Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I see gray, others see black and white when it comes to this topic.> I think most of us see the gray, but are simply offering our opinions on what we feel is ethical (or not) on the part of both Disney and the brokers, and trying to suss how a court might see it - remembering too that courts deal with legalities, not ethics (usually).
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Well, I'm not making predictions on how it will or might end if it went to court. I just feel that, and I'll say it again, in my mind it is unethical and that will be the direction that they would take if Disney took them to court. On the other hand, Disney might cough up a couple million to get the guy to conform and he will step away from the minor business of selling used tickets, buy a yacht and spend the rest of his time in the Bahama's. Hard to tell, but you can bet that he has something up his sleeve in order to make either one possible. Last word??
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Not yet. I expect Disney will take action. I don't think they will spend millions. It is a simple case of contract law and the guy will be told to stop. I
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Not yet. I expect Disney will take action. I don't think they will spend millions. It is a simple case of contract law and the guy will be told to stop." I'm genuinely curious. Exactly how do you think it will be so simple?
Originally Posted By doombuggy If it says "Not for resale" Disney has lots of legs and the brokers have none to stand on. It's no diff when a store sales stuff that says "not for resale" They get busted, fined and or shut down. If Disney will go after day cares that use their copy righted material they will go after this guy and others. I wouldn't be surprised if they add "Any one reselling this ticket will be prosecuted"
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>One of us is confused here. It might be me. I'm saying what Disney is doing is perfectly ethical.<< Ah. I did misunderstand. Thought you were saying the brokers were. This is certainly in a legal gray area. Ethically, it's pretty black and white to me.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>It's no diff when a store sales stuff that says "not for resale"<<< Again, it's a matter of how one legally defines ownership. The not for resale wording is used by discount retailers as a buffer for retaliation from Wholesalers. In reality, they don't go after anyone that actually resells it because it it is a commodity, as you are describing, it is personal property and as such, is their property and they can sell it to anyone they want. I can't think of anything that this doesn't apply too. Admitting that admission to a theme park is not the same thing because it is a service. I guess it is possible that an argument could be made that you own the paper it's printed on but that only allows you access to the service, not ownership. Still gray, in my mind though. I don't think I would even question it if it wasn't such an expensive service, but that changes everything when no refund is easily available.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That last line should have been "isn't automatically available". This must be the last word, we've gone through the entire dictionary.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>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.<< Exactly. It's the same principles behind restaurants that say "No shoes, no shirt, no service." There's nothing truly legally binding behind those words, but they also "reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone. If you choose not to follow their rules, they can refuse to give you any service. If you choose to transfer your ticket to someone else, Disney has every right to reserve giving you service. And it would be foolish of Disney to not take this to court. Yes, the on-staff lawyers will charge their time to it (but they're getting paid by Disney either way), but that price will be far less than paying the dozens of photo-taking CMs at the main entrance from now until eternity. If they think they have a reasonable chance to win the case (and I see no reason that they wouldn't), they have relatively little to lose and a lot to gain. >>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!<< And to add more irony, I just read a post on the Disney Parks Blog that Florida residents can get 3 day tickets (presumably non-hopping) for $119. Or add another day for $10. With price differences like that, it really makes you wonder about Iger's "One Disney" thing.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Regional discounts are not unheard of for businesses even when they attempt to market themselves as a unified whole.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I know that regional discounts are fairly common (including at DLR), but it just seems silly how cheap Floridians can get into WDW, while DLR is comically overpriced. I guess at the heart of it, they're both pretty overpriced (hence the discount), but usually have pricing that's more in line with each other, not $120 vs $220.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "but it just seems silly how cheap Floridians can get into WDW, while DLR is comically overpriced." The reason is obvious: WDW's attendance is down and DLR is bursting at the seams. DL would be offering discounts too, which they did frequently during the last decade, if they were struggling to keep attendance up.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>It's the same principles behind restaurants that say "No shoes, no shirt, no service." There's nothing truly legally binding behind those words, but they also "reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone.<<< Yes, but in both those instances they haven't taken full payment before refusing service. Big difference there. They might have lost a sale, but they didn't make the sale and then refuse to the service. It doesn't matter who is holding the ticket, the service was paid for and no concrete method was use at the time to determine who was going to use it. Come on...we must be close to the last word.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 But the question one might ask is...isn't the person who buys the ticket responsible to ask what the terms of the ticket is? My guess is that what a court would say.
Originally Posted By doombuggy I looked at the page and saw they "rent" tickets? You bring it back after your done, how can this be done or legal? All I can think of is are they "washing" the ticket to look new?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But the question one might ask is...isn't the person who buys the ticket responsible to ask what the terms of the ticket is? My guess is that what a court would say." Why? The buyer pays money, gets a ticket, enters the park. Why should he then check to see if there are additonal terms?
Originally Posted By berol The last time I bought park hoppers at a booth, I was handed the tickets to sign. All the fine print was face up to read. If I wanted to game the system with brokers, I'd read it to see if I was gonna throw money away.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, based upon the reasons I put in previous posts, I think it would make for an interesting court case, not necessarily a sure win for either side.
