Exclamation New Policy: Lift Ticket Voucher Sales No Longer Allowed

riverc0il said:

Just out of curiosity, any legal types know the exact legal aspects of resale of lift tickets? Just because a business makes a policy does not make it legally true. For example, what if publishers starting putting fine print on a book that it could not be resold (not an on par example as one is an item and the other is a service, but you get the jist). Lots of times business say you can't do something when in fact they do not have any legal ground to stand on. Just curious if the law backs this up when it comes to resale of lift tickets after they have been purchased or transfer of lift tickets at the same price.

I fully understand if site administration feels that there is a legal issue here and does not want AZ allowing black market trading going on. It seems that the law would support the ski areas claim on this item, I just wanted clarification regarding my question above.

This policy would be more respectable if it was explicitly being set forth as liability protection for AZ and not allowing illegal black market trading versus industry insiders setting an agenda based on good relations (which it appears to me). You have to wonder if that is a slippery slope, perhaps criticism of industry insiders who post here will be not allowed either eventually and so on down that line.

Click to expand...

ACE covers itself by making ticket purchasers sign a ticket agreement (done by an attorney) wherein the purchaser agrees to abide by the rules of each specific marketing entity. This puts the onus of responsibility upon the ticket holder and for the most part obviates the need for the club to "police" these things. Greg has chosen a more broad-sweeping restriction, which is, in effect, the policing of the policy.

AZ is a different type of entity than a club, which can impose specific control over it's membership. eBay as a model, makes you sign a form before you begin transactions. Of course as a for-profit entity, it can afford to police, by trolling for illegal activities. We can't expect Greg to do that.

Another aspect to consider is the penalties and their enforcement. If you read further along on the waivers, you see a citation that the prohibition is enforcible by state-specific general laws, under "theft of service" statute. I don't have the vouchers before me, so I can't quote specfically. So Steve, to answer your question, they do seem to be consistent with prevailing law and do appear to be punishable.

Enforcement is another matter. Two people selling tickets in a resort parking lot is just as illegal as the ticket hawker on the street during Red Sox game day selling above face value. Both are illegal. So are ticket brokers(don't get me going.) However, most enforcement efforts are not well funded, so most often, they will "cherry-pick" where they get the biggest bang. Posting illegal transactions on a forum as broad and public as AZ is tantamount to putting a "kick me" sign on your back and would inevitably taint the reputation of the forum.

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

but I'm just a lowly poster so what I say doesn't matter..lol

Click to expand...

True true

riverc0il said:

This policy would be more respectable if it was explicitly being set forth as liability protection for AZ and not allowing illegal black market trading versus industry insiders setting an agenda based on good relations (which it appears to me). You have to wonder if that is a slippery slope, perhaps criticism of industry insiders who post here will be not allowed either eventually and so on down that line.

Click to expand...

Pretty big leap here, Steve. Let's keep this in perspective.

BTW, this is not something that's entirely new. I've never allowed the sale of vouchers, but we've always allowed freebies: [post="81103"]Click[/post]

I should add again, that this is not something totally new, but it is only now specifically stated. Secondly, while this was brought to my attention by an industry person, there are some legal concerns behind it. Nevertheless, I feel the close ties to the industry is what sets AZ apart. I know some feel the reps use AZ as a mouthpiece or free marketing tool, etc. Perhaps at some level they do, but the bottom line for me is I want to see the industry succeed and if I can contribute to that in some small way, I will. Again, call me a sell-out all you want.

As was stated earlier, our close ties in the industry have resulted in benefits for AZ members that might not have happened otherwise. These include:

• $49 lift ticket at Sugarbush for the AZ Day
• $1 April Fools Day deal at Sugarbush, posted only on forums/blogs
• Recent midweek Jay Peak deal
• Free Sugarcard that was offered last season
• Discounted Pats Peak tickets last season
• Group rates offered at both Hunter and Mount Snow for AZ gatherings

So don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The bottom line is I think the actual impact of this new "policy" is minimal. But if some of you want to continue to whine and moan about it or question the real reasons for it, knock yourselves out. I certainly don't want to be accused of trying to stifle criticism and have the censorship card played. :roll:

I just want to chime in here on this topic and then go back to life and normal posting.

1. This policy is merely a codification of what has been practiced on here for the years that I have been involved. Folks have in the past offered, for free, unused vouchers that were either purchased or received and that carry no transferability restrictions. These exchanges were done for goodwill and to encourage other board members to try out a new resort. The problem that has arisen is that people are now trying to sell these vouchers, or in essence ticket scalp which has different motives. These tickets may carry restrictions, or were offered for certain target markets and for certain purposes. To simply allow the board to be a vehicle for such scalping, which is motivated by self-gain rather than generosity, does nobody any good. This is especially true if we were in a position where someone on the board began selling counterfeit tickets. This measure is proactive in the sense that the moderators, as well as Greg, will not be in a position to have to handle this problem.

2. I will again say that this board is in a unique position between the resorts and skiers/riders. Some boards are simply “let’s have at it” with their approach and this has weakened the credibility of the board, or the “community.”

In my years involved here, there has been a consistent interest on the part of the posters and the owner (Greg) to build relations with resorts in order to leverage good deals for posters while supporting the industry. I will say that when I go to Sugarbush, I hear repeatedly how much the likes of John Egan, Win Smith, and others regularly visit this board and regularly communicate with us all. They have benefited immensely from knowing what skiers and riders want, and we have benefited immensely from discounts and special promotions. Though these benefits have been few, they are on the increase. And though some people take these benefits for granted or feel that we are entitled to them, the truth is that much like any other business deal, the benefits stem from the relationship that has existed.

This relationship creates natural friction. Industry insiders have complained about some threads and comments in here, but we have let those comments remain in order to maintain the credibility of the board amongst you the posters. On the other hand, some people are often too trigger happy to say that we “pander to the resorts,” or as said in this thread, that there may be the beginning of “a slippery slope, perhaps criticism of industry insiders who post here will be not allowed either eventually and so on down that line.” These comments fail to consider the care and concern that the mods and Greg have with regards to balancing out the competing interests that are at stake here. The speakers also fail to appreciate the constructive criticism that has been offered by posters and even mods here to all resorts that we allow (including my own harsh criticism last season over Burke’s Season Pass policy). If we were truly pawns to the industry, then we would not be speaking out as we do or allowing others to do so. There are too many anecdotes to support this point, but some recent examples include Billski's thread last month on snow reporting and this very thread. If we were indeed pawns, these threads would cease to exist upon their creation. They remain.

In sum, the board has chosen to build relationships with resorts in order to establish credibility and benefits that extend to all posters. Such a relationship is a give and take, within reason, and again considering the needs of the industry, as well as the posters, this decision is one such balancing act.

3. This decision was certainly not a fiat of any kind. As with other decisions, there was a discussion amongst Greg (the owner) and the Mods. Greg certainly could have just implemented this decision on his own and been well within his rights, but he opted for our input. I am not at liberty to discuss our deliberations, but I will say that the Mods do not simply act as a “rubber stamp” for changes on the board. Much like Greg, we try to be fair and consider the different interests and views at stake. The Mods have been selected to represent differing points of view and have different values. The goal has been to be fair in the operation of the board and I will say that we all take for granted how well things do run here.

As with any “change” some people are not going to be happy and some are going to use this as an opportunity to speak louder because of their own insecurities. Some are going to rush to judgment without considering what is actually happening. A close look at this rule should reveal that the rule is narrow and preserves the customs that we have valued.

Though some folks want a legal analysis, and I am literally footsteps from being a lawyer, I am not at liberty to express any legal opinion or offer legal advice.

Well said, TTB. As with most things in life, it's all about balance. I should also take this opportunity to once again thank the mods, not only for their contributions as members and performing tasks as moderators, but for acting as a sounding board for me from time to time. I do believe we all balance each other out pretty well. Hey....there's that balance thing again.

I'd like to make another point about strengthening our relationship with the ski areas, and this is not related to the selling of vouchers, but it's still somewhat applicable to the discussion. The Sundown crew here has been very vocal about the mountain and I have communicated quite often with the mountain ops manager and terrain/events guy. Brian indicates that they also monitor the board quite frequently. So through our feedback and correspondences, Sundown has preserved and even expanded their mogul philosophy, so far as to even hold a mogul competition this season which was quite successful. I can tell you confidently that this would never had happened if we had not built the relationship we have today. So while AZ represents only a small contingent of the overall skier demographic, we can and do have an impact.

With that said, building relationships with the ski areas goes beyond what some consider financial motives. The Sundown bump thing is one example of on slope changes due in part to this forum. Nothing major and it doesn't affect that many of us, but it's still a result of maintaining that reasonable balance TTB talks about.

Greg said:

Great point, Beano. Hmm....wasn't GSS one of the ones that took advantage of that April Fools blog/forum dollar deal? His thinking truly is short sighted... :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes I took part in the deal..:beer: Thanks Win..

Greg said:

Sundown has preserved and even expanded their mogul philosophy, so far as to even hold a mogul competition this season which was quite successful. I can tell you confidently that this would never had happened if we had not built the relationship we have today.

Click to expand...

dude, sundown preserved and even expanded their mogul philosophy cause you sent them 50 emails a day for 2 years. They did it to shut you up!!! :lol: :lol:


and we're all the winners now.

2knees said:

dude, sundown preserved and even expanded their mogul philosophy cause you sent them 50 emails a day for 2 years. They did it to shut you up!!! :lol: :lol:


and we're all the winners now.

Click to expand...

He was gluing cotton balls to the bottom of egg cartons and sending them to mountian ops.

thank you to Greg and the Mods of Alpine Zone

From a lowly ticket agent , I thank you for making this modification to forum policy. It is a good thing to look forward to partnership and understanding that the revenue stream for ski areas and ski resorts is quite slim, and cannot support parking-lot-entrepreneurs.

Breeze

There is nothing lowly about being a ticket agent. You are often the first person with whom many of us deal on a ski day. A positive experience at ticket counter carries on into the day! The same can be said for the folks who help keep the parking lots efficient on the busy days and the lift attendants who help to reflect your fun while they get to watch chairs being loaded.

riverc0il said:

Just out of curiosity, any legal types know the exact legal aspects of resale of lift tickets? Just because a business makes a policy does not make it legally true. For example, what if publishers starting putting fine print on a book that it could not be resold (not an on par example as one is an item and the other is a service, but you get the jist). Lots of times business say you can't do something when in fact they do not have any legal ground to stand on. Just curious if the law backs this up when it comes to resale of lift tickets after they have been purchased or transfer of lift tickets at the same price.

Click to expand...

From a legal perspective, this is simply a contract law issue. The resort can put into its contract with skiers (recipients of vouchers in this case) whatever lawful restrictions it wants to. If you don't like the restrictions, don't sign the contract (i.e. don't accept the voucher). Once you accept the voucher, you've got to abide by their conditions/restrictions. That's why they have all the fine print on daily lift tickets so they can later pull your pass if you ski out of control or on closed trails.

BTW, if a publisher wanted to restrict resales of its books, it could legally do so. The problem would be with enforcement, not to mention the bad PR to the publisher that would result. But from a legal perspective, they could do it.

madskier6 said:

BTW, if a publisher wanted to restrict resales of its books, it could legally do so.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the first-sale doctrine prohibit them from making such restrictions?

MichaelJ said:

Doesn't the first-sale doctrine prohibit them from making such restrictions?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. My bad for not looking into copyright law specifics before I posted.

I obviously don't know a lot about copyright law. I was merely trying to point out that in certain contractual situations, one party can set the rules (to a certain degree) subject to the other party's agreement. This also means that when one party has greater bargaining power (as with ski resorts setting the terms of their lift tickets), the other party has to either accept it or go somewhere else for its needs. I should have known, however, that copyright law has its own set of standards.