There's a very interesting economics paper discussing exactly this kind of issue and the market failures it causes [0]. My favorite quote:
"Dwarf tossing is an activity in which a large person throws a small person. The venue often is one in which alcohol is served. It is often a source of livelihood for the small person, with the large person paying for the privilege. While dwarf-tossing is legal in many places, it is sometimes banned by law."
I wonder if there is an opportunity for derivative financial instruments based on valuable things that can not be transferred.
Think company stock in a private company. It may not be possible to sell it due to bylaws or legal limitations, but it may be possible to borrow against it.
What if there was a market for loans based on valuable but non-transferable things?
It all hinges on the question of whether something will eventually be transferable. You can make an argument that the laws that limit the transfer of ownership could be changed in the future.
That sounds like a hillariously stupid loophole to get around selling in this case - something to use very passive aggressively about the strict liability eagle cult laws which are utterly irrelevant to conservation like stray feathers as felonies.
Take out a nominal very short term loan with the not-buyer backed by the collateral and never pay it back. Said item will transfer then.
It thankfully won't apply to current ivory or rhino horn bans given import bans but it would probably work to "jailbreak" from home owners associations from hell given the repossesor wouldn't be bound by a contract they never signed.
There is a difference between ownership and control. The ownership would not transfer in such a case, as it can not due to law. However, control would.
Consider analogously human organs for transplant: clearly valuable, but we've decided to disallow their sale. What's the appraisal value of a kidney?