claims that he sold it to pay for bills, perhaps indicating that he has been suffering financial problems recently.

It will be interesting to see how the case develops. Ford isn’t the only company that restricts customer’s ability to sell on their purchase. Such a high profile case will undoubtedly set a precedent for what manufacturers can and can’t get away with.

Previous articleOfficial: Aria FXE Hybrid Supercar
Next articleSaleen S1 Sports Car Revealed in Los Angeles


  1. “[…] precedent for what manufacturers can and can’t get away with”
    You guys *really* missed the point here. If there are contracts (certainly within the limits of the law, as their lawyers are not stupid), then anything would be agreeable on – as simply keeping a car is. There’s probabaly (i’d have to read the contract to be certain) nothing illegal or sketchy about it, so what’s the point with the “get away with”? Like it or not, they are not the bad guys or the one to be blamed here, because they did their part of the deal while Cena didn’t.

    • Not the case, especially in consumer contracts. In the UK, there are cases (Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Limited (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) for example) that deal with some of the issues that surround re-selling etc. There is also a question as to whether the terms are fundamentally unfair. In the wider scheme of things there is an argument that such clauses serve to impose a minimum resale price – which is unlawful under EU law.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here