Chris Langone's Explanation

[tel]

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 13 2010, 09:58 AM)

QUOTE (tel @ Jul 13 2010, 02:53 AM) despite what the smallprint says how many on here think that a refund policy should be introduced? ive been in sales all my adult life and if i sell goods or services which are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE then the seller must first be offered the opportunity to correct the situation and secondly a refund should be forthcoming,granted a rescheduled date has been arranged but chris cant go to it therefore his tickets are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. GIVE HIM HIS DOUGH! This is much different than a refund on a product. It's not that simple. The venue was occupied and they lost all their money from the concessions to be made, the crew was tied up, so they get paid. It's not like returning a toaster, dude. This is a major deal and a tour manager's worst nightmare. but at the end of the day this is neither the consumers fault nor the consumers problem is it?

[the masked drummer]

QUOTE (tel @ Jul 14 2010, 02:27 AM)

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 13 2010, 09:58 AM) QUOTE (tel @ Jul 13 2010, 02:53 AM) despite what the smallprint says how many on here think that a refund policy should be introduced? ive been in sales all my adult life and if i sell goods or services which are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE then the seller must first be offered the opportunity to correct the situation and secondly a refund should be forthcoming,granted a rescheduled date has been arranged but chris cant go to it therefore his tickets are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. GIVE HIM HIS DOUGH! This is much different than a refund on a product. It's not that simple. The venue was occupied and they lost all their money from the concessions to be made, the crew was tied up, so they get paid. It's not like returning a toaster, dude. This is a major deal and a tour manager's worst nightmare. but at the end of the day this is neither the consumers fault nor the consumers problem is it? No, it's not. But the consumer here is having the "service" replaced automatically, so there's no reason to demand a refund.

[metaldad]

QUOTE (WIDE-ANGLE WATCHER @ Jul 13 2010, 09:22 PM)

I think a refund is NOT possible when rescheduling.

It most certainly is if you buy them legit . I have had many show postponed/cancelled and Every time my money was given back . Now , buying your tickets from a Scalper is a different ballgame

[Pound of Obscure]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 13 2010, 09:59 PM)

QUOTE (WIDE-ANGLE WATCHER @ Jul 13 2010, 07:22 PM) I think 'Rain or shine' and 'Canceled show' are mute points. Is that anything like a moot point? Yes, but quieter.

[Pound of Obscure]

QUOTE (briremo @ Jul 13 2010, 09:27 PM)

chris is typing another longwinded reply so here's my chance. I respect chris but hink he's standing on the back of his high horse trying to protect us all from a problem that only exists in the mind of attorneys. Saying things like LiveNation is running rough-shod over people's rights is a little extreme, doncha think. concert rescheduled dude. Get a life. Friggin attorneys always trying to make an issue out of nothing. Oops! I just spilled coffee in my lap. HELP! I need a consumer protection attorney!

Yep, the only people who sue for 480 dollars are pos lawyers because that is how they live their lives and people on Judge Mathis.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Pound of Obscure

[ChroniclesOfRush]

QUOTE (chrislangone @ Jul 11 2010, 11:07 AM)

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"......

This conversation's over.....

 

[the masked drummer]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/kenamay/geddysmullet.jpg

[PariahDog]

QUOTE (chrislangone @ Jul 13 2010, 09:00 PM)

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!

So... All this just to say "I'll get back to you."

 

 

[GernTheFish]

Thread bashers - begone!

 

Personally, I'm surprised at the # of people who disagree with the lawsuit. I would have thought more folks would be applauding Chris's efforts.

 

Some concert goers, myself included, are hesitant to buy tickets to outdoor shows for the very reason that they could cancel or reschedule.

The phrase "rain or shine" surely eases our minds to some extent. I don't know exactly how the phrase was intended, but I really think it's a misleading marketing ploy. It seems like a clever way of disguising "we won't reschedule" with "bring your poncho".

 

There, I said it.

Edited July 14, 2010 by GernTheFish

[tangy]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=128473078

 

^^ this is a very interesting article from NPR about Live Nation that details their woes this year and describes how the outdoor venues are now the most lucrative for them.

 

 

 

 

[The_Enemy_Within]

I haven't read all of these posts or anything... A lot of them are long-winded and whatnot, but I do know some people agree, and more people disagree. My question, and sorry if it's a stupid one, but... Since RUSH has rescheduled, doesn't that kind of throw out any arguments Chris has made? He bought the tickets for that particular show, and it was postponed, but now rescheduled. Is it the company's fault he can't make it to the show he bought? I don't see why he just didn't wait around to see a show closer to him or something like that.

 

All of this just seems really huge... kinda uncalled for. I understand him wanting money back, in a way... before the show was rescheduled, though. No show - why should he lose all that money? Or, anyone else for that matter. But now that it's still on, what fighting chance does he have?

 

 

Edited July 14, 2010 by The_Enemy_Within

[the masked drummer]

QUOTE (GernTheFish @ Jul 14 2010, 01:00 PM)

The phrase "rain or shine" surely eases our minds to some extent. I don't know exactly how the phrase was intended, but I really think it's a misleading marketing ploy. It seems like a clever way of disguising "we won't reschedule" with "bring your poncho". There, I said it.

I don't think it's as a much a marketing ploy as it is a reassurance not to stay home if it starts sprinkling on the night of event. Unfortunately, sometimes the result could end up in cancellation for that night at the inconvenience and expense of both the band and the fans. It is unreasonable as both a consumer and as an honest person in general to expect better than a 99% certainty that an event is going to happen, in the real world that is...

[the masked drummer]

QUOTE (The_Enemy_Within @ Jul 14 2010, 02:07 PM)

I haven't read all of these posts or anything... A lot of them are long-winded and whatnot, but I do know some people agree, and more people disagree. My question, and sorry if it's a stupid one, but... Since RUSH has rescheduled, doesn't that kind of throw out any arguments Chris has made? He bought the tickets for that particular show, and it was postponed, but now rescheduled. Is it the company's fault he can't make it to the show he bought? I don't see why he just didn't wait around to see a show closer to him or something like that. All of this just seems really huge... kinda uncalled for. I understand him wanting money back, in a way... before the show was rescheduled, though. No show - why should he lose all that money? Or, anyone else for that matter. But now that it's still on, what fighting chance does he have?

So if I had a helicopter flying lesson that I paid $5000 for, does that mean I should try to have the flight school or the airport refund my round trip airfare to Miami and also my $5000usd? Regardless of what laws are on my side I couldn't in good conscience ask them to pay. It's not their fault and it was out of their control. The right thing to do is to accept a rescheduling and fly back down there. Now if the flight school was negligent and cancelled the lesson then i would expect a refund for my travel expenses and possibly a full refund depending on the terms of our agreement. i think sometimes people mistake rights with abuse of the legal system. And it's embarrassing that americans are being laughed at by other countries on this very forum who view us as a culture of people filing any old lawsuit at the drop of the hat. Its sad...

Edited July 14, 2010 by the masked drummer

[The_Enemy_Within]

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 14 2010, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE (The_Enemy_Within @ Jul 14 2010, 02:07 PM) I haven't read all of these posts or anything... A lot of them are long-winded and whatnot, but I do know some people agree, and more people disagree. My question, and sorry if it's a stupid one, but... Since RUSH has rescheduled, doesn't that kind of throw out any arguments Chris has made? He bought the tickets for that particular show, and it was postponed, but now rescheduled. Is it the company's fault he can't make it to the show he bought? I don't see why he just didn't wait around to see a show closer to him or something like that. All of this just seems really huge... kinda uncalled for. I understand him wanting money back, in a way... before the show was rescheduled, though. No show - why should he lose all that money? Or, anyone else for that matter. But now that it's still on, what fighting chance does he have? So if I had a helicopter flying lesson that I paid $5000 for, does that mean I should try to have the flight school or the airport refund my round trip airfare to Miami and also my $5000usd? Regardless of what laws are on my side I couldn't in good conscience ask them to pay. It's not their fault and it was out of their control. The right thing to do is to accept a rescheduling and fly back down there. Now if the flight school was negligent and cancelled the lesson then i would expect a refund for my travel expenses and possibly a full refund depending on the terms of our agreement. i think sometimes people mistake rights with abuse of the legal system. And it's embarrassing that americans are being laughed at by other countries on this very forum who view us as a culture of people filing any old lawsuit at the drop of the hat. Its sad...   Right. Yeah. I don't really have an opinion of the whole lawsuit... as I don't want to be spewing out things I really have no clue about. However, I think he should deal with the rescheduling, too.

[PariahDog]

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 14 2010, 02:15 PM)

I don't think it's as a much a marketing ploy as it is a reassurance not to stay home if it starts sprinkling on the night of event. Unfortunately, sometimes the result could end up in cancellation for that night at the inconvenience and expense of both the band and the fans. It is unreasonable as both a consumer and as an honest person in general to expect better than a 99% certainty that an event is going to happen, in the real world that is...

Agreed, some folks are taking "rain or shine" way too literally. I think it's intended as guideline and not a binding contract. For example, if it's just lightly sprinkling then the show will likely proceed. But if there's a heavy downpour or dangerous winds, should the show still go on because the ticket says "rain?"

 

Chris' contention seems to be that the weather was not serious enough to stop the show. But shouldn't the band and venue be the ones to make the call on safety issues? Looking at the layout of the venue, there was zero cover for the fans and limited protection for the stage. It certainly looks possible that rain could have easily swept onto the stage causing a dangerous situation with all the electronics, lighting rigs, etc. TRF accounts have said there was a heavy downpour through the afternoon which started to clear around the time of the show. But who knows if the heavy rain would have returned during the next three hours?

 

I play in just a nickel-and-dime cover band, and have refused to play in a couple of situations (jury-rigged power outlets, structurally unsafe stage). It's just not worth the risk. Look at what happend the day before when the Yes/Frampton stage collapsed in Oklahoma.

 

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-l...0,6390817.story

 

 

 

[PariahDog]

QUOTE (The_Enemy_Within @ Jul 14 2010, 02:07 PM)

I understand him wanting money back, in a way... before the show was rescheduled, though. No show - why should he lose all that money? Or, anyone else for that matter. But now that it's still on, what fighting chance does he have?

Yeah, that's the other point of his lawsuit: he wants a refund regardless of the rescheduled show. He also seems to want his expenses reimbursed, though his own explanation seems to be self-contradictory:

 

QUOTE (chrislangone @ Jul 10 2010, 04:39 PM)

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.

 

I can also kind of understand him wanting his ticket refunded, but not the other expenses. And if he had bought his ticket from Ticketmaster/Live Nation instead of StubHub, that might have been possible. Others on TRF have said LN/TM will refund for a rescheduled show, although their websites seem to show the same policy as StubHub (no refund unless show is cancelled and NOT rescheduled).

 

Chris seems to be kind of tilting at windmills here, trying to force a policy change on the part of LN/TM and StubHub through this lawsuit. But if this is the case, why is he suing the band instead of StubHub or LN/TM?

 

 

[spacement]

[Rush Cocky]

So to sum up.....our dear friend and fellow Rush fan Chris is taking on corporate greed and sloppy management practices.

 

I think it's going to court, and I think he's gonna win. I hope some of the Chicago fans got in on the action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One more thing.....

 

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/InBeforeTheLock.gif

[Synthetic]

This will never come to a win... too many holes and not enough research on the supposed Plaintiff's end...

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Jul 14 2010, 05:49 PM)

So to sum up.....our dear friend and fellow Rush fan Chris is taking on corporate greed and sloppy management practices. I think it's going to court, and I think he's gonna win.  I hope some of the Chicago fans got in on the action. One more thing..... http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/InBeforeTheLock.gif

 

We're not going to lock it until this thing pans out. Most of us here are actually interested in how Chris will explain his position now that the show has been rescheduled -- even if most here think the case is dead. I say we let him. We might get some decent courtroom drama if we can keep the message board drama to a minimum.

[Rush Cocky]

Just trying to make light of an otherwise emotional situation.

 

Plus I've been waiting for an opportunity to use the graphic.

[PariahDog]

Edited July 14, 2010 by PariahDog

[Skin Bag]

What if Rush were able to start the show and play for an hour but then had to cancel the rest because of torrential downpour and lightening strikes in the area? Would they normally reschedule and, if not, would folks such as Chris be justified to start a class action suit and demand 2/3 of the ticket price and travel expenses? The math could get tricky, eh?

[djtess]

Good Luck Chris!!! Rain or Shine means "Rain or Shine", and don't give me that BS that a piece of equiptment was blown. You mean to tell me a million dollar band like Rush dosen't have back-up equiptment??

 

Frivorlous lawsuits should always be called-out, however, this is not one of them.

 

 

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (djtess @ Jul 14 2010, 07:07 PM)

Good Luck Chris!!! Rain or Shine means "Rain or Shine", and don't give me that BS that a piece of equiptment was blown. You mean to tell me a million dollar band like Rush dosen't have back-up equiptment?? Frivorlous lawsuits should always be called-out, however, this is not one of them.

It's frivolous.

 

Rain or shine is just that, rain or shine. Potentially dangerous situations do not fall under rain or shine.

 

And who are you to assume what "back-up equipment" is?

 

It's easy to imagine how others should spend their "millions". Isn't it?