4 ms·

IANAL, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge of that math.

by eli 11y ago

etherealmachine 11y ago
Curious - why do you think that? The seller obviously sold the tickets for a higher price, and can be forced to give the buyer the price difference, allowing the buyer to buy new tickets at the new price, fulfilling the purpose of the original contract. Why do you think a judge would disagree?
- CPLX 11y ago
  It's not obvious they sold for a higher price, they may have used them or never had them. But the real problem is proving an actual loss. There was a contract to exchange X tickets for Y money. Nothing changed hands, the buyer didn't lose anything, there aren't any damages to sue for. Obviously they could try a cause of action for lost opportunity to profit from the transaction from legal standpoint, but it's much harder to claim losses from hypothetical things that never happened than to unwind an actual transaction. What if Kobe was injured and the price of the tickets plummeted for example? It's a stretch to argue that the buyer lost something tangible by relying on the sellers performance of the contract.
  - tacon 11y ago
    Your "legal analysis" is woefully lacking. Have you, for example, ever glanced at a Contracts Law text book? Or read the Wikipedia articles about contract law? Heck, have you even watched The People's Court? Just you sitting in your armchair and coming up with something that seems reasonable in your mind does not a legal argument make, or refute. As far as profiting from hypothetical things that never happened, see Joe Jamail: http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-crushed-texaco/ http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-crushed-tex... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
    - CPLX 11y ago
      I've been involved in commercial contract litigation and was in the entertainment business for years. If you want to resort to talking about contract law, then there's obviously no case at all, there's a contract on Stubhub and it's explicit that the buyer has no further recourse. End of discussion. In the hypothetical, which I'm referencing, my argument holds. If you've ever been involved in actual litigation you'd know that proving damages for hypothetical things that might have happened is really hard to do, and that specific performance is an equity remedy and while possible, is generally a last resort. In the actual situation under discussion, CA small claims is generally not a court of equity unless specifically authorized by statute, notwithstanding the perishable nature of these tickets and likelihood of even being able to get an argument heard before the game took place.
      - bradleyjg 11y ago
        >> "If you want to resort to talking about contract law, then there's obviously no case at all, there's a contract on Stubhub and it's explicit that the buyer has no further recourse. End of discussion." That's not the case. Buyers release and limit various remedies as against Stubhub in the user agreement but not against the seller. From the terms of service: "Commitment to Supply. By listing a ticket for sale, you are making a binding offer to sell that ticket to a Buyer who purchases the ticket for the price you have specified. When a Buyer accepts your offer by purchasing your ticket through our Site or Services, you are contractually bound to deliver that exact ticket for the specified price and within the required delivery timeframe. You are obligated to monitor your inventory and ensure all listings are accurate. Under no circumstances may Sellers cancel orders at one price and repost the same tickets for a higher price. Failure to fulfill your orders will lead to charges as stated in the Seller Policies. ... Buying Tickets. You are responsible for reading the complete listing before making a commitment to buy tickets. When placing an order, you are entering into a binding contract with the Seller to purchase those tickets. Payment is remitted to StubHub and disbursed to the seller according to our payment policy. All Sales are Final. Except for cancelled events, you will not receive a refund for completed purchases. You cannot change or cancel any orders after the sale is complete." The Seller policy specifies a breaching seller's liability to Stubhub but it doesn't limit in any way a breaching seller's liability to the buyer.
bradleyjg 11y ago
IAAL (but not his lawyer or your lawyer). The standard measure of damages in contract is expectancy, that is the breaching party has to put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been had he not breached. Had the seller not breached the buyer would have had tickets with a fair market value of $6000 (at the time of breach) and been out the $900 he paid for the tickets. After the breach the buyer got back the $900, but is still $5100 worse off than if the seller had fulfilled his part of the bargain. Those are the expectancy damages he suffered. Given that going to this specific game is a unique experience that can't be duplicated a court could order specific performance (i.e. that the tickets be handed over) as tacon suggests below. But: 1) I don't think small claims courts can order specific performance, 2) you probably couldn't get before a small claims court judge in time, and 3) if the seller didn't actually have the ticket then he couldn't be ordered to turn it over. So monetary damages are more likely.
- eli 11y ago
  Genuinely curious how the law applies here. How is the "time of the breach" determined? When the buyer got the email that sale was voided? If that email were sent a few days earlier or later would that change the amount of damage the buyer suffered? That doesn't seem right. (The FMV of the tickets goes to $0 after the game, right?) I guess I don't really follow why the buyer is entitled to appreciation on something that was never in their possession. If the tickets had instead declined in value before the seller backed out then wouldn't the buyer still get back all their money? I assume it would be unacceptable to refund them just the then-current FMV, so why is it different when the tickets appreciate in value?
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    You are confusing possession with ownership. The buyer owns the tickets from the moment the purchase is complete, whether or not he has received them. If the tickets went down in value in the interim time, then the most expedient thing for the seller to do to cure the problem would be to buy new tickets at the now-reduced price and hand them over to the buyer. You are absolutely right, the buyer can't demand his money back if the tickets go down in value -- he has to accept tickets that are fundamentally the same in value as the ones he was supposed to get. Now, if for whatever reason the seller couldn't replace the tickets even though the price has dropped (unlikely -- that's pretty much the definition of a price, is that the item is available in exchange for money), then he might be able to ask for his money back instead.

IANAL, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge of that math.

by eli 11y ago

IANAL, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge of that math.

Curious - why do you think that? The seller obviously sold the tickets for a higher price, and can be forced to give the buyer the price difference, allowing the buyer to buy new tickets at the new price, fulfilling the purpose of the original contract. Why do you think a judge would disagree?

CPLX 11y ago
It's not obvious they sold for a higher price, they may have used them or never had them. But the real problem is proving an actual loss. There was a contract to exchange X tickets for Y money. Nothing changed hands, the buyer didn't lose anything, there aren't any damages to sue for. Obviously they could try a cause of action for lost opportunity to profit from the transaction from legal standpoint, but it's much harder to claim losses from hypothetical things that never happened than to unwind an actual transaction. What if Kobe was injured and the price of the tickets plummeted for example? It's a stretch to argue that the buyer lost something tangible by relying on the sellers performance of the contract.
- tacon 11y ago
  Your "legal analysis" is woefully lacking. Have you, for example, ever glanced at a Contracts Law text book? Or read the Wikipedia articles about contract law? Heck, have you even watched The People's Court? Just you sitting in your armchair and coming up with something that seems reasonable in your mind does not a legal argument make, or refute. As far as profiting from hypothetical things that never happened, see Joe Jamail: http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-crushed-texaco/ http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-crushed-tex... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
  - CPLX 11y ago
    I've been involved in commercial contract litigation and was in the entertainment business for years. If you want to resort to talking about contract law, then there's obviously no case at all, there's a contract on Stubhub and it's explicit that the buyer has no further recourse. End of discussion. In the hypothetical, which I'm referencing, my argument holds. If you've ever been involved in actual litigation you'd know that proving damages for hypothetical things that might have happened is really hard to do, and that specific performance is an equity remedy and while possible, is generally a last resort. In the actual situation under discussion, CA small claims is generally not a court of equity unless specifically authorized by statute, notwithstanding the perishable nature of these tickets and likelihood of even being able to get an argument heard before the game took place.
    - bradleyjg 11y ago
      >> "If you want to resort to talking about contract law, then there's obviously no case at all, there's a contract on Stubhub and it's explicit that the buyer has no further recourse. End of discussion." That's not the case. Buyers release and limit various remedies as against Stubhub in the user agreement but not against the seller. From the terms of service: "Commitment to Supply. By listing a ticket for sale, you are making a binding offer to sell that ticket to a Buyer who purchases the ticket for the price you have specified. When a Buyer accepts your offer by purchasing your ticket through our Site or Services, you are contractually bound to deliver that exact ticket for the specified price and within the required delivery timeframe. You are obligated to monitor your inventory and ensure all listings are accurate. Under no circumstances may Sellers cancel orders at one price and repost the same tickets for a higher price. Failure to fulfill your orders will lead to charges as stated in the Seller Policies. ... Buying Tickets. You are responsible for reading the complete listing before making a commitment to buy tickets. When placing an order, you are entering into a binding contract with the Seller to purchase those tickets. Payment is remitted to StubHub and disbursed to the seller according to our payment policy. All Sales are Final. Except for cancelled events, you will not receive a refund for completed purchases. You cannot change or cancel any orders after the sale is complete." The Seller policy specifies a breaching seller's liability to Stubhub but it doesn't limit in any way a breaching seller's liability to the buyer.

bradleyjg 11y ago

IAAL (but not his lawyer or your lawyer). The standard measure of damages in contract is expectancy, that is the breaching party has to put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been had he not breached. Had the seller not breached the buyer would have had tickets with a fair market value of $6000 (at the time of breach) and been out the $900 he paid for the tickets. After the breach the buyer got back the $900, but is still $5100 worse off than if the seller had fulfilled his part of the bargain. Those are the expectancy damages he suffered. Given that going to this specific game is a unique experience that can't be duplicated a court could order specific performance (i.e. that the tickets be handed over) as tacon suggests below. But: 1) I don't think small claims courts can order specific performance, 2) you probably couldn't get before a small claims court judge in time, and 3) if the seller didn't actually have the ticket then he couldn't be ordered to turn it over. So monetary damages are more likely.

eli 11y ago
Genuinely curious how the law applies here. How is the "time of the breach" determined? When the buyer got the email that sale was voided? If that email were sent a few days earlier or later would that change the amount of damage the buyer suffered? That doesn't seem right. (The FMV of the tickets goes to $0 after the game, right?) I guess I don't really follow why the buyer is entitled to appreciation on something that was never in their possession. If the tickets had instead declined in value before the seller backed out then wouldn't the buyer still get back all their money? I assume it would be unacceptable to refund them just the then-current FMV, so why is it different when the tickets appreciate in value?
- URSpider94 11y ago
  You are confusing possession with ownership. The buyer owns the tickets from the moment the purchase is complete, whether or not he has received them. If the tickets went down in value in the interim time, then the most expedient thing for the seller to do to cure the problem would be to buy new tickets at the now-reduced price and hand them over to the buyer. You are absolutely right, the buyer can't demand his money back if the tickets go down in value -- he has to accept tickets that are fundamentally the same in value as the ones he was supposed to get. Now, if for whatever reason the seller couldn't replace the tickets even though the price has dropped (unlikely -- that's pretty much the definition of a price, is that the item is available in exchange for money), then he might be able to ask for his money back instead.