Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

theleadsports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#111

Post by mikeash »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #87
mikeash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They technically did follow through. Their guarantee is to provide comparable tickets or a refund. Comparable tickets were not available (because their idea of "comparable" includes "at the same price," ha ha ha) and they provided a refund.

They did not follow through on actually protecting the fans, just restoring the original money. They are presenting the appearance that they will ensure the purchase, while the terms actually promise no such thing.

Yeah, the "Fan Protect Guarantee" is more like "Fan Protect Guarantee Unless The Price Goes Up A Lot."

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#112

Post by stuart78 »

brk wrote: post #95

Really this just shows how corrupt and broken the entire entertainment ticketing stack is. TicketMaster, StubHub, etc., all prey on fans, and the fans ALLOW it by paying ridiculous fucking prices to attend events. We're long past the days of needing an entity like Ticketmaster to be in the middle of ticket transactions. And we're long past the days of needing to worry about ticket scalping if we actually have an effi…

Confronted this when looking at Hamilton tickets recently. The thing that is crazy for venues and artists is how much of the value they are losing to scalpers via StubHub. If venues forced non-transferability (or some better limitation) and staggered releasing, they would be better able to appropriately price tickets without feeding the StubHubs of the world.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#113

Post by slg »

talmand wrote: post #101
smt88 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fans ALLOW it by paying ridiculous fucking prices to attend events No, fans have no choice. Entertainers allow it by using Ticketmaster. > We're long past the days of needing an entity like Ticketmaster to be in the middle of ticket transactions The greatest fear an event planner has is that they'll plan the event and no one will show up. Ticketmaster aggressively markets the events they're selling tickets for, whi…

So, to avoid having to do marketing themselves, or to hire a firm, the event planner goes with a possibly corrupt system that by all appearances the fans of the event despise? I'm more of the mind that these things are so entrenched that neither fans or event planners have a choice.

The role Ticketmaster plays in the live event business is much bigger than simple middlemen. They provide the previously mentioned marketing, promotion, and discovery. They provide box office management. They provide customer service. They manage the secondary market. They provide business intelligence. They represent artists. They even own their own venues for a complete vertical monopoly.

They are the Amazon Web Services of the live event business. Sure, you will probably have a better experience if you use Backblaze for your storage, but AWS provides so many other services you might need that it makes sense to consolidate your business with them. That is why Ticketmaster is so entrenched. It isn't corruption. There is just a huge barrier to entry when your biggest competitor has such a complete product offering.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#114

Post by tacon »

CPLX wrote: post #103
etherealmachine wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 ha…

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-tex...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#115

Post by CPLX »

tacon wrote: post #114
CPLX wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

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 J…

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.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#116

Post by wdr1 »

smt88 wrote: post #96
brk wrote: post #95

Really this just shows how corrupt and broken the entire entertainment ticketing stack is. TicketMaster, StubHub, etc., all prey on fans, and the fans ALLOW it by paying ridiculous fucking prices to attend events. We're long past the days of needing an entity like Ticketmaster to be in the middle of ticket transactions. And we're long past the days of needing to worry about ticket scalping if we actually have an effi…

> fans ALLOW it by paying ridiculous fucking prices to attend events No, fans have no choice. Entertainers allow it by using Ticketmaster. > We're long past the days of needing an entity like Ticketmaster to be in the middle of ticket transactions The greatest fear an event planner has is that they'll plan the event and no one will show up. Ticketmaster aggressively markets the events they're selling tickets for, whi…

> No, fans have no choice. Entertainers allow it by using Ticketmaster.

Disclaimer: Ex-Ticketmaster employee.

This doesn't quite hit it. Entertainers encourage it as they get paid to do so.

Ticketmaster is basically paid to be a bad guy. If you hate Ticketmaster, then all is working to plan.

Because what you're not doing is hating the actual decision maker on those fees -- the artist, the promoter, & the venue. Ticketmaster splits those fees. Ticketmaster wants to get paid of course, but the deal can be structure those fees any which way.

Want a low (or no) fees with Ticketmaster? If that's what the artist, promoter & venue want, that's what will happen.

Want a low ticket price for advertising & high fees to increase your profit? Ticketmaster can do that too.

At the end of the day, the artist & promoter own the tickets, not Ticketmaster.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#117

Post by bradleyjg »

eli wrote: post #80
bradleyjg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Stubhub release the sellers information to the buyer? It looks to me like the buyer has a claim in contract against the seller for $5100. That's within the small claim limit in California.

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

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.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#118

Post by bradleyjg »

CPLX wrote: post #115
tacon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 J…

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…

>> "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.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#119

Post by CPLX »

bradleyjg wrote: post #118
CPLX wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> "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…

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.

Re: The Surreal Story of StubHub Screwing Over a Kobe Fan

#120

Post by bradleyjg »

CPLX wrote: post #119
bradleyjg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN