flynnibus
Premium Member
Disney isn't trying to stopping them from their right to resell - it's just acting in response to their choice to resell.
-
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
Disney isn't trying to stopping them from their right to resell - it's just acting in response to their choice to resell.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Right. My very first comment in this thread (page 1) is that I'd like to see how a challenge to that condition plays out.
Isn't that an Australian service animal?
They revoked their access for alleged violation of the Terms and Conditions. It's just like line jumping in the parks. You wouldn't expect a guest who line jumped to get a refund/relief on their revoked AP costs, now, would you?
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
That depends, if that person challenged the condition and a court ruled it invalid..sure.
Finish the thought...
"... using an annual passholder discount that is expressly prohibited for use with the intent to resell."
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
... by an arbitrary requirement that may or may not be legally binding.
First rule of PMs, brah...
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
For years, I've had to deal with hot wheels guys that scalp star wars figures from Target and Walmart. Those stores never did anything about it. Now it's next to impossible to find anything at those stores. I see no reason for Disney to do the same thing. Disney makes their money and shouldn't care what happens to the item later even if they do lose 10% off a markup of 500%.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Saying that I cannot be convinced is the pot calling the kettle black. Resorting to an attack on me suggests that you are defensive and find my argument valid.
Failure to properly inform of the update and to give the option to opt-out - negligence.
Also in this case - Microsoft chose not to go higher than small claims court due to the cost. This could have played out very differently in a higher court.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
So, can you be convinced? I've provided half a dozen cases that support my opinion, where are yours?
There's more to the story than that, you're dismissing it too quickly. When you renew your annual pass, are you presented with a new copy of the terms and conditions prior to the purchase? What if you buy an annual pass at the gate?
Microsoft chose not to go higher, what makes you think Disney would? There's also no evidence that that Microsoft would have won, in fact settling leans towards a calculation of not winning. It could have been cost related though. Again, my desire is to see it play out in court.
I'm going to predict that your next comments will avoid any relevant case law that may support your theory.
Maybe you can provide some, and my opinion can be changed.
Last edited:
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Yes and Yes
Previous cases can provide a basis for a new ruling in some instances; however, only in cases where the Supreme Court rules will a previous case be considered the rule of law. When you enter into a contract, you are expected to abide by the terms of the contract. If not, you are in breech of contract. I do not need cases to back up what I'm saying because I understand how the law works.
I read the article, plus I looked up a few more online. It was clearly negligence, and Microsoft chose not to fight it because the legal costs would have been much higher than what she sued for.
Contract law is very simple and very straightforward.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of contract law and how it works, despite numerous attempts to explain it to you.
You've been amusing, but now since you're resulting to low blows and insulting other members, I'm not continuing this.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Some people are worthy of it.
By the way, I feel like it's been forever...hope you're doing well.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Some people are worthy of it.
By the way, I feel like it's been forever...hope you're doing well.
It’s definitely been a while! I’ve been super busy, but life has been treating me well.
How are you doing?
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Pretty good. Same old, same old...work, sleep, repeat...haha.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Same lol. Mixed in with school.
Aside from contracting something illegal, a contract can cause you to surrender rights you have. Have you been to an airport lately? There are commonly restrictions applied and allowed with regard to commerce.
Bpmorley
Well-Known Member
So Disney can overcharge for just about everything and if someone else makes a dollar they get mad? Wow. Why would disney care? they already made money on the AP and most likely turned a 300% profit on said item. All a person is gonna do is list an alias to sell these thing. Can't take an AP away from a non AP holder.
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/01/...pcorn-bucket-but-only-some-people-can-buy-it/
>>When the bucket goes on sale Friday, you can be sure people will be lining up early to get it at more than a dozen popcorn carts at Disneyland and Disney California Adventure.
Disney says people will be required to show their annual passes and may also be asked for photo ID before purchase. There’s a limit of one per transaction and Disney has made a point of listing the rules for annual passholders, including that special annual passholder items cannot be resold commercially.<<
>>When the bucket goes on sale Friday, you can be sure people will be lining up early to get it at more than a dozen popcorn carts at Disneyland and Disney California Adventure.
Disney says people will be required to show their annual passes and may also be asked for photo ID before purchase. There’s a limit of one per transaction and Disney has made a point of listing the rules for annual passholders, including that special annual passholder items cannot be resold commercially.<<