chrislangone

QUOTE (ghostworks @ Jul 16 2010, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (chrislangone @ Jul 16 2010, 04:08 PM)...the Sun Times would not report on a non-existent lawsuit. And as I mentioned earlier, they have a legal beat reporter over at the courthouse reviewing all the new filings as they come in. QUOTE (chrislangone @ Jul 16 2010, 04:08 PM)...the recent Sun Time article shows they have their spin machine operating and are well aware of this lawsuit. So. The Sun Times are a respectable newspaper who employ experts and only report the facts... and The Sun Times are manipulative, lying, biased spin doctors. Which one is it, again? I meant the recent Sun Times article shows that Live Nation has their spin machine going. Not the Sun Times. I edited the post to clarify.

QUOTE (safetygirl2112 @ Jul 16 2010, 02:50 PM) Chris, I am no lawyer, but you seem to lend way too much credence to heresay. You say Live Nation changed their reason based on what some poster here said they said at the concert. Also, you claim StubHub told you one thing on the phone, and stated something different on the internet about their refund policy. You can't really hold them to something some rep may or may not have said over the phone. And you still haven't addressed the following issue: - Why is there no case on file when you said you filed one? What is that case number again? Perhaps - there is a distinction though between relying on "hearsay" as part of continuing investigation into the facts and piecing together what happened, and hearsay as an evidentiary question re" admissible evidence. There are also numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, for instance "admissions of a party opponent" are deemed non-hearsay, so statements by Live Nation's agent from the stage would not be hearsay. Also my conversations with Stub Hub will be admissions of a party opponent if I add them to the lawsuit, but probably fall within the legal words of independent significance exception. I for one favor aboloshing the hearsay rule - I think it adds a lot of needless complexity. But courts won't be doing that anytime soon.

More on Stub Hub: Some have asked why I have not sued Stub Hub. There are several reasons for this. (1) they have not yet denied my request for relief, (2) I bought the tickets through the web site and under the web sites terms of use they have the following clause buried: 14.3 Governing Law; Arbitration. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., without regard to its provisions governing conflicts of law. Except for allegations that you have infringed or have threatened to infringe our intellectual property rights, you and we agree that any dispute or controversy between us, or arising under or concerning performance or breach of this Agreement, shall be settled by one arbitrator in binding arbitration, to be held in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., under the then-current rules of the American Arbitration Association. Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. If we allege that you have infringed or threatened to infringe our intellectual property rights, then, in addition to any other rights and remedies we may have, we may seek any preliminary or permanent injunctive relief from any court of competent jurisdiction. For such actions, you consent to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts in and for San Francisco, San Francisco County, U.S.A. Mandatory binding adhesive arbitration clauses that people have no ability to negotiate and are usually not even something people know about arre used to try to deter claims because unlike court's private arbitrators charge hundreds of dollars per hour as fees, making it almost impossible for someone with a dispute worth less than several thousand dollars to even have a chance. Also, Stub Hub has not yet denied my requests. They told me they follow Live Nation's policy, now that I have gotten Live Nation to change their policy due to the prompt filing of my lawsuit (which was part of the goal), I can go back to Stub Hub. If they deny relief, then I can add them. There is a lot to do before the reschedled date regarding obtaining relief for class members, incluing possibly requests for declaratory and injunctive relief for class members.

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 16 2010, 10:11 AM) QUOTE (Kozmo4Rush @ Jul 16 2010, 09:00 AM) Chicago Rain Out Cancellation Explained - Link to Story OMG, they used a similar pun as I did "Weathered veterans of outdoor concerts know it is important not to rush to judgment."in my response. I swear i wrote mine before I read this article! I was chuckling about that too - I had read the Sun Times article before your prior post and thought to myself, wonder if he read the article before posting, otherwise should get a job with the Sun Times. I respect our difference of opinion on "consumer rights" generally. As an assistant debate coach here at Cornell I feel strongly about people's right to disagree. I appreciate your well thought out prior post, and after giving it a little more thought of my own [don't want to "rush to judgment" ] will address some points more specifically, not as regards consumer rights generally (god knows I don't want to send this in political direction, lol), but as your thoughts interface with the specfics of this case. Finally, no need to apologize for tone. I think your tone is perfectly appropriate. I teach my students that sarcasm and wit is a totally valid (and often effective) tactic to use in debate. In on-line forums sometimes the tone doesn't come out right, people take things too literally and get offended. Besides, the disclaimer in your sig line already covers you [did a lawyer write that for you? ]

Some preliminary thoughts on the new link from the Sun Times: Live Nation has shifted in the reason given: From the story: Mark Campana, president of Live Nation Midwest Music, said the plug was pulled after a group meeting with the Live Nation tour producer and local staff, Rush's manager and the band's production team. Rush was not involved in the meeting. "The key was the amount of water that had fallen," Campana said. "The wind caused the water to blow onstage. We all decided not to test the electrical system. We could have cranked up the electricity, but we felt a test could cause harm to people since they were already in the theater. Equipment was set up. ... "We are always going to err on the conservative side when it comes to safety." Here is a post from a member of this forum posting about the cancellation the evening it happened: "Just returned home from the cancelled show - LOTS of unhappy fans in attendance. It started to pour about an hour before the show, and really let loose just before 7:30. It did slow and eventually come to a stop (Almost), but the LiveNation guy came out about 30 min later and gave us the bad news and told us that because of the forecast, they were going to play it safe for us and the band and cancel the show. I had hopes that they'd still play, since there was no wind and the rain had withdrawn to a sprinkle. But in these days of insurance premiums and contracts, I am not surprised. Best seats I've ever had at a Rush show, too. I sincerely hope they reschedule. I also have to whine a bit about the venue. It's terrible. As in, the worst venue I think I've ever been too. Had the show been scheduled in just about ANY other venue in Chicago - we'd be watching the show right now. The flimsy folding seats at the Pavillion are about 16 inches wide (literally), and tied together with those industrial plastic ties. It was super-cramped, felt cheap, and was just a terrible location. I sincerely hope they don't ever use this venue again. Oh well, enough whining - at least I did get to see them 2 nights ago. " Live Nation did not provide the reason they gave the Sun Times to people at the show - Wonder why? Perhaps because the truth implicates Live Nation in negligence. Live Nation did not adeqautely cover the stage, the equipment got wet, and then it was dangerous to proceed with the show on account of electrical risk. Seems like it would be reasonable to give ticket holders who cannot make the rescheduled show their money back. But Live Nation is not willing to take accountability for their actions and negligence. Instead, they want to shift the costs to the fans, all the while profiting from the time-value of the money they hold during the rescheduling period. The article also underscores the importance of this to music lovers and fans generally. Part of the relief I may seek in the lawsuit (I am seriously considering amending it given the recent events and discussions in this forum) is a declaration from the court regarding the rights of the respective parties in the event of rain out. The Sun Times article shows this is a significant issue that effects a variety of concerts, which had conflicting outcomes. A court ruling regarding the obligations of parties under such circumstances would provide useful guidance for other concerts in the future. I do wish Live Nation would have addressed the issue of why fans cannot immediately request, and receive, the return of their money under such circumstances. I don't think a promise to reschedule (or actual reschedule) is an adequate remedy. [For instance, the YES/Frampton fans are still waiting to hear when their "new date" will be (and thus if they can go), all the while the promoter keeps the fans' money]

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 16 2010, 12:38 AM) Hey Chris! You seem to be a very intelligent guy. Do you really think you will still win this case? I think it's null and void. Then again what do I know about law? After reading through your many posts, I need to go "Back To School." Signed, Rodney Dangerfield Ok - one more comment tonight, since I saw this: Thanks for the compliment. I think most RUSH fans are intelligent given the sophistication of the lyrics, etc - that's one of the things that first attracted me to the band when I was a kid. I had cmade a comment to this effect (i.e., that RUSH fans tend to be more intelligent) one response in Counterparts was as follows: "No we're not. We are a disparate group of fuckwits, retards, fanbois and OCD sufferers that gripe and groan at Rush's every turn..." It was after reading that that I decided I would limit my discussion on this issue to this forum (where the admins, who have been repeatedly thanked for the good job they are doing) have kept things on track. I know emotions run high, as we all care about this band, what it does and the music it makes. And sometimes emotions prevent people from seeing things clearly. This is why juries are repeatedly instructed to keep emotions out when deciding the case. I really don't think I am any more intelligent than anyone else in this forum. I just happened to have been trained in law. And notwithstanding some snide comments that I should sue my law school for not teaching me law well enough, I do think I will win the case. If I didn't think so I would not have filed it. I don't think we are fuckwits, retards, fanbois and OCD sufferers - I think we are stadium-fillers who shouldn't be screwed over by the people that profit from the fact that we fill their concert halls.

So I hoped I've typed enough tonight to satisfy maskeddrummer (Masket Rider was a great book, BTW) My last comment tonight is, as concert goers and music lovers don't you think its about time for us to stand up to unfair and deceptive practices by music promoters and companies like TicketMaster (that people routinely refer to as Ticket-bastard). Just throwing up our hands and saying "sh** happens" only allows them to get away with more BS. I'm sure you all love that $9.00 parking fee that Live Nation builds into every ticket purchased regardless of whether you walk, take a taxi, don't park in their lot, or go 4 in a car (and thus jointly pay $36 for one "parking spot"). But I guess if they write it on the ticket then you need to accept it, or just don't go to shows, right? Well I don't accept it. One person asked was it worth all the namecalling, etc. - so far, yes - I think so. I don't give much credit to the name-callers anyway, and some of thise was really due to some misimpressions created by the news reports as to what was/is really going on. We as consumers, music-lovers, concert goers and fans have rights, regardless of the fact most people are not aware of them. I am trying (exclusively through my posts in this forum) to try to see if I can make some small difference in helping people become a little more informed about the rights conferred upon them by our legal system.

QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 15 2010, 11:48 PM)Chris: What about disclaimers or fine print? Do those become invalid simply because they are not in plain sight but merely on the back of the ticket? Alex - the law on the enforcability of disclaimers/fine print is extensive and complicated. Depending on a variety of factors those kinds of exculpatory clauses are sometimes enforced, sometimes not. For a variety of reasons in this case we feel we have good legal arguments that such limitations do not prevent the remedies requested. In that regard, one prior poster noted I should "follow the rules." I am. The rules are the statutes and common law, not merely what a company decides to write in its fine print. I am sure you, like many, have rented a car. And if you had to stand behind the person that was sitting there for an hour reading it all and trying to negotiate it you would be calling them the kinds of names I have been called in the Counterparts forum. So that is the point, because these terms are not negotiated at arms-length and the consumer is not given an opportunity to negotiate the terms they don't get the kind of legal respect that actually-negotiated contractual terms do. (Not to say they are irrelevant - just not the be-all/end-all by any means"

QUOTE (Snaked @ Jul 15 2010, 04:33 PM) Funniest part of the whole thing is he STILL isnt addressing the real issues. It's typical lawyer distraction bullshit. We ask a question and his response is "Hey! Look over there!! It's a blimp!" Chris, I will say this again. Your purchase agreement is with StubHub. Not TicketMaster. Not LiveNation. Not RUSH. StubHub was not hired to be an agent for any of those entities in regards to this matter. Please tell us what action you have taken in regards to STUBHUB since the announcement of the show being rescheduled. And please refrain from bringing up TicketsNow.com or any other agency which truly has no bearing on this discussion. TicketsNow.com was never contracted by you or anybody else in regards to your purchase. Their policies have zero bearing on the matter at hand. Snaked: I am still in the process of dealing with Stub Hub. I hope my last few posts address this concern adequately. Also, let me again try to clarify the nature of a class action. I am suing not only for myself, but others "similarly-situated." The fact that others may have bought through Craigslist, or TicketsNow, are similarly situated in that they have purchased through third-party sellers. It is reasonably forseeable to Live Nation/Ticketmaster that people will do this (esp given Ticketmaster explicitly endorses one of them). So the purpose of the observation re: TicketsNow was to point out that Ticketmaster uses such services. Early in this thread people were commenting to the effect - you deserve what you get for using a quasi-legal scalping service etc. One poster noted there are advertisments even within venues for theses services and a discussion surrounding whether LiveNation/Ticketmaster endorse them. So I was attempting to shed some light on that. Also notable is that TicketsNow is a sponsoring link of the RIAB forum. So I am assuming that some fans/subcribers on that board used TicketsNow - should they be screwed and denied their money back because they used that service? So I respectfully disagree with your view that facts and practices regarding those other entities is irrelvant. Also, a ticket is a license that confers rights on the holder, regardless of the means by which they become a holder. So its not a question of whether Stub Hub is an agent of Live Nation, but rather Live Nation is liable for damages for its breach of the contract/license when it is in fact reasonably foreseeable that people will use those agencies.

QUOTE (PariahDog @ Jul 15 2010, 04:25 PM) With the show rescheduled, I really don't understand why you are still suing. I'm sure you can sell your tickets on StubHub for at least what you paid. In fact, you can probably get a premuim as these are the infamous Chris Langone Lawsuit tickets. But I guess that's not good enough, and you still want compensation for "travel costs to the show, and out of pocket losses" (your original post). I'd be very interested to know what these costs are, if not airfare and beers as you say. Is it really worth a class action lawsuit at this point? PariahDog - I may have to try to sell the tickets on Stub Hub. That is what the recent email they sent ticketholders says people must do. But this contradicts what they told me on the telephone when I asked for a refund - at that time they stated they follow Live Nation's policy. Now that Live Nation has altered its policy (in possible response to media reports of the suit - their recent offer totally contradicts what is written on the ticket) - Stub Hub may attempt to back-track on their promise to me - that remains to be seen. Also, I wanted to thank you for some particularly informative posts in this thread. I know you don't agree with my approach, but you have been very respectful and rational in your approach. Who knows, maybe one of us will convice the other, or maybe at the end we will just have to settle on agreeing to disagree. Let me ask you a question - I did a little research on the Yes/Peter Frampton suit you mentioned and posted pix of collapsed stage. Clearly that performance of that show was rendered impossible due to the wind storm collapsing the stage (impossibility of performance is a potential defense to a contract suit), but while impossibility of performance excuses a party from incidental and consequential damages, they still need to make restitution for the benefits conferred on them (i.e. return the ticket price. My question to you is, do you think people who cannot make the resheduled YES/Frampton date should receive a refund? See the following link for a summary of the doctrine of the defense of impossibility of performance: http://www.west.net/~smith/imposbl.htm

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jul 15 2010, 11:25 PM) Chris, between your quote and your reply, you managed to post 2,241 words which could have been reduced to this: "Sorry for the misunderstanding and the way this thread devolved into political sniping for a little while. Won't happen again." You have yet to address any of the concerns that have been raised up to this point. How about you start with the fact that because the show was rescheduled, you have no case? I thought my 2241 word post addresses that (one reason I quoted it is because I thought it might have gotten lost int he political side show). I also wanted to make clear that I was not the one who started the "politics" and note that I have already said I'm sorry about the poltical sniping and I wouldn't happen again. To say I have not addressed "any of the concerns" that have been raised is not accurate. One of the most frequently voiced concerns related to the issue of Stub Hub, my 2241 word post addresses that extensively. That same post also begins to address the rescheduled date issue. My point, as concisely as possible: I do not think rescheduling is an adeqaute remedy for breach of contract. The contract is for a particular date, which is a material term of the contract. People enter into the contract in reliance on performance on the the particular date. If performance cannot be rendered on the date promised (whether for good or bad reasons - justified or not) then their is breach of the material terms and the non-breaching party is entitled to foreseeable damages including the price paid for the ticket. I really don't see this as controversial. For instance, the reporing on the law-suit was re-reported on Pollstar:(http://www.pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2010/07/13/731589.aspx#bottom. Here was the first comment made in response to the more-accurately reported version of the story: (By ElPerro) Ticket-sellers should be required by law to immediately refund not only the ticket value, but all parking and "convenience" fees in case of a cancellation or change of date. It is my understanding that Ticketmaster has always refunded 100%. But I don't know if they still do, now that they have joined the Live Nation Evil Empire. I can tell you from personal experience that MusicToday DOES NOT give you back your service charges in case of a cancellation, they only give you back the face value of the tickets. Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to buy tickets through them. Bastiges. To the consipracy theorists that may be out there, I am not "El Perro" (he/she is obviously more concise than me). But this sentiment captures the legal basis of my suit exactly: "Ticket sellers should be required by law to immediately refund ... in case ... of change of date." A resheduling is not adeqaute, especially if people cannot make the re-scheduled date. Some have suggested - yea, well just resell on Stub Hub -- but this contradicts the view that people should not be using Stub Hub and if they do they deserve what they get.

QUOTE (CygXanTor @ Jul 15 2010, 03:54 PM) I do have one question, and I'm not sure if this has been addressed, so please forgive my ignorance; What advantage is there in purchasing tickets from a broker such as StubHub? Seeme like our friend Chris could have avoided this whole mess if he had gone straight to TM... No problem CygXanTor, I think this is an important point. I went through Stub Hub because the show was sold out. I did not know I would possibly be in Chicago at the time tickets went on sale. Then, I found out I had to go Chicago on other business in July. I had some flexibility in scheduling my other business, so when I saw RUSH was going to be there in early July I arranged my other trip around the tour date, but it was too late to get tickets from Ticketmaster or Live Nation. I used Stub Hub, but I could have just as easily used TicketsNow, or Craigslist, as others have done. When Live Nation creates a situation whereby I could have "avoided this situation by going straight to TM" (which they now own), it has potential anti-competitive effects in the ticket sales marketplace. Do people really think that there is no role for ticket exchange services such as Stub Hub, TicketsNow and Craigslist, especially when tickets may sell out before people decide to buy (for whatever reason)