lobut's explainer video explains the contract law provision, but to be honest, it's a deeply cynical use of contract law. The reason is that typically (and for nearly every piece of retail-sold property), you have property rights exactly like what everyone in this thread is intuiting. Those property rights absolutely would give you the right to resell.

Contract law trumps those rights, and Cena signed a contract. That is where the discussion keeps ending. But a court, if it's circumspect enough, may continue the case long enough to examine how property and contract rights are in conflict. And it's entirely possible property rights may win in the end.

Why? Because the contract may be invalid if it is "illusory." An illusory contract is as it sounds based on a false presumption of exchanged value ("consideration") or a false promise of performance from Tesla. Here, Tesla may be technically complying with contract consideration requirements by lumping the actual Cybertruck into the value exchange, which sounds right from a contract law perspective. However, if Tesla is not offering substantial value beyond what a typical retail sale would be, and if they are only offering the same ongoing services as typical retail customers, there is a small chance a court may decide that the contract is a pretext to in fact simply (and illegally) limiting property rights.

That said, I'd give it maybe a 5% chance of success. Contract law is one thing most judges will almost never interfere with. Which is why Tesla and others are doing it. They typically only do it with cars like high-end sports cars.

But importantly, it could become commonplace for anything you buy even at retail when combined with "clickwrap" agreements - i.e., agreements like in software that activate when you use or open the product. So it's very very important that we continue to push back on this.