Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Whatever might come from such a court case, Disney does not want people brokering the "extra" days that are left on a ticket. New technology will make it increasingly difficult if not impossible to do this sort of thing in the near future, so in the end Disney will win and the brokers will need to move on to a more sustainable line of business.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>and the brokers will need to move on to a more sustainable line of business.<< Something tells me the kind of people in the brokerage business are often jumping around from one money making scheme to the next.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 "Why? The buyer pays money, gets a ticket, enters the park. Why should he then check to see if there are additonal terms?" Because whenever you purchase something you are entering into a contract with the seller. By buying the item you are agreeing to the terms that the seller has stated and are therefore bound to the contract. That is why it is a simple case of contract law. It isn't that complicated legally and Disney knows that. Whether you like it or not, the courts will say that you have a responsibility to know and understand the terms of the sale when you purchase the tickets. You may think that it is silly or that it is just a simple transaction of admission, but as this thread has shown it is much more complicated then that. Everyday people lose court cases because they enter into an agreement that they didnt understand or even realize they entered into, but the courts don't agree. As long as the seller has made a reasonable attempt to inform, the buyer has an equal responsibility to make sure they understand the terms.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because whenever you purchase something you are entering into a contract with the seller. By buying the item you are agreeing to the terms that the seller has stated and are therefore bound to the contract. That is why it is a simple case of contract law. It isn't that complicated legally and Disney knows that. Whether you like it or not, the courts will say that you have a responsibility to know and understand the terms of the sale when you purchase the tickets. You may think that it is silly or that it is just a simple transaction of admission, but as this thread has shown it is much more complicated then that. Everyday people lose court cases because they enter into an agreement that they didnt understand or even realize they entered into, but the courts don't agree. As long as the seller has made a reasonable attempt to inform, the buyer has an equal responsibility to make sure they understand the terms." Did you read anything I wrote about a contract of adhesion? Or anything I've written at all? I'm tending to think not. It's not nearly as simple as you think it is. Contract law can be a beast. There's always exceptions, always new wrinkles to find. I haven't taken a side either way here, so you can cease using phrases such as "Whether you like it or not". Moreover, you might want to decide on a theme. One minute you're telling me it's a "simple case of contract law" and then you say "You may think that it is silly or that it is just a simple transaction of admission, but as this thread has shown it is much more complicated then that." Which is it? See, I read your stuff. When suing for a breach of contract, a party needs to prove up damages. It would be interesting to see how a court would end up defining that. Arguably, Disney makes a conscious business decision to sell discounted tickets. Presumably, the buyer will attend all purchased days. Park capacity remains at a certain level. If during that time, for whatever reason, another person assumes that ticket, the Disney park is still at that same capacity and does not have an inflated physical count of people in the park. The new ticket holder is enjoying the same discounted stay already purchased by the previous user. A broker would ask, where's the loss, where's the damage? Despite the language on the ticket, language in all probability not seen or read by a vast majority of ticket holders, Disney is still receiving the same recompense for the same ticket experience the original seller purchased. The secondary user isn't in for free, his method of admission WAS purchased from Disney. This would be a good exam question.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip WOW! This will soon rival The Spirit's "Social Media" thread for number of words devoted to not much of anything. Keep up the good work guys!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "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. " Oh I highly doubt that. No way, and I do mean no way, the Disney gives this joker any money. They either take him to court, or hope that their policy of making his tickets worthless causes him to stop on his own. If word gets around that these tickets are worthless, there goes his business. There's nothing unethical in this on Disney's part. But certainly, if these tickets become worthless through Disney's enforcement, and this guy continues to sell them to people who haven't done their homework, that's unethical for sure.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "in my mind it is unethical" Why? "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." This guy will never see one penny of Disney's money. "I haven't taken a side either way here," I'd say calling this Disney policy unethical is taking a side.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"I haven't taken a side either way here," I'd say calling this Disney policy unethical is taking a side.< You've got me mistaken for someone else.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Something tells me the kind of people in the brokerage business are often jumping around from one money making scheme to the next." And it's just going to break their huge, kind hearts to have to look into the face of all the crying parents and tell them, "I'm so sorry, we don't sell discounted Disneyland tickets anymore!"
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance But mostly it'll break their wallets, and THAT'LL be what breaks their hearts. And let's let THAT is the very last word on this topic!
Originally Posted By mawnck The very BEST endless threads are the ones where several ignorant internet jockeys are arguing furiously with one particular poster who is UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to speak on the topic. This is one of those threads. Just sayin'.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 SPP? I guess some are arguing with him, but he's basically saying "it could go this way, for this reason; or it could go this way, for this other reason." Kind of hard to argue with that. Not that (I think) this will ever reach a courtroom to begin with.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I think what mawnck is getting at is some are saying that if this were to go to court, a Disney victory would be a sure thing, despite what I've written. And the people saying this don't appear to be contract lawyers, if you know what I'm saying.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I thought that O.J. would be found guilty. Funny how things can go a completely different way then expected isn't it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Funny how things can go a completely different way then expected isn't it.<< Funny how the ignorant can find any excuse to not listen to the educated.
