A Stitch in Haste

In a recent Questions post, I asked: Is it a violation of copyright to sell a used book?

Elite Eleven blog no third solution offers an answer:

Prohibiting resale, be it books, cars, or collateral, would serve only to impoverish people who need money and are willing to part with slightly used goods, and to impoverish their would-be trading partners. If enforced, there is no up-side to this sort of prohibition.

To which I commented:

You realize I hope that often the intended answer for my "Questions" is "Duh." ;-)

But let's not overreach. "There is no upside to this sort of prohibition"? Really? Never ever?

My parents reside in a planned community where only people over 55 are allowed to live. My parents cannot sell their home to anyone under 55 (more or less).

My contract with the ASCPA forbids me from selling or giving Diamond to anyone, except back to the ASPCA itself.

Contract rights can indeed supercede property rights. But like all contracts, the terms should be clear and the parties should be entering into it voluntarily and fully informed.

See also "non-compete agreements," "confidentiality agreements," and countless other examples where an individual exchanges a right for a benefit. The right to convey property without restriction is no different -- you should be allowed to trade it for something else you value more.

(But, cf., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (restrictive covenants based on race are not legally enforceable).)