Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Customer purchases additional capacity ... unconsumed Capacity will roll over ... Otherwise, purchased Capacity expires What is vague about that?
Your right it's not vague. It's pretty clear. Add the fact that the contract was just 1 page, it seems they signed without reading. Basing their decision only on the words of the smooth talking sales rep. They would have had my sympathy if the clause was buried within many pages of legalese. But 1 page? Come on.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was saying it's vague what there would be a new purchase min of $1k (now according to the rep it is their internal policy is whatever level you were contracted at is the new min.). Since capacity for Snowflake is sold in very small tranches(we at one time got a bill for less than a dollar for the month during our on-demand time), I assumed the new contract could be issued with very small, essentially token amounts, this point is where the rep more or less waved his hands on and I agree I should have not trusted his portrayal. Honestly he may be working with the constrains of changing policies imposed on him too, so I def take responsibility here. Just as I mentioned, the post is for people who may be looking at similar clauses and coming to the wrong assumption that I did to not repeat the same mistake.