flynnibus
Premium Member
He's just is defensive about his side gig of selling stuff...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney revoking AP's if you resell merch
- Thread starter truecoat
- Start date
He's just is defensive about his side gig of selling stuff...
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Yeah, that's it. I fly out to California to stock up on new popcorn buckets and merchandise just to make sure I get my annual pass discount twice a week.
You got me.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yeah, that's it. I fly out to California to stock up on new popcorn buckets and merchandise just to make sure I get my annual pass discount twice a week.
You got me.
Ih didn't you know we just ate here to paw at, speculate, and generally make it up... following your lead
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Nezumi Fan
New Member
I would welcome a park-imposed limit on seasonal and "must have" items, but aside from that, I've no problem with people buying the max amount of items provided they are not using their annual passes. It's not policing someone else's purchases so much as doing damage control; is Disney is having to subsidize someone's business, that affects all passholders. I would hate to see the generous AP discounts go away.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
And nobody will likely challenge it as Disney will change their in-park policies and put a hard limit on items. Also as mentioned before, a Club 33 member already tried to challenge a similar issue with losing their access. And while it was settled out of court, for undisclosed terms, they still never regained their Club 33 access. So in my opinion there is already precedence set that the law is on Disney's side of losing ones access for violating the written guidelines of access to Disney's private property.
So continue trol..., oh I mean, pawing at the mouse.
Last edited:
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
No.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Oh, ok then. Glad you were able to solve it.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Actually, by violating the T&C, you'd be in breech of contract, which is considered a civil wrong.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Right. Like it is what it is, I don’t know why that would be hard to understand.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Better Call Saul.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
I didn't know "it is what it is" was really contract law 101.
Yet another case to help my point (see page 1, 2, and 3); Microsoft's EULA (terms and conditions) says they're not responsible for their software breaking anything but a judge disagreed. I wonder how that could happen because you guys keep saying it is what it is.
Too easy.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
If this is true (you didn't provide a source for that), I'm guessing it was one of three issues:
1. There was ambiguity in the contract, which means that the ruling would favor the party who did not draft it
2. There was negligence on the part of Microsoft, such as a failure to warn about a security breech
3. There was a violation on Microsoft's end of the contract, such as if they said they would provide security updates on a set schedule and then failed to do so.
None of these apply in this case with Disney. The T&C are very clear, there is obviously no negligence on Disney's part, and Disney has not violated their end of the bargain. Disney is simply saying that you are being given a privilege, and you may not use that privilege for commercial purposes. Not sure what about that could be taken to court.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Countering a T&C condition that forced a person to give up a right is a challenge that companies often loose...
But access to a discount is not a right... it's a privilege granted by the paid arrangement, under certain conditions. There is no other protection for a discount a person can come back to and say the T&C can not violate or counter that protection.
Rusty is trolling... and already admitted to me as such in a PM - just ignore him
But access to a discount is not a right... it's a privilege granted by the paid arrangement, under certain conditions. There is no other protection for a discount a person can come back to and say the T&C can not violate or counter that protection.
Rusty is trolling... and already admitted to me as such in a PM - just ignore him
THE 1HAPPY HAUNT
Well-Known Member
They need to make it so you walk up the ramp of the Millenium Falcon façade they made in the que!!!! oops sorry wrong thread. lol jk poking fun at myself. carry on selling stuff in breach of your original contract.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
You didn’t know a contract doesn’t allow for exceptions without it stating so?
Last edited by a moderator:
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
You're another of those who can't be convinced, that's fine. It is what it is.
It was none of those things, here's your source.
https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-pays-woman-10000-over-forced-windows-10-install/
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Just for fun, I'll mention Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. here as well. A company tried to force an arbitration clause on a father and son when they asked for their money back for a service that they didn't want and it failed to hold up in court because the court found that portions of the click through terms and conditions binding them to arbitration were not a legal contract even though they had to click through them to install.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1311/11-1311-2012-09-07.html
..but you know, companies can do whatever they want because they're companies and they never do anything wrong.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1311/11-1311-2012-09-07.html
..but you know, companies can do whatever they want because they're companies and they never do anything wrong.
Last edited: