3 ms·

Because money. HN will likely play devils advocate but I agree with you. If you enter an arena, I believe you are partly responsible for what happens in that ar

Because money. HN will likely play devils advocate but I agree with you. If you enter an arena, I believe you are partly responsible for what happens in that arena.

theseatoms 11y ago
Morally, yes, they should be responsible. But StubHub only has an obligation to act legally, not morally. There should be laws in place to deal with this situation. Maybe there already are?
- LanceH 11y ago
  Why laws? How about just contracts binding those in the market?
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    You're right. That's probably the proper legal solution.
  - jerf 11y ago
    Agreed; this is probably already fraud between the seller and the buyer, ignoring StubHub's involvement already. It's unlikely we need any laws to "fix" this because the ones that have been around for centuries are probably already sufficient. Small-claims court may already be an available avenue of relief as in many states this would fit under the limit, though the internet can as always make jurisdiction a tricky issue: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-ho...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Would a small claims court in this case do anything besides ensure the buyer got a refund, which they already got anyway?
      - jerf 11y ago
        I would claim I had legal possession of the tickets due to the fact the seller had accepted my money, and that when the value appreciated, that was therefore my value, not theirs, and that ~$5000 was stolen from me. I won't guarantee victory because of course I can't, but this strikes me as a fairly basic argument about possession suitable for a small-claims court, not a bizarre legal theory. By contrast, had I merely "reserved" the tickets but no money transfer had occurred, in a transaction clearly labeled as a "reservation subject to cancellation", I'd expect the court to tell me to go pound sand and that I was lucky to get coupons in that value. But buying a ticket on StubHub looks and feels like a purchase, not a reservation subject to arbitrary cancellation. StubHub's terminology is all about "Buy" and "Sell" on their website, not "Reserve". (Just checked to be sure.)
      - URSpider94 11y ago
        Likely they would, if the buyer sued the seller. The buyer has an invoice stating that the goods were sold to him, and the seller had received payment into their bank account. It's pretty clear that title of the tickets had transferred to the buyer, and that he would be entitled to the proceeds of any illicit sale of those tickets to another buyer. That said, IANAL.
- Frondo 11y ago
  I would like to offer the controversial response that we all have a responsibility to act morally, all the time. "It was legal" should never be an excuse.
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    The act of breaking each responsibility differs with regard to consequence. "It was legal" is a perfect legal excuse. But I agree that as consumers we should each voluntarily avoid doing business with immoral business entities. Better yet, we should denounce immoral actors and call public attention to their transgressions. I realize that this is an idyllic notion, and that it is hard to organize boycotts in practice. But it does happen. Corporations react to public outrage more so than ever these days.

Because money. HN will likely play devils advocate but I agree with you. If you enter an arena, I believe you are partly responsible for what happens in that arena.

theseatoms 11y ago

Morally, yes, they should be responsible. But StubHub only has an obligation to act legally, not morally. There should be laws in place to deal with this situation. Maybe there already are?

LanceH 11y ago
Why laws? How about just contracts binding those in the market?
- theseatoms 11y ago
  You're right. That's probably the proper legal solution.
- jerf 11y ago
  Agreed; this is probably already fraud between the seller and the buyer, ignoring StubHub's involvement already. It's unlikely we need any laws to "fix" this because the ones that have been around for centuries are probably already sufficient. Small-claims court may already be an available avenue of relief as in many states this would fit under the limit, though the internet can as always make jurisdiction a tricky issue: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-ho...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Would a small claims court in this case do anything besides ensure the buyer got a refund, which they already got anyway?
    - jerf 11y ago
      I would claim I had legal possession of the tickets due to the fact the seller had accepted my money, and that when the value appreciated, that was therefore my value, not theirs, and that ~$5000 was stolen from me. I won't guarantee victory because of course I can't, but this strikes me as a fairly basic argument about possession suitable for a small-claims court, not a bizarre legal theory. By contrast, had I merely "reserved" the tickets but no money transfer had occurred, in a transaction clearly labeled as a "reservation subject to cancellation", I'd expect the court to tell me to go pound sand and that I was lucky to get coupons in that value. But buying a ticket on StubHub looks and feels like a purchase, not a reservation subject to arbitrary cancellation. StubHub's terminology is all about "Buy" and "Sell" on their website, not "Reserve". (Just checked to be sure.)
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      Likely they would, if the buyer sued the seller. The buyer has an invoice stating that the goods were sold to him, and the seller had received payment into their bank account. It's pretty clear that title of the tickets had transferred to the buyer, and that he would be entitled to the proceeds of any illicit sale of those tickets to another buyer. That said, IANAL.
Frondo 11y ago
I would like to offer the controversial response that we all have a responsibility to act morally, all the time. "It was legal" should never be an excuse.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  The act of breaking each responsibility differs with regard to consequence. "It was legal" is a perfect legal excuse. But I agree that as consumers we should each voluntarily avoid doing business with immoral business entities. Better yet, we should denounce immoral actors and call public attention to their transgressions. I realize that this is an idyllic notion, and that it is hard to organize boycotts in practice. But it does happen. Corporations react to public outrage more so than ever these days.