3 ms·

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 th

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.
      - CPLX 11y ago
        Perhaps. Certainly one could make the argument. My point was more that it would be a major uphill battle to get damages in excess of a total refund from the seller Among the many issues, another raised here is the presence of specifically enumerated remedies: > Failure to fulfill your orders will lead to charges as stated in the Seller Policies. Which could well be interpreted as limiting the liability of the seller to the fines specified in the seller policies. Clearly there's some kind of contract here to give money in exchange for the ticket -- the question is how high are the damages in the event of non performance of the contract, and what further remedies are available once a refund has been issued.
  - dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks, which this crosses into, are not allowed on HN. Please make your point without resorting to that.

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.
    - CPLX 11y ago
      Perhaps. Certainly one could make the argument. My point was more that it would be a major uphill battle to get damages in excess of a total refund from the seller Among the many issues, another raised here is the presence of specifically enumerated remedies: > Failure to fulfill your orders will lead to charges as stated in the Seller Policies. Which could well be interpreted as limiting the liability of the seller to the fines specified in the seller policies. Clearly there's some kind of contract here to give money in exchange for the ticket -- the question is how high are the damages in the event of non performance of the contract, and what further remedies are available once a refund has been issued.
- dang 11y ago
  Personal attacks, which this crosses into, are not allowed on HN. Please make your point without resorting to that.