For sale: 2 tickets to the Cornell/UNH game, lower level

I have 2 tickets for the Cornell/UNH game for sale.

Lower level, Section 109, row 27.

Email me at: goldengophers92@hotmail.com


Chris

emailed...let me know!

He's looking for $160. Email him if you're interested

The cost of one game (face value) is $40. A 100% mark-up. What a steal?

If you live in New York, it's illegal to buy these tickets.

[Q]If you live in New York, it's illegal to buy these tickets.[/Q]Is it illelgal to buy, or just to sell? I always thought selling was the crime, and that we could buy out of state?

Seeing how on eBay, it limits your bid if you're from New York, I assumed (yes, I made an ass out of u & me) that it was illegal to buy (as well as sell).

I could be wrong.

According to eBay's policy, in New York, the resale price of tickets can be
"No more than face value plus the greater of 20% of the ticket price or $5."

So to stay within legal limits, these tickets can be no more than $96.

It's not illegal.

The transaction is NOT talking place in New York, regardless of your domicile.

The transaction is taking place over the internet, where there are no laws regarding ticket transactions, despite whatever policies ebay or others may have.

$160 is my opening offer. If you want to counter, then email me at: goldengophers92@hotmail.com

Chris

[Q]The transaction is NOT talking place in New York, regardless of your domicile.

The transaction is taking place over the internet, where there are no laws regarding ticket transactions, despite whatever policies ebay or others may have.[/Q]


Eliot Spitzer, you are lurking, right?

why would someone pay $160 for this? gimme a break. stealing is stealing and marking up a ticket 200% is insane. sorry but just because it isnt illegal does not mean it is right. also, you are wrong. legally, the sale is determined by where the buyer and seller are i believe. ebay goes by the law, as do the ticket brokers....
for what it is worth, hope you get caught with the ticket and lose $40.



Post Edited (04-05-03 20:50)

[cgi.ebay.com]

a pair for all 3 games for face value plus shipping. you can also get tickets for one person for all three games for that ridiculous price
check ebay

Chris wrote:

It's not illegal.

The transaction is NOT talking place in New York, regardless of your domicile.

The transaction is taking place over the internet, where there are no laws regarding ticket transactions, despite whatever policies ebay or others may have.

Needless to say, Chris is not a lawyer and hasn't the faintest clue what he's talking about. And anybody buying the ticket from him at that price - while they may not be breaking a law themselves - would be an idiot. There are plenty of tickets out there at reasonable, legal prices.

Beeeej

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney, and I am very familiar with this area of the law. Thankfully, after this episode, I was able to sell the tickets to a New Hampshire fan. Not only was I paid, but I live knowing there will be two less ignorant Cornell fans in attendance.

Good luck to the rest of you.

Seriously, Chris... any attorney who claims that a transaction that takes place over the internet isn't governed by any state laws because it doesn't happen in a physical place had better be prepared to have his ass handed to him if he tries to argue it in court.

Using your logic, the entire current state of jurisprudence on personal jurisdiction wouldn't be worth the paper on which the Supreme Court writes it.

But I'm glad you found someone to buy your tickets. I'd rather see asses in the seats no matter who profits.

Beeeej

Chris wrote:

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney...

The economy must really be crashing when attorneys stoop to scalping hockey tickets to make ends meet.



Post Edited (04-06-03 23:41)

[Q] I live knowing there will be two less ignorant Cornell fans in attendance.[/Q]

So two Cornell fans who are smarter than Beeej will be there?

Chris wrote:

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney, and I am very familiar with this area of the law. Thankfully, after this episode, I was able to sell the tickets to a New Hampshire fan. Not only was I paid, but I live knowing there will be two less ignorant Cornell fans in attendance.

Good luck to the rest of you.

So that means there are New Hampshire fans willing to be raped by an unreasonable ticket mark-up? Fine with me. There are plenty of tickets being exchanged this week at or near face value, and many Cornell fans are finding them. I don't think that refusing to buy tickets at double the face value makes any of us ignorant. Glad you could find some idiots from New Hampshire willing to pay your greedy asking price.

Just a question...if internet transactions aren't held to state laws, how come I have to pay state sales tax on in-state internet transactions? I'm not trying to be insulting here, I really am trying to follow the arguments here with no legal background...

From email conversations, Chris is a decent fellow. I think he may have just gotten carried away with the $160 bargaining tactic and I got overly excited too by it.

I was in Syracuse this weekend for the win over Texas and man, I can only hope that the Cornell student body can get as excited as the Syracuse student body got for their game. I'm dying waiting for these games!

[Q]I'd rather see asses in the seats no matter who profits. [/Q]

The double-entendre that beeej tossed out was very entertaining! And "Grammar Police" stepped in right on queue. A friend walked in as I was chuckling to myself reading these posts and boy was it embarrassing. I guess I'm dealing with the embarrassment by sharing the story...sorry

Individual states can, and have, adopted laws that tax in-state Internet transactions (I believe 45 states so far, but that number may be dated). But out-of-state transactions, which implicates the Commerce Clause, are subject to federal jurisdiction and as of now, Congress is not clear on what it wants to do.

From a Cal. newspaper article in January: "States are currently prohibited from collecting taxes on out-of-state purchases because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the variety of tax systems would burden retailers. The coalition, however, led by the National Governor's Association, hopes to make state sales tax systems more consistent in what is taxed and what rate is charged. The coalition then plans to challenge the Supreme Court decision once 10 states have adopted the simplified system.

Congress has imposed a moratorium through Nov. 1 on Internet-only taxes..."

For in-state transactions, the issue is defining when a transaction takes place "in-state". My understanding is that states are inconsistent on this issue. One simple approach is if the internet retailer, or an affiliate thereof, has a "bricks-and-mortar" store in the same state that the purchaser lives, then the transaction is deemed to have taken place in that state (regardless of where the goods are actually located).

I haven't looked at the NYS ticket-scalping law, so I am not sure if it addresses transactions over the internet. If it does not, then eBay is no doubt taking the conservative approach by assuming it applies.

Below is the link to the anti-scalping law (Article 25 of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law) as posted on the New York Assembly's website:

[assembly.state.ny.us]

The current anti-scalping law will be replaced by a new one on June 1 - one which, if I read it correctly, will limit the maximum resale price to face value + $2, regardless of what the face value is. It doesn't seem to say anything regarding transactions over the Internet.

Under judicial precedent currently in effect, the federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause. I am not joking. The Supreme Court held, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, that anything that "affects" interstate commerce is within the province of Congress.

(Edit - source for my claim the the last paragraph: [www.cato.org] )



Post Edited (04-07-03 10:21)

Matt Carberry wrote:
Under judicial precedent currently in effect, the federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause. I am not joking. The Supreme Court held, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, that anything that "affects" interstate commerce is within the province of Congress.

At the risk of boring people to tears, that's an overly broad reading of the holding. The federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause that directly affects interestate commerce, if the regulation doesn't infringe upon the areas of legislative authority that have been delegated to the several states (e.g., criminal law; see U.S. v. Lopez, at [supct.law.cornell.edu] ).

Beeeej

Ahh, to again be a law student, flush with the massive amount of new information that seems like the key to the secret kingdom....

In any case, the linked syllabus indicates that the standard is "substantially affects". And, of course, until recently, the federal government was given an extremely wide berth in deciding whether or not something met that standard.

[Q]Author: Chris (---.ipt.aol.com)

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney[/Q]

"Well in that case I can't fire you, you quit."

(With apologies to more than two ignorant 60's sitcom writers.)