Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know about that. You know the small print you get at every parking lot that says "this contract limits our liability: read it" that spells out how the parking lot isn't responsible for loss or damage yada yada yada? You get that after you pay your parking fee. Certainly, if you can sell your ticket back to DL before you use it the first time, then DL holds all the cards again. They can say that it's your responsibility to read it before you use it and go through the turnstile. Once you've done that, presumably you've agreed to their terms of agreement.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Well, if they had you sign the contract with that wording BEFORE the purchase, I'd agree. But if you don't get the contract until AFTER the purchase, there's probably some openings for argument." Except these kinds of contractual terms are printed on all sorts of agreements that don't require signatures all the time and go uncontested. You don't actually sign an agreement when you purchase an airline ticket yet you are bound by certain terms whey you purchase one. And that's the last word. Moderators please close this discussion.
Originally Posted By berol Disney may not have grounds to sue brokers. They don't have a contract with each other. And yes, close the thread now! I have $5 riding on my being last.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Keeping money and not providing the service isn't ethical to me" They aren't doing this. "If a person buys a 6-day hopper and decides not to use it for 6 days (and perhaps sell the rest), that's not Disney 'not providing the service.' That person could have chosen to avail himself of that service, but is choosing not to. That's HIS choice." Right. If I buy two apples and one goes rotten before I finish, should the market refund my money? Can I sue them if they don't?
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl > Right. If I buy two apples and one goes > rotten before I finish, should the > market refund my money? Can I sue them > if they don't? Precisely. DL does indeed have a primarily local market. And it's also surrounded by the City of Anaheim, which is filled with hotels that Disney doesn't own (for decades, they didn't own the Disneyland Hotel; Jack Wrather did.) In WDW, non-expiring multi-day tickets make sense, both as an extra-cost option, and before, when they were the only kind of multi-day tickets offered. Sure, a guest might buy a 10-day ticket even though he or she was only planning on using 5 days, but when that guest (or at least SOMEBODY using that ticket) came back, that guest would presumably need a hotel room, since it's at least half an hour by car, or a full hour by Lynx bus, between WDW and downtown Orlando. Setting aside ticket-sharing, if DL multi-day tickets didn't expire, then locals who wanted to go 5 times a year, including peak periods, would use a 5-day hopper as a cheaper, less-restrictive alternative to a low-level annual pass. Or for that matter, locals who only went once a year could use that same ticket as a way to get in on the cheap, and insulate themselves from price increases. Now, back in the days of ticket books, I had no problem with hanging on to leftover attraction tickets, in order to get in a second visit per year (or the following year's visit, for that matter) for only the price of parking and general admission. Or sharing one book, and 2 general admissions, among a family of 3. Indeed, I did it. And Disney didn't have a problem with that, either: if you had leftover attraction tickets at the end of a visit, you probably weren't costing them as much as somebody who was using up the entire book, and having to buy additional attraction tickets. But reselling partially-used multi-day tickets is an entirely different thing. And the argument that Disney is a rich corporation that can afford to lose a few profits simply doesn't cut it. If you take that as your justification for reselling multi-day tickets, then you're validating the far-right claim that the left wing just wants to punish success and reward failure.
Originally Posted By DlandDug (Going back to a statement made a way back...) >>There's nothing unethical about it.<< It's completely unethical. And bear in mind, ethical and legal are not the same thing. There are a lot of highly unethical things that are completely legal. What makes this unethical is that the purchaser of the ticket agrees to abide by the rules. Whether those rules are legal or not can be decided by a court of law. But Disney gets to decide who does, and does not, visit their parks. And they have apparently decided that purchasers of unethically provided ticket media do not get to visit their parks.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>>>>>>>>As usual I end up looking like the guy who just has to have the last word.<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>LOL! I thought that was me? ; )<<<<<<<< >>>>>>Ha! And I thought that was ME. <<<<<< >>>>I'll have you know that's me!<<<< >>Nope. Me. So there.<< Well, it certainly doesn't describe ME. Carry on.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, if they had you sign the contract with that wording BEFORE the purchase, I'd agree. But if you don't get the contract until AFTER the purchase, there's probably some openings for argument." This is what I've been thinking all along as I've loosely followed this thread. It's at least a colorable argument. It's a term of the contract that is added after the consideration (money) has been given to Disney. If this is posted outside the ticket windows or anywhere tickets are sold, then this argument might not be as attractive. "What makes this unethical is that the purchaser of the ticket agrees to abide by the rules." Well, no, not really, not until after they're given the ticket media after paying are they told what they can and can't do with the ticket. When courts evaluate whether a contract is valid and/or enforceable, they look at things like this. Caveat- I don't deal with contract law. I haven't studied it since I took the bar, so I'd have to assume in this instance Disney has sufficient law on their side. BUT, there is something called a contract of adhesion, the definition of which I'll rip off from a legal dictionary: >A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage. An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract. There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts. This does not mean, however, that all adhesion contracts are valid. Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them. An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract.< I do know that there is very old U.S. Supreme Court law that more or less supports Disney's position here. There is also case law that centers around a license has being granted to a purchaser that is non-transferable. Whether admission to a theme park is the same as a license to a product could make for an interesting legal debate for those so inclined. Court analysis seems to center around whether there's a way for the (presumed) Plaintiff to avoid damages, which could possibly be not to offer discounted multi-day discounted tickets. If the court found this, they could side with the broker, saying "don't like it, don't make it possible for them to do it". My overall point to this too long post is to say I wouldn't be so fast to assume either side is on solid ground here. The fact no one has legally challenged it before doesn't mean a practice is valid.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Setting aside ticket-sharing, if DL multi-day tickets didn't expire, then locals who wanted to go 5 times a year, including peak periods, would use a 5-day hopper as a cheaper, less-restrictive alternative to a low-level annual pass" Good point.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Thank you SSP...that is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. I see gray, others see black and white when it comes to this topic. Is this the last word yet?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "It's completely unethical. And bear in mind, ethical and legal are not the same thing. There are a lot of highly unethical things that are completely legal." One of us is confused here. It might be me. I'm saying what Disney is doing is perfectly ethical.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's some irony. One of the ads on my screen right now is for a three day park hopper ticket for $220, a savings of $30!
