I'd appreciate people's views on this:

I'm looking into a case for a friend who was "caught" selling an event
ticket on ebay. She was selling it on behalf of someone else so she is
not party to the contract. But tickets apparently had small print on
them stating that they should not be sold and, further, that they
remained the property of the event holder at all times.

The event holder is taking the line that by selling tickets owned by
the event holder, she has committed "wrongful interference" by
conversion. They are demanding the profits (about 330 pounds).

It is clear that the claimant has suffered no loss.

The question is, are they likely to get the profits? What I've read
suggests that they shouldn't. But what will happen in the "real world"
of a small claims court?

I'm not a lawyer, but Google is my friend.

I'm basing my understanding on "Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi
Airways Company and Others" which suggests they are not entitled to
anything as it says in para 68:

"In many cases the value of the chattel itself will either represent
this loss or form an important element in its calculation; but
consideration of the value of the chattel should not be allowed to
obscure the principle that what the plaintiff is entitled to recover
is his true loss."

This could be read two ways. I think in this case they meant that the
claim was for more than the value of the chattel. But in "VFS
Financial Services (UK) Limited v Euro Auctions & Others" this
authority was used to say that the claim was for less than the value.

Other authority allows exemplary damages to be awarded in cases where
the defendant "calculated" that they would make a profit that exceeded
the claimant's loss.

But, the Law Commission report on "Aggravated, Exemplary and
Restitutionary Damages" suggests that to get more than their true loss
for restitution or exemplary damages, the defendant must have:

"showed a deliberate and outrageous disregard for the claimants'
rights"

The seller would reasonably (I think) claim not to have examined the
tickets, and the facts of the case but clearly the morality of
reselling tickets is in question in some people's minds. But is it
"Outrageous", and if so, how outrageous?

Thanks for any comments.