Because legally protected conduct, even if it is harassing, is not harassment.
I mean, arguably, any business contract could be said to ‘annoy’ a competitor, be ‘unwanted’, may limit that competitor’s ability to operate, and may threaten (their livelihood) or offend them.
But that’s not harassment because you are allowed to enter into a business contract*, even to the intentional detriment of another person.
Similarly, you are allowed constitutionally protected free speech, and that is also not harassment, despite the broad definition of harassment that has been given.
*There are certainly exceptions, among them being contracts for illegal activity or those ‘against public policy.’ Potentially, Mr. Shmoe can argue that the contract between the OP and Musk should be void as against public policy, since it suppresses free enterprise. But, again, this would be true of any contract that created an exclusive arrangement - If you go to Taco Bell, you have to order a Pepsi product; that might harass Coke, but it’s not prohibited by law.
Sure, companies sign contracts all the time that forbid them from working with specific people. eg: If Intel signs a deal with a company, the terms of the deal might include that that company not work with AMD for 3 years after the end of the contract.
As long as you don’t say something like “Don’t transport Joe because he’s black” or some other form of protected class, companies are free to refuse service to any customer they want and free to accept compensation as a condition of refusing service.
Under certain circumstances I could imagine it would run afoul of anti-competitive business laws. For example if you made your money digging up alien artifacts on the martian surface to sell to fanboys, and you made a contract that said that Musk (and other interplanetary transport services) can’t transport your main business rival off planet, I could see him being able to sue you.
SpaceX is headquartered in Hawthorne California, home of the Beach Boys, but is incorporated in Delaware, home of many corporate mailing addresses. Would any limitation or exclusivity contract with SpaceX fall under Delaware jurisdiction? What is acceptable there?
IANAL - but it seems to me that this is correct in Canada. Under the Competition Act here, it’s illegal to enter into a contract that prevents/prohibits a seller from selling to someone else. E.G.: Coke and I can’t mutually agree that I will pay them $1 Billion to never sell to XYZ stores.
It’s also illegal to discriminate on price as well. Ranchoth also couldn’t say “You can fly Mr. Shmoe and his descendants but you must charge them $50 Billion each.” Every buyer must have the opportunity to purchase at the same price as every other in the market.
That said, I don’t know if that applies to individual buyers like the OP’s example or only apples to commercial enterprises.
IANAL, but we ran into that before when I worked in Japan distributing products from the US and European countries.
We would have the exclusive rights to sell products into Japan, but they were unenforceable by law. This lead to “gray marketing” where wholesalers in the states would sell to cheaper distributors and bypass us.
I erroneously thought I was conveying the information that in other countries there are anti-competitive laws that would likely prohibit this type of action and by extension suggesting that perhaps there may be something similar in the USA.
Deepest apologies for fucking up the “no one is to provide any insight from outside of America” limitation to this hypothetical “insane” thread.
Lighten up. I understand Mr Musk holds US, Canadian, and South African citizenship. I know SpaceX is incorporated under a “flag of convenience” in the very business-friendly US state of Delaware. I wondered what jurisdictions may control any SpaceX contract. Thus I asked, does SpaceX do business in Canada and so fall under Canadian law? Can our hypothetical billionaire find a jurisdiction where the proposed contract is legal?