> 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. The

> 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."