Everlast Tire Co$,$ ?which manufactures automobile tires, sold a shipment of tires to Automotive Wholesaler In$.$ ?Under the terms of that contract, Automotive Wholesaler was allowed to resell the tires below the price suggested by Everlast if:

i$.$ ?The sub$-$buyer was a business in the car industry, and

ii$.$ ?The sub$-$buyer promised not to resell below the price suggested by Everlast.

Automotive Wholesaler then sold the tires to AJ$$s Used Cars Ltd$.$ ?Under the terms of that contract, AJ$$s$,$ ?which was engaged in the car industry as a used car dealer, promised Automotive Wholesaler that it would not resell the tires below the price suggested by Everlast.

AJ$$s also promised Automotive Wholesaler that if it broke that promise, it would pay $$100$ ?to Everlast for each tire that was sold below the manufacturer$$s suggested price. In fact, AJ$$s did sell $10$ ?tires to individual customers at prices that were well below the price suggested by Everlast.

Everlast now argues that it is entitled to recover $$1000$ ?from AJ$$s$.$ ?

Q: Is that true? What are the simplest means by which Everlast could have arranged the resale of its tires so that it would be able to enforce the promise that AJ$$s made to Automotive Wholesaler?