Chris Langone's Explanation

[Mr. Krinkle]

I wonder if Mr. Langone sues every time he gets food that dosen't look like the photo in the menu.

 

Or, when his cop buddies turn on their flashers just to get through traffic faster to meet their other law breaking buddies at the donut shop.

[Kozmo4Rush]

Chicago Rain Out Cancellation Explained - Link to Story

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (Kozmo4Rush @ Jul 16 2010, 08:00 AM)

Chicago Rain Out Cancellation Explained - Link to Story

QUOTE

Hairbanger's Ball does about 40 outdoor shows throughout the area every summer. "The general rule is unless there's lightning, the show will continue," said Jennifer Remis (a k a Polly Pantz), co-founder of Hairbanger's Ball.

Oh, well, if the co-founder of Hairbanger's Ball says the show must go on, the show must go on!

 

Also in that article is a story of Neil Young continuing on while power was shorted out, water was building up around the stage and "people were screaming" due to the F**KING HAIL that was blowing into the crowd. My already low opinion of Young has just hit rock bottom. What a dick.

[the masked drummer]

His pov (point of view) vs. my pov:

 

OK, I was greatly appreciative that Chris made a bunch of posts and answered a few of our questions in the way he knows how. I understand that when you ask a question, your answer will change dramatically depending on who you are, where you've been, and what you do. And Chris is a lawyer, so we should accept that his answer is from a legal mind and he answers the way that he knows how. It reminds me of my business law prof, who once stated firmly "the law is not what's right or fair, the law is the law is the law", meaning that people like the masked drummer shouldn't look at the moral aspect of these issues, but just to look at what laws are applicable to them and see how they impact the given situation. However, (right, wrong, or indifferent)as an armchair philosopher who grew up in a capitalist-minded home, my goal is to break down the facts stated and to explore what's right according to my beliefs. It is my opinion that consumer rights have been blown way out of proportion in this country. Even though I'm a consumer myself, I also see things from the side of the business owner. As a former business owner I experienced first hand how buyers/consumers pretty much have the seller by the balls in most cases. As consumers in the U.S., we have been conditioned by policies created to serve customers rights and the ultimate convenience at the expense of business owners. In particular, large retailers, for the sake of customer loyalty, have implemented a "no questions asked" return policy which takes the responsibility of purchases off the purchaser's shoulders. And it's what we come to expect. We expect to be able to "shop" online or at a brick & mortar store and get our money back unconditionally if we simply decide we want our money we gave them, even if we had no reason at all to buy the item or to take it back. While this gives us a warm fuzzy feeling as a consumer, it also promotes a lack of responsibility for ourselves. And we've also been conditioned to have a mindset that because a retail company is in business that they are filthy rich beyond our wildest dreams and will come out ahead no matter what foolish decisions we make. It's this "sense of entitlement" that I find morally wrong. I can understand that if a product is defective, I should be relieved of my commitment to keep the defective item and to be given a replacement, or in some cases be given a refund upon return of the item when I prove to the seller that it's not fully functional. But when i can literally go out and, for instance, buy a fancy tent to go camping so i can get laid with my new girlfriend in it, then take it back after I'm done using it for a full refund, then there's something wrong with my head. It's completely legal and within the stores policy, but it's just plain wrong. I should have to either keep it or try to sell it used at a significant loss. That way, I might actually think before I buy, and perhaps learn to make responsible purchasing decisions.

 

My point:

 

So with that being considered, in the case of a show which is forced to be canceled, in my simple world I feel the extent of my entitlement should be another show if they can do it, or a refund if they can't. That's it. Nothing more. No entitlement for reimbursement for the Asian massages I may have bought my friends and I, airfare, whatever i spent on my own. And I shouldn't question whether or not the show really needed to be canceled even if it seems like they could have endured the conditions that particular night.

 

Note about why they had to reschedule:

 

There are some instances where it's more or less unfair to judge a decision that was made. One of them is the decision to call off a live concert on a rainy or stormy night. I'm surprised how many people seem to think they're informed on the subject while sitting behind a computer screen in another state without knowing anything more than what the weather was like and "there was 3 inches of water onstage", as was speculated in the Chicago case. Sometimes you should just have faith in what decisions were made and to accept them regardless of the decision's impact on you personally.

To say that because of a lack of a publicized technical explanation as to exactly why Rush didn't take the stage that night in Chi-town, that they should have played the show, is unreasonable. The specific reason being that there is an unbelievably tremendous amount of pressure to go on with the show when a national band plays a live concert. When the decision is made to call-off the show, it isn't like a decision to call off your daughter's Sunday soccer game. One might think that "all you need to do is 1) wait for rain to stop 2) wipe off the water 3) put some fans on the gear for a little while to dry off the electronics and 4) it's all good." One single error in judgment could risk lives, not to mention danger to custom-programmed equipment that may have taken years to develop. Just because we've seen and heard about other shows where cancellation was avoided that appeared "worse than Chicago" doesn't mean we should Rush (pun intended) to judgment and assume cancellation was avoidable in this case. Hence the old saying "leave it to the experts".

 

Thanks again, Chris, for listening to us and also sharing your thoughts and legal mind with us. I apologize for my moments of weakness earlier in this thread. I sometimes might come off as a tad abrasive.

[chrislangone]

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]

 

 

 

 

[the masked drummer]

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!

Edited July 16, 2010 by the masked drummer

[The Slanny Ganizat]

QUOTE (the masked drummer @ Jul 16 2010, 07:51 AM)

His pov (point of view) vs. my pov: OK, I was greatly appreciative that Chris made a bunch of posts and answered a few of our questions in the way he knows how. I understand that when you ask a question, your answer will change dramatically depending on who you are, where you've been, and what you do. And Chris is a lawyer, so we should accept that his answer is from a legal mind and he answers the way that he knows how. It reminds me of my business law prof, who once stated firmly "the law is not what's right or fair, the law is the law is the law", meaning that people like the masked drummer shouldn't look at the moral aspect of these issues, but just to look at what laws are applicable to them and see how they impact the given situation. However, (right, wrong, or indifferent)as an armchair philosopher who grew up in a capitalist-minded home, my goal is to break down the facts stated and to explore what's right according to my beliefs. It is my opinion that consumer rights have been blown way out of proportion in this country. Even though I'm a consumer myself, I also see things from the side of the business owner. As a former business owner I experienced first hand how buyers/consumers pretty much have the seller by the balls in most cases. As consumers in the U.S., we have been conditioned by policies created to serve customers rights and the ultimate convenience at the expense of business owners. In particular, large retailers, for the sake of customer loyalty, have implemented a "no questions asked" return policy which takes the responsibility of purchases off the purchaser's shoulders. And it's what we come to expect. We expect to be able to "shop" online or at a brick & mortar store and get our money back unconditionally if we simply decide we want our money we gave them, even if we had no reason at all to buy the item or to take it back. While this gives us a warm fuzzy feeling as a consumer, it also promotes a lack of responsibility for ourselves. And we've also been conditioned to have a mindset that because a retail company is in business that they are filthy rich beyond our wildest dreams and will come out ahead no matter what foolish decisions we make. It's this "sense of entitlement" that I find morally wrong. I can understand that if a product is defective, I should be relieved of my commitment to keep the defective item and to be given a replacement, or in some cases be given a refund upon return of the item when I prove to the seller that it's not fully functional. But when i can literally go out and, for instance, buy a fancy tent to go camping so i can get laid with my new girlfriend in it, then take it back after I'm done using it for a full refund, then there's something wrong with my head. It's completely legal and within the stores policy, but it's just plain wrong. I should have to either keep it or try to sell it used at a significant loss. That way, I might actually think before I buy, and perhaps learn to make responsible purchasing decisions. My point: So with that being considered, in the case of a show which is forced to be canceled, in my simple world I feel the extent of my entitlement should be another show if they can do it, or a refund if they can't. That's it. Nothing more. No entitlement for reimbursement for the Asian massages I may have bought my friends and I, airfare, whatever i spent on my own. And I shouldn't question whether or not the show really needed to be canceled even if it seems like they could have endured the conditions that particular night. Note about why they had to reschedule: There are some instances where it's more or less unfair to judge a decision that was made. One of them is the decision to call off a live concert on a rainy or stormy night. I'm surprised how many people seem to think they're informed on the subject while sitting behind a computer screen in another state without knowing anything more than what the weather was like and "there was 3 inches of water onstage", as was speculated in the Chicago case. Sometimes you should just have faith in what decisions were made and to accept them regardless of the decision's impact on you personally. To say that because of a lack of a publicized technical explanation as to exactly why Rush didn't take the stage that night in Chi-town, that they should have played the show, is unreasonable. The specific reason being that there is an unbelievably tremendous amount of pressure to go on with the show when a national band plays a live concert. When the decision is made to call-off the show, it isn't like a decision to call off your daughter's Sunday soccer game. One might think that "all you need to do is 1) wait for rain to stop 2) wipe off the water 3) put some fans on the gear for a little while to dry off the electronics and 4) it's all good." One single error in judgment could risk lives, not to mention danger to custom-programmed equipment that may have taken years to develop. Just because we've seen and heard about other shows where cancellation was avoided that appeared "worse than Chicago" doesn't mean we should Rush (pun intended) to judgment and assume cancellation was avoidable in this case. Hence the old saying "leave it to the experts". Thanks again, Chris, for listening to us and also sharing your thoughts and legal mind with us. I apologize for my moments of weakness earlier in this thread. I sometimes might come off as a tad abrasive.

Your point about consumer rights being blown way out of proportion is spot on! However, with that being said, I still think Chris should get his money back for the face value of the tickets, even with a rescheduled show in his circumstance. Even if he can't win his case for the whole class as he was talking about, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to get his money back for the value of the tickets because as I understand, he's going to turn right around and give them back the same money for a ticket to a different show!

 

 

Oh, and just for the record...

QUOTE

QUOTE (The Slanny Ganizat @ Jul 16 2010, 01:22 AM) "Arguing on the internet is a lot like the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." (No offense to the special olympics or its participants...) I'll get slammed for taking this thread off topic, but I can't help it. You can't post something like this, followed by "no offense" and think that makes it okay. Sorry, you just can't. The offense is already made. Yes, I have a child with special needs (including mental retardation) and I can't help it if I seem un-PC, I just HATE seeing jokes like this used so casually. Again, I'm sorry for going off topic. A hard night of dealing with my son, only to see this in a thread this morning was just more than I could take.

 

I stand corrected.

[chrislangone]

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? ]

Edited July 16, 2010 by chrislangone

[danielmclark]

Chris, one more thing. I said this early on in the drama, but it needs repeating. Peppering your posts with mis-used lyric quotes and Rush puns is not endearing. Seriously. You should stop that.

 

To the mods: please, please, please just start deleting political posts and their responses. I can't think of any good reason not to. Don't make me beg.

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

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jul 15 2010, 02:56 PM)

This thread will not be moved to SOCN. If people are purposely hijacking this thread with political content to try to get it moved or closed, they will be unsuccessful. This thread is staying here, and it's staying open. The only action that might be taken is to split off any off-topic posts into a separate thread, leaving this one on-topic. And open.

And this is what we did.

 

All we ask is that we keep this thread focused on the lawsuit.

 

No need to quote this and comment on it. Let's just move forward. Thanks for your cooperation.

Edited July 16, 2010 by 1-0-0-1-0-0-1

[spacement]

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (spacement @ Jul 16 2010, 12:10 PM)

Purchasing tickets through StubHub and trying to return them to Ticketmaster is a bit like purchasing a drill at Home Depot and trying to return it to Lowes. Or purchasing a drill at Home Depot and trying to get a refund from the manufacturer. The manufacturer will replace a warranty issue but not give you money back directly. You are required to go to the "Point of Purchase" to obtain your refund.

Nail, meet head. This is the reason why going to Ticketmaster, LiveNation or the band is so ridiculous. They don't have Chris' money. StubHub does.

[tangy]

[chrislangone]

[tangy]

[ghostworks]

Edited July 16, 2010 by ghostworks

[safetygirl2112]

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?

[Slaine mac Roth]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jul 12 2010, 06:56 PM)

QUOTE (Docmilsap @ Jul 12 2010, 01:55 PM) Can I ask what a scalper is? don't think we have this in the UK? A scalper is someone who buys tickets solely for the purpose of selling them right before the show (traditionally with a ridiculous up-charge attached). They're mostly illegal in the U.S. The way I understand it, the closest thing we have in the UK are the touts although it seems like, in the US, its become a big business concern

[chrislangone]

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.

[chrislangone]

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.

[chrislangone]

Edited July 16, 2010 by chrislangone

[ProfGumby]

Holy Crap is about all I have to say about the half of this thread that I did read. Chris, good luck, I don't think you will get much except a lot of wasted time. IMHO, just because you can or cannot make the rescheduled show won't probably amount to a pound of dung in court. that said I hope you can get your ticket money back.

 

Maybe some of the BS policies will be righted and refunds will be easier to receive in the future, but I doubt it. Too many blood sucking losers on the backs of the artists in the music industry. And to the dude that runs ticketmaster, point your finger at me if you want, you fool. Economy sucks, feed my kids or go to a show. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

 

As to the members of the forum attacking each other, mild though it may be for the internet, wow. Just wow.... arguing over someone else argument? Whatever...knock yourselves out man...

 

And who decides if a ticket is overpriced? Too expensive, don't go. It is a concert, not a medical procedure.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2010 by ProfGumby

[chrislangone]

Edited July 16, 2010 by chrislangone

[ghostworks]

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?

 

 

 

[ProfGumby]

Just found this -

 

The postponed Wednesday, July 7 performance at Charter One Pavilion

has been rescheduled to MONDAY, AUGUST 23.

 

NEW DATE - AUGUST 23

CHARTER ONE PAVILION / CHICAGO, IL

Doors 6:30 pm / Show 7:30 pm

 

All tickets for the previously scheduled performance will be reactivated and honored at the rescheduled date.

If fans feel that the barcodes may be illegible, they should ensure they bring picture ID and the credit card which was used to purchase the tickets.

Venue parking available - fans will need to show their ticket for admittance to the parking garage.

Refunds - if required at point of purchase through August 22nd.

Questions can be directed to TicketMaster customer service at 800-653-8000

Edited July 16, 2010 by ProfGumby