That should be illegal. Sounds like a very fraudulent business tactic.
By doing that, you know upfront what the value of your used hardware will be at the time you decommission it. It removes a lot of the risk for buyers in a volatile market.
For example, when I worked at a VFX software company, we were exclusively with one hardware partner. This unlocked something like a 50% discount across all our infra needs (they were big enough to provide switches, racks, servers, storage)
another company it unlocked a 75% discount.
I don't think they need some special protection against this kind of contract.
a) It's not fraudulent, and
b) Nvidia has already signed on to buyback any unused capacity from the DCs it is selling to.
Right, so they're not voluntary.
1. There is one supplier, so you have no choice. 2. Even if you had a choice to sign the contract, this still means that it's not the same as a trade-in, because trade-ins are always voluntary, but once you have signed the contract, a right of first refusal is not.
In general, the "you chose to sign the contract" argument is a poor justification for bad contracts. If the contract is bad, it is bad regardless of whether you chose to sign it.
As businesses are expected to be more informed and equal in the negotiations
I don’t understand the desire to tell totally anonymous third parties the terms under which they are allowed to deal with each other.
Many kinds of contracts are illegal, including those that are anticompetitive in certain ways.
> Should I be allowed to pay a landscaper less if I agree to not do part of the work myself?
No?