spyderqueen:

deathcomes4u:

frommetrunui:

frommetrunui:

scaliefox:

post-office-box-847:

scaliefox:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:

This is a serious issue though.

Ferrai has this bullshit agreement that if you buy one of their cars new off the lot, you have to sign a contract saying you basically don’t own the car and have to uphold their brand standards with it.

It’s sets a startling example of not owning something despite buying it and the court needs to use this as a chance to strike it down as unethical.

This shit again? And I thought it was bad enough with ford and john deer telling farmers they didn’t own the tractors they bought from them….

Yeah, they have this really unethical clause in the purchase contract you can’t modify the car or do anything with it that they’d consider “unbecoming of the brand”, which is why they were able file this suit.

It seems kind of bizarre at first until you realize how horrifying that is in the age of “do you own what you buy?” being a huge a debate (especially in tech).

This is pretty much Ferrari’s philosophy from the start, they are extremely prideful of their cars like if they were made from God’s hands or something. They are very snobby, infact the owner of Ferrari doesn’t like the people who buy their cars since because they are bought for “status”. They also never test their cars on public tracks in comparison with other racing cars like when they wanted to test out the Porche 918 Spyder vs The McLaren P1 vs LaFerrari. Take a guess who bailed out on the performance test.

Just an update

Lambo are the perfect people to jump in on this because they make insane cars and they are never above clowning them up because Lambo are all about THE DRAMA ™

Considering automobiling legend says Lamborghini basically is a result of Ferrari being kind of an asshole to Ferruccio Lamborghini, it does not surprise me that they weighed in on this.