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.

"Derek__M" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 don't know much about this type of claim but it sounds as if the claimant
might be claiming an account of profits rather than damages?

Chris R

I don't know much about this type of claim but it sounds as if the
claimant
might be claiming an account of profits rather than damages?

Chris R


IANAL but that jogged a memory about the law catching up with the
commonsense thought that your friend (or her friend) shouldn't end up
keeping the profit from a "naughty sale". And that then led to
http://www.maitlandchambers.co.uk/Fi...ottengains.pdf
which *might* be relevant

--
Robin

On 1 Nov, 19:05, "Chris R" wrote:
"Derek__M" wrote in message

oups.com...

I don't know much about this type of claim but it sounds as if the claimant
might be claiming an account of profits rather than damages?

Chris R

Yes you are correct! Is there an important difference other than
terminology?

"Account of profits" appears to be used for intellectual property
torts or breach of fiduciary duty only. Where proprietary torts are
described in the Law Commission report I mentioned, the term
"restitutionary remedy" is used (though the distinction between
"remedy" and "damages" is blurred in this report). The phrasing is
this:

"In some cases the plaintiff has been awarded all the profits made by
the defendant (for example, from the sale of the plaintiff's goods).
In other cases the plaintiff [has got some of the profits from] the
use of the property."

The key thing to my friend though is, what would happen in a real
situation in small claims courts?

On 1 Nov, 19:05, "Chris R" wrote:
"Derek__M" wrote in message

oups.com...



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 don't know much about this type of claim but it sounds as if the claimant
might be claiming an account of profits rather than damages?

Chris R-

Yes, an account of profits would seem to be the better claim in this
case.

On 1 Nov, 23:45, "Robin" wrote:
I don't know much about this type of claim but it sounds as if the
claimant
might be claiming an account of profits rather than damages?

Chris R

IANAL but that jogged a memory about the law catching up with the
commonsense thought that your friend (or her friend) shouldn't end up
keeping the profit from a "naughty sale". And that then led tohttp://www.maitlandchambers.co.uk/Files/Article/PDF/JMillgottengains.pdf
which *might* be relevant

--
Robin

Thanks Robin. That article focuses more on *extensions* to the account
of profits rule.

It does mention that profits can be sought for a claim of conversion,
but there is a distinction in the cases I've quoted between profits
for
*using* (eg. hiring out) the item which the claimant is often entitled
to,
and and profits for *selling* the item which the claimant is often
not
entitled if he has already recovered all his losses (or not suffered
any).

In the VFC case I mentioned, the claimant won his hire purchase
payments
but did not win the profits that were made on the sale of the vehicles
that occurred.

I guess another question is, the sale may have been "naughty" because
the
tickets turned out to be owned by the event organiser, but reasonably
the seller
didn't know that. But is the sale additionally "naughty" because it
breached the
ticket conditions (even though the seller was not a party to the
contract)?

But it could all come down to what a judge thinks...