I don't know if it applies, but what you're talking about sounds like Promissory Estoppel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel

That's the one I was thinking about yeah.

I would assume that this again has to do with the wording of the agreement signed with Tesla. One can assume they have lawyers of their own and that they wouldn't then do something like this if it's a blatant violation of the agreement, but nothing is impossible of course, including winning in court even if Tesla didn't think you would.

If I was affected by this I would probably not think of this as a complication but rather something that would make me look at different options. So either:

1.) There are competitors that can offer a deal considered subjectively better overall, for example a faster delivery and lower price for some other compromise (like panels instead of a nice looking roof).

2.) Or, there are no competitors that you can or want to consider, in which case you either pay up, wait for the market to mature or cancel the plans completely.

There will be no "court".

Mandatory binding arbitration bans courts of law from making any decision. They are only allowed to enforce the decision of the arbiter, who does not have to follow any laws except the American Arbitration Act.

I hate mandatory arbitration clauses as much as the next guy, but what you said is just not true. Arbitration clauses are thrown out by the courts regularly. The reason is the simple fact that the arbitration clause is only enforceable by the courts, and they can always decide to do the other thing.

If you go to arbitration and you feel the result was unfair, you can always appeal to the courts. There, the judge can either affirm the decision or throw it out entirely.

You're presuming judicial review. The arbiter result is final and binding. Appeals are exhausted. You may only argue the arbitration section under a very very limited set of choices under the arbitration act. And only the arbitration section. The rest of the agreement can be capricious, unfair, and malicious. That's for the arbiter to decide on, however.

And the arbiter only gets to keep making money by hearing "cases" as long as they don't rule against the company.

The problem is the court system has chosen to liberally interpret the arbitration act against the citizenry.

Now show me all these agreements being "thrown out". What's instead happening is state laws attempting to protect the citizenry being thrown out instead.

I was renting a storage unit recently, and even they had a binding arbitration clause where they decide the mediator, etc.

This really has been a cancer on our nation, I remember the day after citizens united even xbox live had binding arbitration in a mandatory update the very next day.

Reason 749274937295 I am done with this country.

You're thinking of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion when class action was ended.

in california, you have the right to opt-out of binding arbitration within a period of time after signing any agreement.