If the original intent was to stop scalper (which I agree with), the agreement could have said “you’re not allowed to sell it for a profit. If you sell it at or below cost, you’re fine”.
Look back to the launch of the PS5 or the switch for a great example of what happens.
I get where you're coming from, but it's a morally bankrupt viewpoint, honestly. These kinds of actions are usually called profiteering, and while it works and is absolutely highly profitable, it's also easy to leave your humanity behind.
While this article (car) isn't quiet es problematic if scalped as it's essentially a luxury product, the argument you made to justify it would also apply to everything else, and that should tell you that the action itself is at the very least morally questionable.
The market price wouldn't go up like that if you did that. Other people would import food into the region for a much smaller margin than that, and you'd be left with nothing but empty pockets and a lot of spoiled food.
It's also a lot harder to pull of in today's hyperconnected world with easy travel between towns etc in the context of food, but the strategy works.
It's also easier to impose limits on purchase now, in the digital era. Both online and physical stores tend to have limits on in-demand items (not sure if these are imposed manually or automatically, based on demand), so you're unlikely to be able to purchase anything but a few % of the total available inventory, at least not without significant time investment and involving other people.
(Serious answer: yes, but only when supply can’t keep up with demand to avoid people with capital abuse their position to create artificial scarcity. Examples: Tickets from certain artists, some particular consumer goods, houses being bought out by insurance companies, etc)
If you don't like how anti-scalping provisions affect you, make sure the car fits in your garage.