They're usually used by mining companies to hedge future market variance, and are not exclusive to Tesla either. On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well, mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it.
With demand pricing spiking for batteries, these lock ins are not very strong.
Agreed.
> On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well
Yes, but scale is important. My analysis at the time was that Tesla was locking in significantly more material behind contracts than Toyota or other companies.
> mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it.
This assumes the contract is written in such a way that Tesla does not have to consent to the contract being broken. My understanding was that Tesla was trying to get into as many contracts as they could without such clauses.
Source: More compliance trainings I can count and enough real life experience with monopolistic raw material suppliers to know that abusing market position to hirt competitors is a really bad idea.