3 ms·

No, that provision applies to the contract between the seller and Stubhub, it doesn't have a bearing on the contract between the buyer and the seller. As for r

No, that provision applies to the contract between the seller and Stubhub, it doesn't have a bearing on the contract between the buyer and the seller. As for remedies, see my post above. The usual measure of damages in contract is expectation, not restitution. Breach of contract claims deal with "hypothetical things that never happened" all the time, that's required by the very nature of expectancy damages. And in any event this is an easy case as the FMV of the tickets at the time of breach is easy to calculate. This is just like selling 100 shares of AAPL and then before T+3 happens deciding you aren't going to honor the sale because the price has since gone up. You aren't going to get away with just canceling the sale and returning the money. Edit: You don't seem to understand that damages, legally speaking, include not getting something valuable just as much as it includes the loss of something valuable. And you are being patronizing where you have no reasonable cause to be, given that you've apparently never been to law school. In light of the latter point, I have no further interest in this conversation.

CPLX 11y ago
> This is just like selling 100 shares of AAPL and then before T+3 happens deciding you aren't going to honor the sale because the price has since gone up. There is some resemblance but no, actually this is not just like that at all. One of the two things is a financial instrument and security and one isn't, the primary purpose of the ticket purchase is to gain the personal enjoyment of attending a sporting event. A ticket is not an asset like a stock or real estate. I get the concept in the abstract for sure, and it's not an impossible argument. My point though, borne of some related experience, is that it's going to be awfully hard to prove damages beyond the money spent, and actual tangible consequential damages if any. Many intuitively think the legal system should work the way you describe, myself included, but in practice it has more of a laser-focus on the financial aspects of a transaction only. Here's a discussion of a very similar situation: http://wileylegal.com/super-bowl-breaches-of-contract/ http://wileylegal.com/super-bowl-breaches-of-contract/ Money quote: "Contract Law remedies are designed to retrace steps in an effort to put the injured party back in the same financial place they would be had the contract been properly performed. Many argue that this approach doesn’t account for emotional damage and disappointment, and they are correct."
- etherealmachine 11y ago
  Linked from that really good Super Bowl article: Consequential Damages: These are intended to reimburse the injured party for indirect damages other than contractual loss; for example, loss of business profits due to an undelivered machine. In order to recover, the injuries must "flow from the breach," i.e. be a direct result of the breach, and be reasonably foreseeable to both parties when they entered into the contract. Your opinion sounds like it comes from experience, which is usually useful in legal matters. However, buying a new ticket at the inflated price seems very reasonable to foresee by both parties and the small-claims court judges I've known are usually no-nonsense. If this came up in my life I would personally buy the tickets and take the risk in small claims court 3 months later.

CPLX 11y ago

> This is just like selling 100 shares of AAPL and then before T+3 happens deciding you aren't going to honor the sale because the price has since gone up. There is some resemblance but no, actually this is not just like that at all. One of the two things is a financial instrument and security and one isn't, the primary purpose of the ticket purchase is to gain the personal enjoyment of attending a sporting event. A ticket is not an asset like a stock or real estate. I get the concept in the abstract for sure, and it's not an impossible argument. My point though, borne of some related experience, is that it's going to be awfully hard to prove damages beyond the money spent, and actual tangible consequential damages if any. Many intuitively think the legal system should work the way you describe, myself included, but in practice it has more of a laser-focus on the financial aspects of a transaction only. Here's a discussion of a very similar situation: http://wileylegal.com/super-bowl-breaches-of-contract/ http://wileylegal.com/super-bowl-breaches-of-contract/ Money quote: "Contract Law remedies are designed to retrace steps in an effort to put the injured party back in the same financial place they would be had the contract been properly performed. Many argue that this approach doesn’t account for emotional damage and disappointment, and they are correct."

etherealmachine 11y ago
Linked from that really good Super Bowl article: Consequential Damages: These are intended to reimburse the injured party for indirect damages other than contractual loss; for example, loss of business profits due to an undelivered machine. In order to recover, the injuries must "flow from the breach," i.e. be a direct result of the breach, and be reasonably foreseeable to both parties when they entered into the contract. Your opinion sounds like it comes from experience, which is usually useful in legal matters. However, buying a new ticket at the inflated price seems very reasonable to foresee by both parties and the small-claims court judges I've known are usually no-nonsense. If this came up in my life I would personally buy the tickets and take the risk in small claims court 3 months later.