Our Supreme Court famously applied this to inkjet cartridges, saying a printer maker can't take punitive action against you for refilling them: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1189
Ferrari terminated the franchise agreement for the Wynn Las Vegas Ferrari dealership because Steve Wynn sold his LaFerrari before the 2 year window was up.
They famously blacklisted Top Gear for revealing that Ferrari was 'cheating' in their evaluations by arriving with an army of technicians and tuning the car to the Top Gear test track before allowing TG to review it, and delivering the car with tires much stickier than they came from the factory and so on. Every other journalist was gladly hiding all this bullshit because they didn't want to lose access to press cars.
Top Gear hosts said "if you happen to have one of the ____ models and would let us drive it, let us know" during an episode and someone took them up on it.
Ferrari blacklisted the owner for doing so.
I can't say I'm very familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't see anything that obviously does so glancing through it. There is some stuff about "sale or return" that I think is the distributors/wholesalers vs normal sale distinction that you're making, but nothing there seems relevant to this sort of clause.
"The right of alienation is one of the essential incidents of a right of general property in movables, and restraints upon alienation have been generally regarded as obnoxious to public policy [and have] been generally held void." -Miles Medical. v. Park
I can't point you to a specific code that prohibits this because it depends entirely on what grounds Tesla would claim the right to impose such restrictions. For example if they claim that parts of the Cybertruck are patented, the exhaustion doctrine would apply. From Wikipedia: "once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are said to be 'exhausted,' and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. However, under the repair and reconstruction doctrine, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew"
Thanks for the citation. It seems to be
1. A case prohibiting this sort of clause when selling to distributors while previously you claimed this sort of clause was only valid when selling to distributors. So I'm left wondering what the basis was for your previous post.
2. Overturned by Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. Which instead introduces a "rule of reason" based approach for determining whether or not a contraint on resale is anticompetitive and prohibited.
3. Miles, and Leegin, both seem to be about manufacturers attempting to impose a minimum price on their goods. Tesla, strangely, instead seems to be attempting to impose a maximum price (hence the right of first refusal at a pre-defined price). As such the dicta in Leegin seems to suggest to me that attempting to impose a maximum price wouldn't violate the "rule of reason", but potentially only because it wasn't something the court considered at all, so it might violate another ruling.
When this is litigated it will no doubt be complex and touch many areas of IP law, antitrust laws, UCC, and contract law. The contract law angle is interesting because of good faith and fair dealing, which you could make the argument that resale of the vehicle is not material to the purpose of the transaction.
I'd also love to see this blow up in Tesla's face when a lienholder takes possession of a Cybertruck and sells it at auction.