Cybertruck owner says he's stuck with a vehicle that's too big for his parking spot, and Tesla won't let him return or resell it

• A Tesla owner ordered a Cybertruck and said he later realized it didn't comfortably fit in his new apartment complex.

• The Tesla dealership refused to buy back the vehicle or let him resell it.

• The dealership cited a no reseller policy and a one-year sale prohibition in the purchase contract.

Blaine Raddon watched the Cybertruck launch while he was with his wife in Bali — and he didn't waste any time when placing his preorder for the vehicle.

Raddon finally received his truck a few weeks ago. Last week, he posted on X, formerly Twitter, that he wants to return it, but Tesla isn't willing to buy it back or let him resell it.

That's because there's a Cybertruck-specific portion of Tesla's Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, which Raddon signed when taking delivery, which states that he can't resell the vehicle for one year. If the contract is disregarded, Tesla says it can sue for up to $50,000 in damages, "or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater." Tesla can also refuse to sell the owner future vehicles, the agreement said.

Since ordering the vehicle, Raddon's living circumstances have changed, he told Business Insider. He said that he and his wife separated and he's since moved into a new apartment complex, and his new Cybertruck doesn't fit comfortably in its parking space.

Raddon, who owned multiple Teslas prior to the Cybertruck, said he didn't give much thought to whether the Cybertruck would fit in the new space.

However, upon its arrival, he told BI that he realized the Cybertruck was "so much bigger" than expected, and he had to make a four-point turn to navigate it into the parking spot. He also said he struggles to get in and out of the truck with the amount of space he has on each side.

Raddon reached out to the Tesla dealership manager in Salt Lake City over email on May 22 and said he wanted to return the truck. BI reviewed the email exchange.

The written request didn't include details about his changed circumstances but referenced a conversation that happened in person with the Tesla dealership manager. Raddon said he told the manager directly that the Cybertruck was bigger than he expected and asked for one of four solutions: reverse the transaction, trade in the Cybertruck for a new sedan, sell it back to Tesla, or authorize him to sell it without a profit or mark-up.

The Tesla dealership manager sent a response on May 23, disagreeing that Raddon's reasoning "warrants an unforeseen circumstance that would trigger Tesla's purchase" of his Cybertruck. He also said Raddon is bound by the one-year prohibition to selling his Cybertruck privately.

The manager cited the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement with Tesla's "no resellers" policy for the Cybertruck. While the contract states that Tesla can make an exception if an unexpected situation forces an owner to sell it within that year, that can only occur if Tesla grants permission after accepting an owner's written request.

If granted, the owner would receive back the amount of the original purchase price minus a deduction of 25 cents per mile driven, reasonable wear and tear costs, and any repairs needed to meet Tesla's used car standards.

The manager at Tesla's Salt Lake City dealership did not respond to BI's request for comment ahead of publication.

Raddon responded to the email with a lengthier written explanation, detailing that when he purchased the Cybertruck, he lived in a single-family residence and has since moved out of state. He also emphasized that he wasn't trying to make a profit and understood that if Tesla repurchased his vehicle, he would suffer some loss from the original amount he paid.

"I am trying to remedy an unfortunate circumstance that the Cybertruck is not manageable in my living situation," Raddon said in the email response.

"Making me keep a truck that does not fit my circumstances appears to be unfair and not at all the spirit of the no sale language in the contract," he added in the note.

Raddon told BI that he's a rule-follower and he doesn't plan to go against Tesla's verdict on the matter or hire a lawyer to dispute the decision. He also said his building is okay with him keeping the vehicle there, but they won't be held liable if the truck gets damaged by another car while protruding from the parking spot.

Tesla did not respond a request for comment.

A week after sending his longer note to Tesla in an attempt to appeal the decision, Raddon said he's still waiting for a response.

Read the original article on Business Insider