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)

@tupelobarchetta: not so much misquoted but perhaps misunderstood. She specifically asked me about how much I spent getting there, etc. I noted that I flew in from NY to see the show, which I did. I had some other business that I specifically scheduled around the RUSH show, so I would have come to Chicago anyway, which is why I am not claiming airfare. But as putative class representative I have a duty to seek others' travel expenses to the extend they want to claim them -- for instance people that paid gas, parking, taxi to come to the show in explicit reliance on the "rain or shine" representation. So the lawsuit generically claims "travel expenses" to cover the latter on behalf of potential class members, but not specifically for me. If the court allows class members to submit claim forms, as I hope, I am trying to protect their rights to collect reasonable travel expenses, but I myself am not claiming that based on my personal circumstance. It's technical, I know, and I think the article left a misleading impression, although I am not accusing the Sun Times reporter (forget her name) of intentionally doing so. To the extent "out of context" implied the contrary that was not meant - hope this clarifies...

@snakeman: As the putative class representative I am seeking to have the court order that anyone who wants a refund gets one, regardless of point of purchase. So the contract involving Ticketsnow is potentially relevant. Also think its a better example of (at a minimum) at least being clear about the disclosure of alleged contract terms (independent of whether they are fair, unconscionable, or enforceable). Stub Hub's alleged contract/disclosure is similar in all material respects as to the refund for re-scheduling aspect but not as specific as in defining things like "acts of God". Stub hub contract does not mention "acts of god" as regards claimed refund on account of rescheduling.

I am going to prepare one more response to some of the questions/ issues raised, and especially with regard to the rescheduling and its effect. But other responsibilities have prevented me from being able to sit down and review the posts thoroughly and put together a cogent and comprehesive response. I believe there are important and interesting legal issues that hopefully will result in some people (those who care) being educated about some of the larger issues involving contract law, concert promotion practices, etc. and legal rights and remedies generally. I will get to this in the next few days - but I want to be comprehensive and accurate in addressing points, especially the sincere and legitimate ones. This is the only forum in which I have chosen to participate further (other than my original explanatory post, which was cross posted to RIAB and Counterparts). I have decided to do so because this forum has been for the most part civil and I think there is some genuine interest in the legal issues. I don't really care that much about being called names (I learned to ignore name-calling in elementary school), but I don't feel its worth my time to respond in a forum where the only discursive response is along the lines "dick," "douche" and "moron." While there has been some of that here, it has been minimal and I again thank and appreciate the gentle reminders of the administrator and cooperation of most participants in that regard. One of my roles at Cornell is as an assistant speech and debate coach, and I believe civil debate is the hallmark of a democratic society. I have changed my own mind and views on many issues through that process, and I know others have too. For those who are still unclear on the point I do have a law degree, and for 10 years I practiced consumer protection law in particular. So I have a genuine passion for attempting to help people understand and pursue their rights. There seems to be some misunderstanding about several points, including: what a class action is and they are important for consumers victimized by large corporations like Live Nation, the fact that the so-called "fine print" is not, in fact, the be-all/end-all to contract law, and the effect and importance of the law of principal-agent as well as the transfer of liscense rights (a ticket is a form of license). This is not about me getting attention -- it's really not. It's about a consumer protection issues generally and trying to make sure that companies like Live Nation are not permitted to ride rough-shod over people's rights. Too many people simply roll-over like complacent sheep because a company puts something in fine print. Believe it or not, the law says people don't have too - there are legal protections and remedies. I am aware of my rights and hope to make others aware of theirs too. I will find a way to see this tour, as I have every tour since Moving Pictures. But I didn't file this lawsuit just for me, I filed it as a class action on behalf of everyone that was victimized by Live Nations' false and deceptive practices and breach of contract. One interesting issue on the so-called refund promise recently made by Live Nation is the "point of purchase" limitation, which seems primarily calculated to maintain a grip on their quasi-monopolistic control of the concert ticket market (worsened by the DOJ's recent approval of their aquisition of Ticket-Master). So if interested, you can expect a forthcoming explanation of the some of the legal issues implicated by my suit. If not, then don't read the thread!

@spacement: Thank you for the link - that is interesting - and it totally contradicts what Live Nation prints on the ticket: "IN THE EVENT OF A CANCELLATION OR RESCHEDULING OF THE APPLICABLE EVENT, MANAGEMENT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE A REFUND PROVIDED THAT YOU ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT, WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL EVENT, TO ATTEND A RESCHEDULED PERFORMANCE OF THE SAME EVENT OR TO EXCHANGE THIS TICKET FOR A TICKET, COMPARABLE IN PRICE AND LOCATION, TO ANOTHER SIMILAR EVENT AS DESIGNATED BY MANAGEMENT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. HOLDER BEARS ALL RISKS OF INCLEMENT WEATHER. .... NO REFUNDS. NO EXCHANGES EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN. EVENT DATE & TIME SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." I will further investigate. If the link you reference is accurate then it's odd that they print something on the ticket that's different. And if Stub Hub is lying -- well... I cannot go to rescheduled event in Chicago, this was a summer trip that I picked to take some old friends to a show. I requested a refund and was denied. And the ticket excplicitly states no refund.

PS - I asked Stub Hub for my money back and was told no per Live Nation's policy - so I did not run to court and file a lawsuit before requsting my money back. Do people really think ticket holders should be left holding the bag for a show that never occurred? Wouldn't the reasonable, honest and ethical thing be to offer people their money back? I'm stunned that anyone would side with Live Nation on this.

Thanks to the admins and forum members for the civility in the discourse. I'm getting a lot of flames and "hate" email from reports of the lawsuit in other forums. I know some people just don't like lawsuits, which is fine - but I feel my suit raises some important issues and I do hope it makes a difference with promoters like Live Nation in the future. I want to follow up on a few points that have been raised. 1. The issue of a "refund" is different than a breach of contract. For instance, a store can have a "no refunds-exchanges only" policy, or a refunds honored within 30 day policy, or a no-refund/no exchange (i.e. all sales final) policy -- but if they don't sell merchandise that conforms to the reasonable expectations of the buyer they can be sued for breach of contract. In other words a "no refunds' disclaimer on the ticket does not mean that Live Nation can simply breach the contract - it just means that they have adopted a policy of "no refunds" and thus a lawsuit is the only remedy. In other words, a "no refunds" disclaimer does not immunize them from a breach of contract or consumer fraud suit - it simply means that they have chosen not to voluntarily adopt a policy of giving refunds. 2. Ethical promoters offer refunds. For instance, Oasis performed a show last year. Due to technical problems with the sound the show was plauged with delays and problems. The next day the band and promoter was offering full refunds on their webiste. (Notably, there was a show, but the band felt it did not meet their quality standards, so they offered an immediate refund). http://dalje.com/en-bestseller/oasis-conce...d-refund/263475 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ter/8084444.stm http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story...led-gig_1105566 3. On the infamous issue of "beers" -- as we all know, concert beers are overpriced - fine. But my point on this is I believe the venue (operated by Live Nation) knew they were going to have to cancel the show well before admitting most people through the gates but also knew people would buy concessions - so rather than being up front and honest and immediately announcing a cancellation they let people think there was still going to be a show so they could sell concessions. I think that's deceptive. 4. This same argument relates to travel - things like cabs, and parking. One of my friends checked the website before coming in from the suburbs, because if people reasonably rely to their detriment on the representation of "rain or shine" then they are legally entitled to reliance damages. 5. My lawyer has no problem with me talking about this in the forum because as has been mentioned I do have a law degree. I practiced consumer protection law for 15 years before quiting the practice of law in 2006 to obtain my doctoral degree and pursue a career in academia. I do not currently practice and my current income is a $20,000 stipend from Cornell - so no, I am not a "rich lawyer" and the $480 I spent on tickets was a substantial expenditure for me. Normally I don't use re-sellers. But Stub Hub's policy is a reasonable one - they issue refunds if the promoter allows. I stand in the shoes of the original purchaser. If Live Nation says yes, refund - I will get one - so it's not Stub Hub's call. 6. Personally, I hate that I had to include RUSH in the suit - but they are necessary parties for technical legal reasons. My gripe is mainly with Live Nation, who I honestly believe is a wrong-doer here. Too often people simply roll over and take abuse from large multi-national corporations. The fact that I have a law degree, and know my legal rights, and have a specific background in consumer protection puts me in a special position to try to stand up against these kinds of practices. In conclusion, I am not trying to be a "whiny baby" or suggesting RUSH should have risked electrocution, etc. Some people are telling me I should "shut up" and take "responsibility" but I've done nothing wrong to be "responsible" about. I take responsibility for my actions. I try to live up to my promises and if I can't for reasons beyond my control I try my best to make things right. I think most people do the same. Live Nation is the one that should take responsibility for their deceptive practices and the band can pressure, if not force them, to do that. Just because they are a corporation doesn't mean they can act free of moral/legal responsibility for their actions.

@hughes&ketner: I cannot make a rescheduled show in Sept - I need my money back now - I want to see them next week in Toronto or NY but can't get my money back - there are numerous others in my same situation. This is about Live Nation being unreasonable - this suit is about forcing them to do the right thing. How can they keep the $$$ for a show that did not happen? It's not fair. If people want to use their tix to go to a rescheduled show - fine -but I cannot do that in Sept and want my money back now. Stub Hub said they are bound by Live Nation's policy and cannot authorize a refund unless Live Nation does and they said Live Nation says no refunds unless there is total cancellation, not reschedule. I cannot fly back to Chicago in Sept - so I want my back now - i know others are in a similar situation. How can you charge money and not deliver the goods?

No - all I want is my $480 back - and I want an order from the court (or agreement from the band and Live Nation) that anyone else that wants a refund can get one. As it stands now, refund requests are being denied. I made one before filing the lawsuit and was told no. I don't think I am being an ass for filing a lawsuit when Live Nation is refusing to refund money for a show that did not occur. If it is in fact rescheduled for Sept I cannot go - I'd be happy to go to the 7/17 show in Toronto, or the 7/21 show in Philly, or the 7/23 show in Saratog or 7/24 Wantagh but don't have the $$$ to lay out again -- I think it is totally unreasonable to deny a refund request for a show that did not happen. I think it is unfair to advertise rain or shine and then cancel a show on account of rain and not give a refund. I would have sat through the show notwithstanding the rain and loved it, I'm sure -- but they cancelled it because they could not keep the stage dry and wires shorted - fine - so offer people a refund. I really fnd it hard to believe that people think I should just suck it up and lose $480 for a show that never happened because "shit happens" -- I want to see RUSH - paid to see RUSH and as it stands right now will not be able to see RUSH. Why is Live Nation refusing refund requests? RUSH has the power to order their agent/promoter to honor refund requests and that is what I am askined for.

So I am Chris Langone and yes I filed a lawsuit. Here's why: 1. I came in from New York to take a group of my friends to see my favorite band. I have seen RUSH on every tour since Moving Pictures in 1981 when I was 13. Oftentimes twice on the leg. I wanted to share the experience with my friends, some of whom had never seen RUSH. When the storm came a few of my friends suggested not going on account of the weather. I was strenuous in stating, "no" the tickets say rain or shine. I have sat through numerous concerts in the rain and was prepared to that night. We walked to the show from my hotel in the pouring rain - we all got drenched but once inside didn't care - we were going to see RUSH! At around 8:30 or 8:45 the rain stopped. The guy came on stage - we thought he was going to introduce the band, but instead stated that due to an incoming storm the show was going not going to proceed. 2. The next day I telephoned Stub Hub, from whom I bought the tix and asked for a refund of the ticket price. I was told no. I was told that no refunds are possible unless the show is totally cancelled -- and it might be rescheduled. As of now there is no rescheduled date. There are rumors it might be re-scheduled in September, but nothing is confirmed. And if so, possibly at a different venue - like in Tinley Park - where the sound sucks. Also, I cannot make a rescheduled show in September, which is the rumored date, as I will be back at Cornell where I have teaching and research responsibilities. So what I don't understand is why I cannot receive my money back. I spent almost $500 on tickets for a show that did not proceed and am being refused my money back based on an alleged policy of Live Nation, the promoter. I filed my lawsuit because I was denied my money back and think that people who request their money back should be able to get it. If people can make a rescheduled show, great -- but those who cannot should get their money back. 3. I would love to go see RUSH in New York or Toronto next week, but don't have the money to buy new tickets because I cannot get a refund of the $480 I already spent. If refunded the money (or even permitted an exchange) I would buy new tix for a show I can go to, but Live Nation does not allow this. 4. I have been advised that Live Nation operates the venue. I have also heard that the show did not proceed because there was shorted wires, etc. on account of the wet stage. One would think that a company that operates a venue for "rain or shine" shows would be able to keep to keep the stage dry - and if they were negligent and had to cancel the show as a result would at least offer refunds. I also believe that Live Nation knew before 8:30 they were going to have to cancel the show, but rather than post a notice on the gate to that effect, let people in to sell them overpriced concessions like $11 and $13 beers. The person who came on stage and said the show was being cancelled is, I believe, associated with Live Nation and he lied as to the reason - he stated it was due to an incoming storm (which was not the case) and not because Live Nation failed to protect the stage - it did not rain a drop that night after they announced cancellation. The show could have gone on - unless of course wires shorted due to Live Nation's inability to adequately protect the stage. And, if so, then Live Nation should honor requests for money back. 5. I am not suing for my air fare, or beers. I am only asking for the money spent on tickets, travel costs to the show, and out of pocket losses. Numerous posters in forums talked about driving hundreds of miles to the show, in the rain, to go see a "rain or shine: event. My lawsuit seeks to get money lost by all RUSH fans that lost out financially due to the rain or shine event. Anyone who does not want to be a part of the class action, has the right to opt out. Only people who, like me, want their money back will be a part of the lawsuit. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." 6. I have heard second hand that Ticket Master is honoring refunds (not sure if that is true) but I did not get my ticket through Ticketmaster. I got a "Live Nation" ticket through stub hub and they are saying they cannot refund the ticket price because they follow the promoter's policy. 7. For legal reasons I was required to sue the band, because they are the princpal and Live Nation is the agent. If RUSH directs Live Nation to issue refunds, then I am advised Live Nation will be obligated to do so. All I want is my $480 back (and it is a class action - so others who are similarly situated should get their money back too). 8. I really believe I am doing a good thing for fans like myself screwed by an unscrupulous promoter. I also believe RUSH has integrity and the power to make this right. I don't think the personal attacks on me are warranted and I belive RUSH fans are intellecutal enough to realize, knowing the facts, that what I request is reasonable. To the extent the Chicago Sun Times and other news reports have given an erroneous impression as to what this lawsuit is about, I want to correct the record. 9. I will choose a path that's clear - I will choose free will. I am happy to discuss the merits of what I am doing with people in a rational, intellectual way. I have been called names, and even threatened with violence. As RUSH fans, we are better than that - we are fans of the smartest, most "thinking" band ever - if people really think there are good reasons that people should not get their money back for a show that never occurred then I want to hear them. Otherwise, I would hope fans would step up and demand the band and their promoter do the right thing.