If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Sports)   Jerry Jones still not done screwing over the 1200+ people that bought unusable Super Bowl XLV tickets   (cbssports.com) divider line 60
    More: Asinine, Super Bowl XLV, Jerry Jones, Super Bowl, Cowboys, insurance claims, court system, Cowboys Stadium, tickets  
•       •       •

4369 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jul 2013 at 2:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-19 02:49:18 PM
I guess getting an all expenses paid trip to the next Superbowl wasn't enough.
 
2013-07-19 02:51:55 PM
is that what they got seriously?
 
2013-07-19 02:53:09 PM
They bought ducats?
 
2013-07-19 02:55:00 PM

tennesseemike: I guess getting an all expenses paid trip to the next Superbowl wasn't enough.


If you went to see your team (like most Packers fans did) and your team wasn't in the next Super Bowl, then tickets to the next Super Bowl don't matter all that much.

Moments like this remind you why the rich are rich:  They're perfectly OK with screwing people over to help themselves stay rich.  Hey, we goofed?  Too bad.  Give me my money.  They're also cheap:  $200K?  To Jerry Jones?  That's probably how much a single chair costs in his luxury box.
 
2013-07-19 02:59:01 PM

tennesseemike: I guess getting an all expenses paid trip to the next Superbowl wasn't enough.


Not if your team wasn't playing in it. And neither the Packers nor Steelers did.
 
2013-07-19 03:07:50 PM
Maybe some fark lawyers can explain why "intent to defraud" matters? They bought tickets and they did not receive what they paid for. Seems like business law 101 to me.
 
2013-07-19 03:11:15 PM

bangmaid: Maybe some fark lawyers can explain why "intent to defraud" matters? They bought tickets and they did not receive what they paid for. Seems like business law 101 to me.


They (the Cowboys, or the league) had no intent for those tickets to be worthless. They sold tickets to seats that they believed to be legit. So I believe it's the word intent. They negligently behaved, but did they intend to cheat people out of seats? I don't believe so...?
 
2013-07-19 03:11:18 PM

bangmaid: Maybe some fark lawyers can explain why "intent to defraud" matters? They bought tickets and they did not receive what they paid for. Seems like business law 101 to me.


Sounds like business law 101 would also cover the definition of "fraud" if we're going to talk about it.
 
2013-07-19 03:19:03 PM
I submitted this too, but this is a pretty good headline, so I don't mind.

It never made sense to me. How the hell did this get dismissed? They bought tickets to a once in a lifetime event (for most of us common folks, anyways) and even the NFL spends a gazillion dollars a year reminding us that the Super Bowl is the end all, be all of events.

Its the most watched thing every year.

Yet these people shelled out a ton of money to see their teams in good faith, get screwed, AND can't sue?

Like said upthread...this is why some folks is rich, and some of us are honest and (comparatively) poor.
 
2013-07-19 03:19:27 PM

bangmaid: Maybe some fark lawyers can explain why "intent to defraud" matters? They bought tickets and they did not receive what they paid for. Seems like business law 101 to me.


Yeah, if I sued for this I wouldn't be claiming fraud.  I'd expect that lawsuit to get tossed.

I'd sued for breach of contract, etc for not providing services I contracted for.
 
2013-07-19 03:19:33 PM

rjakobi: They bought ducats?


rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com

I never trust them...
 
2013-07-19 03:20:29 PM
What the article fails to mention: The tickets sold for $800 EACH. The Cowboys organization offered the people $2,400 in recompense for the blunder. Many folks decided to join a class action lawsuit instead, hoping for a huge payout. The Class Action lawsuit (because the Cowboys offered triple the ticket amoun tin recompense) was dismissed and now they each have to step up to sue individually.

He merely wants to be reimbursed for the money he spent having to fight this frivolous class action lawsuit.

Again, had the people taken the offer for $2,400 instead of trying to sue, they'd be $2,400 richer instead of being sued for their portion of the money it cost to prepare for the lawsuit.
 
2013-07-19 03:21:09 PM

xaks: It never made sense to me. How the hell did this get dismissed?


Because claiming fraud in a case where the person had no intent to defraud you will get your case thrown out.

xaks: Like said upthread...this is why some folks is rich, and some of us are honest and (comparatively) poor.


I guess understanding the law gives the rich a pretty big advantage.
 
2013-07-19 03:22:28 PM
I read that as 'Jenny Jones' screwing 1200 people. Imagine my disappointment.
 
2013-07-19 03:25:15 PM
HST's Dead Carcass:
Again, had the people taken the offer for $2,400 instead of trying to sue, they'd be $2,400 richer instead of being sued for their portion of the money it cost to prepare for the lawsuit.

But how much did someone spend on airfare, hotel, meals, etc to get to the game? Hopefully less than $2,400, but then again if you're shelling out $800 a ticket, I imagine it's a fair amount.

Either way, it's not $2,400 richer. Likely much less...
 
2013-07-19 03:30:39 PM

NotoriousFire: But how much did someone spend on airfare, hotel, meals, etc to get to the game? Hopefully less than $2,400, but then again if you're shelling out $800 a ticket, I imagine it's a fair amount.

Either way, it's not $2,400 richer. Likely much less...


The case was thrown out as a Class Action because the Cowboys offered them triple the expense of the ticket. Yes, there are plenty of out of pocket expenses, but the Cowboys offered them recompense for their troubles, Of course, it's not enough! In our litigious society there's "mental anguish" and "fibromyalgia" and "woe is me" that will linger unless the people get $100,000 in restitution.

The judge was right for throwing out the case. They can each sue individually to get recoup their losses off the event, but the Cowboys will simply tack on a countersuit for $200,000 to pay the lawyers fees associated with the leg work they've already done. And, it's important to know the Cowboys lawyers are locked and loaded with everything for the court case now, they just need a direction to be unleashed.
 
2013-07-19 03:33:00 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: NotoriousFire: But how much did someone spend on airfare, hotel, meals, etc to get to the game? Hopefully less than $2,400, but then again if you're shelling out $800 a ticket, I imagine it's a fair amount.

Either way, it's not $2,400 richer. Likely much less...

The case was thrown out as a Class Action because the Cowboys offered them triple the expense of the ticket. Yes, there are plenty of out of pocket expenses, but the Cowboys offered them recompense for their troubles, Of course, it's not enough! In our litigious society there's "mental anguish" and "fibromyalgia" and "woe is me" that will linger unless the people get $100,000 in restitution.

The judge was right for throwing out the case. They can each sue individually to get recoup their losses off the event, but the Cowboys will simply tack on a countersuit for $200,000 to pay the lawyers fees associated with the leg work they've already done. And, it's important to know the Cowboys lawyers are locked and loaded with everything for the court case now, they just need a direction to be unleashed.


I imagine they'll settle with anyone who is willing to present evidence that their losses weren't adequately covered by $2,400. I'm sure they'd happily make this case go away with everyone getting $5000 or $10,000. But they wouldn't fold on an accusation of fraud with an absurd settlement.
 
2013-07-19 03:33:05 PM

Treygreen13: xaks: It never made sense to me. How the hell did this get dismissed?

Because claiming fraud in a case where the person had no intent to defraud you will get your case thrown out.

xaks: Like said upthread...this is why some folks is rich, and some of us are honest and (comparatively) poor.

I guess understanding the law gives the rich a pretty big advantage.


Partly my point, I guess.

Would you pin this on the laywer filing the thing on behalf of the people screwed out of tickets? For filing like a retard, or something?

Those football fans got farked, bigtime. $2400 would barely cover how much you'd blow on travelling cross-country for a super bowl trip even if you were a cheapskate. Plus, look how far in advance you'd likely have planned this, etc.

Its bullshiat that they whole thing can get tossed because some cockbag lawyer filed it as fraud instead of breach of contract, or whatever. And, that cockbag judge should damn well have the ability to tell them, "Nope, you dun got screwed, this isn't fraud as there was no intent to defraud. BUT, as a breach, which we'll now look at this as, is another matter entirely, and bailiff, please remind the clerk to send a complaint to the state BAR association that this plaintiff's attorney is a flaming cockbag, thank you"... etc
 
2013-07-19 03:33:09 PM
I reapeat:  fark Texas.
 
2013-07-19 03:33:44 PM
I might even repeat it.
 
2013-07-19 03:36:37 PM
Class action law suits are for lazy poor people that can't afford to be bothered to show up to court to get "what's theirs". Rich folk show up and stick it to them in person.
 
2013-07-19 03:40:12 PM

xaks: Would you pin this on the laywer filing the thing on behalf of the people screwed out of tickets? For filing like a retard, or something?


Lawyers file suits unsuccessfully all the time. However, filing a lawsuit that gets dismissed because you sued for something you can't prove has consequences.

xaks: Those football fans got farked, bigtime. $2400 would barely cover how much you'd blow on travelling cross-country for a super bowl trip even if you were a cheapskate. Plus, look how far in advance you'd likely have planned this, etc.


Agreed.

xaks: Its bullshiat that they whole thing can get tossed because some cockbag lawyer filed it as fraud instead of breach of contract, or whatever.


They're free to file individually.

xaks: And, that cockbag judge should damn well have the ability to tell them, "Nope, you dun got screwed, this isn't fraud as there was no intent to defraud. BUT, as a breach, which we'll now look at this as, is another matter entirely, and bailiff, please remind the clerk to send a complaint to the state BAR association that this plaintiff's attorney is a flaming cockbag, thank you"... etc


Our justice system doesn't work that way.
 
2013-07-19 03:42:31 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: rjakobi: They bought ducats?

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 593x444]

I never trust them...


You magnificent bastard.
 
2013-07-19 03:45:06 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: The case was thrown out as a Class Action because the Cowboys offered them triple the expense of the ticket. Yes, there are plenty of out of pocket expenses, but the Cowboys offered them recompense for their troubles, Of course, it's not enough! In our litigious society there's "mental anguish" and "fibromyalgia" and "woe is me" that will linger unless the people get $100,000 in restitution.

The judge was right for throwing out the case. They can each sue individually to get recoup their losses off the event, but the Cowboys will simply tack on a countersuit for $200,000 to pay the lawyers fees associated with the leg work they've already done. And, it's important to know the Cowboys lawyers are locked and loaded with everything for the court case now, they just need a direction to be unleashed.


I'm not one of the ticketholders, Mr. Jones. Don't get ticked at me.
 
2013-07-19 03:51:57 PM
does anyone have a number for the amount the ticket holders are seeking? I drilled down through some of the links in TFA but couldn't find a $$ figure.

the ruling on class action seems reasonable, as there would be different expenses and so different damages amongst the class.

$1600 over face price of the ticket is a joke. the extent to which hotels jack prices around big events means unless you were in driving distance of Dallas and only stayed in town Sunday night, you spent more than that.

if folks are just looking to recoup travel and hotel expenses, the nfl and JJ should just dig in to their couch cushions and pay up.

but yeah, if folks are looking for a payday on emotional distress and what not, fark 'em.
 
2013-07-19 03:53:46 PM
Treygreen13:

Lawyers file suits unsuccessfully all the time. However, filing a lawsuit that gets dismissed because you sued for something you can't prove has consequences.

Agreed.

They're free to file individually.

Our justice system doesn't work that way.


*sigh*

I know, mate. I know. It just,,,,kinda makes me sad some times. Especially when it hits my football loving bretheren so directly and so harshly.
 
2013-07-19 04:01:34 PM

mcmnky: does anyone have a number for the amount the ticket holders are seeking? I drilled down through some of the links in TFA but couldn't find a $$ figure.

the ruling on class action seems reasonable, as there would be different expenses and so different damages amongst the class.

$1600 over face price of the ticket is a joke. the extent to which hotels jack prices around big events means unless you were in driving distance of Dallas and only stayed in town Sunday night, you spent more than that.

if folks are just looking to recoup travel and hotel expenses, the nfl and JJ should just dig in to their couch cushions and pay up.

but yeah, if folks are looking for a payday on emotional distress and what not, fark 'em.


An older article states that they're seeking "Over 5 million" or roughly $4,000 a piece.

It should also be noted that the Dallas Cowboys were dropped from the suit, but not the NFL. Possibly because there's evidence the Cowboys didn't try to defraud the ticketholders because they notified the NFL about the possible issue before the game.

Other facts:

2/3 of the people affected by the issue were given other seats and saw the game, plus were offered reimbursement for their full ticket value and documented travel expenses.

 People who did not have a seat at all had more options: $2,400 plus a ticket to the 2012 Super Bowl, a trip to a future Super Bowl with airfare and a four-night hotel stay, a check for $5,000 or a check for more than $5,000 with documented expenses.
 
2013-07-19 04:03:25 PM

Treygreen13: People who did not have a seat at all had more options: $2,400 plus a ticket to the 2012 Super Bowl, a trip to a future Super Bowl with airfare and a four-night hotel stay, a check for $5,000 or a check for more than $5,000 with documented expenses.


Dude, don't bring logic and reason into this argument, the folks in this threads are Creationist levels of crazy with their hatred and feelings of injustice.

Yes, I just called you all the Kirk Cameron's of the Courtroom!
 
2013-07-19 04:06:25 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: Again, had the people taken the offer for $2,400 instead of trying to sue, they'd be $2,400 richer instead of being sued for their portion of the money it cost to prepare for the lawsuit.


That's the tough part about the Super Bowl:  It's become so big that A) The charges involved with everything else (hotel, travel, etc.) are also monstrous, and B) While the retail value of the ticket might be $800, and the retail value of the whole trip about $2,400, the emotional value is probably something much more than that.  So I don't blame them for suing for more than that.  You build something that big, you better not let people down.

Treygreen13: Because claiming fraud in a case where the person had no intent to defraud you will get your case thrown out.

I guess understanding the law gives the rich a pretty big advantage.


Unlike something like murder, intent shouldn't have anything to do with it here.  If your business failed to execute on a business transaction due to its own incompetence, it failed, period, end of story.  Doesn't matter whether you were  really, really trying to come through or just looking to take the money and run.  You failed, people lost out and now you should have to make up for it.  I have no doubt that the law has some sort of implication saying intent matters, but I have no reservation in saying that's a stupid law, at least in this case.

Also, it's not so much understanding the law -- it's being able to afford better lawyers, who better understand how to  exploit the law, or its loopholes in your favor rather than doing what the majority would feel is the right thing for a business in that position to do.  Really, in this sort of circumstance, justice would dictate that the Cowboys & NFL should have to take whatever lumps are handed to them.  At the very least, that would be good, or better, PR.  But again, the rich are rich in large part because they're greedy and care about cash over PR (the real reason why the Cowboys wanted the most-attended Super Bowl in the first place).  So yeah, they win, we lose and we all have to deal.

/misanthrope
 
2013-07-19 04:23:03 PM

Pfighting Polish: Unlike something like murder, intent shouldn't have anything to do with it here.


Actually "intent" is in the first 3 words of the definition of the word "fraud".

Pfighting Polish: If your business failed to execute on a business transaction due to its own incompetence, it failed, period, end of story.  Doesn't matter whether you were  really, really trying to come through or just looking to take the money and run.  You failed, people lost out and now you should have to make up for it.


Nobody here is arguing that. Nobody.

Pfighting Polish: Also, it's not so much understanding the law -- it's being able to afford better lawyers, who better understand how to  exploit the law, or its loopholes in your favor rather than doing what the majority would feel is the right thing for a business in that position to do.


I guess "exploiting the law" is "knowing the definition of fraud" and offering someone 6.25x ticket price plus all documented travel expenses is "not doing the right thing." I think "doing the right thing" would be not even having the situation come up in the first place... but it did.

Pfighting Polish: Really, in this sort of circumstance, justice would dictate that the Cowboys & NFL should have to take whatever lumps are handed to them.


How many lumps is fair? Any amount the people want?

Pfighting Polish: But again, the rich are rich in large part because they're greedy and care about cash over PR (the real reason why the Cowboys wanted the most-attended Super Bowl in the first place).  So yeah, they win, we lose and we all have to deal.


Actually the reason Jerry Jones is rich is because he was excellent at mineral exploration.
 
2013-07-19 04:27:13 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: Of course, it's not enough! In our litigious society there's "mental anguish" and "fibromyalgia" and "woe is me" that will linger unless the people get $100,000 in restitution.


One of these things is not like the other.

/here's a hint - it's the real and horrible disease
//yes, it was the middle one
 
2013-07-19 04:31:22 PM
for the 2/3s that were given different seats, do we know if they had actual seats with a view of the field, or "seats" at a bar/restaurant inside the stadium but watching the game on tv?
 
2013-07-19 04:38:11 PM

mcmnky: for the 2/3s that were given different seats, do we know if they had actual seats with a view of the field, or "seats" at a bar/restaurant inside the stadium but watching the game on tv?


Looking through a few articles, the NFL stated "850 people were given similar or better seats." Although it should be noted that these are the seats they were supposed to sit in so a better seat is "pretty much anywhere but there."
www.dallasnews.com
 
2013-07-19 04:39:33 PM
The displaced fans still got into the stadium, but had to watch in a "holding" area.  Big screen TV but audio was out of sync. Free food and beverages.  Here is the kicker to fans of the teams that played, who so unjustly were not satisified with another (free) SuperBowl trip, they were allowed to go on the field after the Lombardi Trophy was awarded, and muck it up with several player and vip celebrities.

They won't get far in individual civil suits, the NFL and the Dallas Cowboys offered fair compensation.  They were going to be lousy seats anyway.
 
2013-07-19 04:42:30 PM

tennesseemike: but had to watch in a "holding" area.


I'd assume they were in the area right outside the stadium where there is a massive screen. It was pretty cold out there so I can see as to why they'd be unhappy with that.

Was anyone actually "turned away" is a good question though.
 
2013-07-19 04:48:17 PM

mcmnky: for the 2/3s that were given different seats, do we know if they had actual seats with a view of the field, or "seats" at a bar/restaurant inside the stadium but watching the game on tv?


The stadium has an area where people (foolishly) pay for tickets to watch the game in a room with a big TV.  That's probably where.
 
2013-07-19 04:54:22 PM

downstairs: mcmnky: for the 2/3s that were given different seats, do we know if they had actual seats with a view of the field, or "seats" at a bar/restaurant inside the stadium but watching the game on tv?

The stadium has an area where people (foolishly) pay for tickets to watch the game in a room with a big TV.  That's probably where.


sportsvideo.org

I'd assume they were out here in this plaza. I was out there for the draft, and if they had it set up like they usually do it was far better than a "room with a TV" but I'm not sure that's where they were.
 
2013-07-19 05:05:56 PM

bgddy24601: One of these things is not like the other.

/here's a hint - it's the real and horrible disease
//yes, it was the middle one


Yes, it's a favorite of all drug addicts in denial everywhere.
 
2013-07-19 05:11:35 PM

Treygreen13: mcmnky: ...snip...

 People who did not have a seat at all had more options: $2,400 plus a ticket to the 2012 Super Bowl, a trip to a future Super Bowl with airfare and a four-night hotel stay, a check for $5,000 or a check for more than $5,000 with documented expenses.


Was going to add something, but this covered it.

I know a person who works for the law firm that represents the Cowboys. Essentially, as hard as this is to believe, but the Cowboys were not at fault here. When the NFL picks a Superbowl site they (the NFL, not the stadium owner or home team) are responsible for everything pertaining to the Superbowl. Essentially the NFL leases the stadium to do with as they please. The Cowboys and stadium owners may have had some say and suggestions, but ultimately it was the NFL making any and all Superbowl related decisions. It was the NFL who wanted extra seating installed to set a new record in a new stadium, the Cowboys organization little say in this decision except to allow the installation of temporary seating in the stadium.

So who is at fault the people who installed defective seating or the people who allowed additional seating to be installed (assuming it would be code compliant)?
 
2013-07-19 05:16:37 PM

Treygreen13: Pfighting Polish: Unlike something like murder, intent shouldn't have anything to do with it here.

Actually "intent" is in the first 3 words of the definition of the word "fraud".


Call it fraud, breech of contract or a peanut butter sandwich.  They all fall under the larger umbrella of "one entity wronged another," which calls for compensation. (Well, not a peanut butter sandwich, which sounds pretty tasty, but the idea is there.)  I despise that the technicalities of language will cause wronged people to lose, especially when it's the privileged doing the wronging to the not-as-privileged.

Treygreen13: I guess "exploiting the law" is "knowing the definition of fraud" and offering someone 6.25x ticket price plus all documented travel expenses is "not doing the right thing." I think "doing the right thing" would be not even having the situation come up in the first place... but it did.


How many lumps is fair? Any amount the people want?

Honestly, I do think the wronged deserve to basically dictate the terms.  Within reason, mind you -- you can't give the wronged fans ownership of the Cowboys organization, but when you wrong, you shouldn't have the power to determine how bad your own wronging was and say, "This is what  we think  you deserve.  Deal with it."  Same thing goes for the class action (keep in mind, this is ignoring the rules, which don't always seem to be fair.)  The Cowboys & NFL did the wronging.  If the wronged want to go class action, I say they get the choice to.  Don't want them doing it?  Then you should have gotten the seats in place.  Legally, that might not be the way the system is designed, but I'm not talking about what the laws say -- I'm talking about the way it should be.

Treygreen13: Actually the reason Jerry Jones is rich is because he was excellent at mineral exploration.

Meh.  That's part of it.  Also, not passing along a greater share of profit to his workers or employing more people, forcing the highest possible market-value for his product on customers, etc., probably also played into it.  I know that's perfectly legal and actually encouraged in the American economy, and I know that my actual caring for other people will probably keep me from being rich.  But I also know no one is going to ever accuse me of jerking other people around who I've disappointed in the name of my own good and for money I don't need.  Or even for money I do need.  That's more important to me than having a bigger bank account, and I despise the guys like Jerry Jones who see it the exact opposite way I do.
 
2013-07-19 05:23:15 PM

Pfighting Polish: Call it fraud, breech of contract or a peanut butter sandwich.  They all fall under the larger umbrella of "one entity wronged another," which calls for compensation. (Well, not a peanut butter sandwich, which sounds pretty tasty, but the idea is there.)  I despise that the technicalities of language will cause wronged people to lose, especially when it's the privileged doing the wronging to the not-as-privileged.


I agree that legal mumbo jumbo is a bad thing, but this isn't "one entity trying to get out of paying" because the Cowboys and the NFL have offered lots and lots of compensation, and are willing to settle with people individually based on their travel expenses on a case by case basis. And it should be noted that the suit continues on - they've just determined that the Cowboys had no intent to defraud anyone and were justly dismissed from the suit.

Pfighting Polish: Honestly, I do think the wronged deserve to basically dictate the terms.  Within reason, mind you -- you can't give the wronged fans ownership of the Cowboys organization, but when you wrong, you shouldn't have the power to determine how bad your own wronging was and say, "This is what  we think  you deserve.  Deal with it."  Same thing goes for the class action (keep in mind, this is ignoring the rules, which don't always seem to be fair.)  The Cowboys & NFL did the wronging.  If the wronged want to go class action, I say they get the choice to.  Don't want them doing it?  Then you should have gotten the seats in place.  Legally, that might not be the way the system is designed, but I'm not talking about what the laws say -- I'm talking about the way it should be.


Well regardless of how the laws are set up, this case continues, just without the Cowboys. But I disagree that the wronged should get to decide what they think is fair - there's a matter of precedent, proof, etc. If you went to buy ice cream at the store and got home and half the ice cream was gone, you'd be entitled to a new bucket of ice cream and whatever the company feels is sufficient to keep you happy. You wouldn't get to tell Bluebell Ice Cream what you want in return.

Pfighting Polish: Meh.  That's part of it.  Also, not passing along a greater share of profit to his workers or employing more people, forcing the highest possible market-value for his product on customers, etc., probably also played into it.  I know that's perfectly legal and actually encouraged in the American economy, and I know that my actual caring for other people will probably keep me from being rich.  But I also know no one is going to ever accuse me of jerking other people around who I've disappointed in the name of my own good and for money I don't need.  Or even for money I do need.  That's more important to me than having a bigger bank account, and I despise the guys like Jerry Jones who see it the exact opposite way I do.


Fair enough, if that's your personal philosophy. I'm of the opinion that nobody should feel obligated to charge the lowest possible price, or pay the highest possible wage. To each his own.
 
2013-07-19 05:31:46 PM
I think it's time Ed Hochuli paid Jerry a... "visit".

i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-19 05:47:53 PM
Imagine being the people who paid Superbowl prices for their seats and got these...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-great-seat s- at-Cowboys-Stadium-if-you-happe?urn=nfl,184733
 
2013-07-19 05:51:47 PM

zombiegoat: Imagine being the people who paid Superbowl prices for their seats and got these...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-great-seat s- at-Cowboys-Stadium-if-you-happe?urn=nfl,184733


Usually obstructed view seats are noted when the tickets are purchased.
 
2013-07-19 05:56:02 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: What the article fails to mention: The tickets sold for $800 EACH. The Cowboys organization offered the people $2,400 in recompense for the blunder. Many folks decided to join a class action lawsuit instead, hoping for a huge payout. The Class Action lawsuit (because the Cowboys offered triple the ticket amoun tin recompense) was dismissed and now they each have to step up to sue individually.

He merely wants to be reimbursed for the money he spent having to fight this frivolous class action lawsuit.

Again, had the people taken the offer for $2,400 instead of trying to sue, they'd be $2,400 richer instead of being sued for their portion of the money it cost to prepare for the lawsuit.


Can you explain why this class action suit was, as you say, "frivolous"? Not accepting a settlement, and then having a class action case dismissed, doesn't make it "frivolous" by definition.

And, no, offering three times the cost of a ticket is not, in and of itself, a reason to take away class action status.

In all reality, I'd say this should be appealed to someone OUTSIDE of Dallas (why, yes, judges in this nation are crooked, and you're not going to get a fair shake in Dallas as it pertains to the Cowboys, unless they've done something pretty absurd), but the fact is: I don't think these people had as much of a case against the Cowboys, themselves. Yes, it was Jerry's stadium, but it wasn't his game.

In a way, I think this can help some claimants, because I honestly don't think they had too much of a case against the Cowboys. To me, they should be going after the NFL, and the NFL should use any powers it may have to send Jerry a bill if they have to pay out anything more.
 
2013-07-19 05:57:47 PM
Oh, and yes, the fact that the word "fraud" was used anywhere is a reason why this suit wouldn't fly.
 
2013-07-19 05:58:54 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: NotoriousFire: But how much did someone spend on airfare, hotel, meals, etc to get to the game? Hopefully less than $2,400, but then again if you're shelling out $800 a ticket, I imagine it's a fair amount.

Either way, it's not $2,400 richer. Likely much less...

The case was thrown out as a Class Action because the Cowboys offered them triple the expense of the ticket. Yes, there are plenty of out of pocket expenses, but the Cowboys offered them recompense for their troubles, Of course, it's not enough! In our litigious society there's "mental anguish" and "fibromyalgia" and "woe is me" that will linger unless the people get $100,000 in restitution.

The judge was right for throwing out the case. They can each sue individually to get recoup their losses off the event, but the Cowboys will simply tack on a countersuit for $200,000 to pay the lawyers fees associated with the leg work they've already done. And, it's important to know the Cowboys lawyers are locked and loaded with everything for the court case now, they just need a direction to be unleashed.


So in the same post you argue that 100 000 is too much then defend the cowboys for suing for twice that
 
2013-07-19 05:59:58 PM
Also, when all is said and done... those who were screwed won't end up with anything more than they've already been offered. However, there are some lawyers who will have a LOT more money in their pockets.
 
2013-07-19 06:01:16 PM

puffy999: Can you explain why this class action suit was, as you say, "frivolous"? Not accepting a settlement, and then having a class action case dismissed, doesn't make it "frivolous" by definition.


This is true. This case is not necessarily frivolous.

puffy999: In all reality, I'd say this should be appealed to someone OUTSIDE of Dallas.


The suit isn't over yet, which is probably why they don't need to appeal... yet.
 
2013-07-19 06:08:07 PM

Warlordtrooper: So in the same post you argue that 100 000 is too much then defend the cowboys for suing for twice that


Well, $100,000 on an $800 ticket is 125x the face value. Times 1200 defendants. So $11,9040,000 over face value of the tickets.

If you name a defendant in your case and then can't prove they committed the crime you accuse them of, you pay their court costs in many situations.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report