Think Tank Should club members be entitled to refunds?

[A Cut Above]

Everyone in this industry is paid too much. They should all take pay cuts to keep their clubs afloat.

..........including forum admins?

 

[Laphroaig]

Bit like saying all West Australians must be campaigners

Why say it at all?

It is a self evident truth which doesn't need to be spoken.

 

[Laphroaig]

Correct, legally it's actually simple common law, whereas; Party A (club) advertised and offered and Party B (member) services/goods/products of which party B has not/did not receive - however in light of the current situation claims for refunds from Party B will not be considered until the AFL publicly declare the 2020 season cancelled...

NB. Party A is not legally obligated to offer Party B any refund, the onus is entirely on party B to claim said refund.

Putting "said" into a sentence doesn't make it any more authoritative. And when you put "said" into a factually incorrect statement it achieves the opposite. It makes you look like a prize knob.

What is actually the "simple common law" is the exact reverse of what you said it is.

Lets start with an act of god. Usually applied to fire, flood or tempest but pestilence or disease would almost certainly satisfy the court.

If that doesn't get home we can turn to force majeure - an unforeseeable circumstance.

We then roll one or both of those into frustration of purpose where due to a change in circumstances which neither party caused, can remedy or can control the intent of the contract is thwarted or significantly altered. Western courts have, for the past 170 years, accepted that frustration of purpose allows the contract to be declared void. When it is declared void, both parties are left as they are. Which means no refund.

The same result could likely be obtained under the doctrine of impossibility, but frustration of purpose seems to be a better fit.

You could mount an argument that Clubs have a moral responsibility to refund, or that it is in their best interest to refund to keep their members happy. What you can not do is argue that there is a legal responsibility, because there is not.

 

[A Cut Above]

Putting "said" into a sentence doesn't make it any more authoritative. And when you put "said" into a factually incorrect statement it achieves the opposite. It makes you look like a prize knob.

What is actually the "simple common law" is the exact reverse of what you said it is.

Lets start with an act of god. Usually applied to fire, flood or tempest but pestilence or disease would almost certainly satisfy the court.

If that doesn't get home we can turn to force majeure - an unforeseeable circumstance.

We then roll one or both of those into frustration of purpose where due to a change in circumstances which neither party caused, can remedy or can control the intent of the contract is thwarted or significantly altered. Western courts have, for the past 170 years, accepted that frustration of purpose allows the contract to be declared void. When it is declared void, both parties are left as they are. Which means no refund.

The same result could likely be obtained under the doctrine of impossibility, but frustration of purpose seems to be a better fit.

You could mount an argument that Clubs have a moral responsibility to refund, or that it is in their best interest to refund to keep their members happy. What you can not do is argue that there is a legal responsibility, because there is not.

I'm pleasantly surprised you're taking the 3rd poll option so seriously.

 

[Laphroaig]

I'm pleasantly surprised you're taking the 3rd poll option so seriously.

Who doesn't like swimming and ****?

Anyway, I was just indulging in some good general invective for the hell of it, because the pronouncement on the subject briefly irritated me. I am, after all, not difficult to irritate.

IF it went to court it almost certainly would not be heard as a common law contract matter anyway. Legislation trumps common law, and the ACL kind of covers a situation like this one.

You'd need detail of exactly what the Club Membership offers say, and somebody who knows a shitload more than I do to interpret what it means.

 

[A Cut Above]

Who doesn't like swimming and ****?

Anyway, I was just indulging in some good general invective for the hell of it, because the pronouncement on the subject briefly irritated me. I am, after all, not difficult to irritate.

IF it went to court it almost certainly would not be heard as a common law contract matter anyway. Legislation trumps common law, and the ACL kind of covers a situation like this one.

You'd need detail of exactly what the Club Membership offers say, and somebody who knows a shitload more than I do to interpret what it means.

The person with that legal knowledge certainly isn't me, but I've a feeling clubs won't have a leg to stand on. Eddie wouldn't be so panicked otherwise.

Anyway its sort of a moot point since Gill has already said members of all clubs are entitled refunds. Besides, withholding cash from them would be one of the stupidest decisions they could make given they'll need these people to cough up when things go back to 'normal'.

 

[Laphroaig]

The person with that legal knowledge certainly isn't me, but I've a feeling clubs won't have a leg to stand on. Eddie wouldn't be so panicked otherwise.

Anyway its sort of a moot point since Gill has already said members of all clubs are entitled refunds. Besides, withholding cash from them would be one of the stupidest decisions they could make given they'll need these people to cough up when things go back to 'normal'.

I do agree that it would be amazingly stupid to refuse refunds, even if the Club concerned felt it had a fighting chance in court.

Far better to do something along the lines of "Of course you will be refunded if your circumstances dictate that you need to. Just ask. However it will help the Club immeasurably if you choose to let your 2020 membership stand. In return, we will give you a 50% discount in each of 2022, 2023 and 2024."

 

[mianfei]

I do agree that it would be amazingly stupid to refuse refunds, even if the club concerned felt it had a fighting chance in court.

Far better to do something along the lines of

"Of course you will be refunded if your circumstances dictate that you need to. Just ask. However it will help the Club immeasurably if you choose to let your 2020 membership stand. In return, we will give you a 50% discount in each of 2022, 2023 and 2024."

A logical option given that with COVID-19 still spreading in Victoria and the possibility of a second wave it is practically certain there will be no fans in stadiums for the 2021 season – an opinion put forward in early April by Dr. Zeke Emmanuel.

The major problem with your idea is that it is extremely uncertain that fans will be attending AFL in 2022. If as experts believe a COVID vaccine proves impossible to develop, large gatherings like crowds in sport will be out of the question until and unless improved medical treatments be found. If we study the admittedly imperfect analogy of HIV in the 1980s, it took about seven to eight years (circa 1993) before treatments were improved sufficiently to minimise risk of long-term death. It is plausible that with more intensive research antivirals against COVID-19 will be discovered sooner than 2027 or 2028, but I would not consider this certain. It is by no means certain fans will be able to attend AFL games again by 2024, and if the league is still without crowds in 2024 and plans to allow crowds in again are not mooted during that season or the 2024/2025 summer season, then the question becomes one of how much to refund members.

 

[zackah]

My membership is a donation towards my clubs future legal bills so no I will not be asking for a refund.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

I usually give the club money to watch them be s**t. This year I've paid money to not watch them be s**t. I think that means I'm ahead?

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

I usually give the club money to watch them be s**t. This year I've paid money to not watch them be s**t. I think that means I'm ahead?

No fear mate, that 1995 flag was worth all these years of s**t for Carlton yeah?

 

[Laphroaig]

A logical option given that with COVID-19 still spreading in Victoria and the possibility of a second wave it is practically certain there will be no fans in stadiums for the 2021 season – an opinion put forward in early April by Dr. Zeke Emmanuel.

The major problem with your idea is that it is extremely uncertain that fans will be attending AFL in 2022. If as experts believe a COVID vaccine proves impossible to develop, large gatherings like crowds in sport will be out of the question until and unless improved medical treatments be found. If we study the admittedly imperfect analogy of HIV in the 1980s, it took about seven to eight years (circa 1993) before treatments were improved sufficiently to minimise risk of long-term death. It is plausible that with more intensive research antivirals against COVID-19 will be discovered sooner than 2027 or 2028, but I would not consider this certain. It is by no means certain fans will be able to attend AFL games again by 2024, and if the league is still without crowds in 2024 and plans to allow crowds in again are not mooted during that season or the 2024/2025 summer season, then the question becomes one of how much to refund members.

No.

Insert "some" before experts. And even most of the "some" believe that a completely effective vaccine may be impossible to develop. A partially effective vaccine in the mid term is pretty much the consensus view. One which will give the immune system of most of the at risk population enough of a head start.

Second, Covid-19 deaths are to a great extent concentrated in quite a small demographic by age group and pre-existing comorbidites. Not to put to fine a point on it, if the virus continues to be prevalent most of the people who are at risk of death from it will be dead long before the timescale you imagine.

Third. It's not spoken of too much, but governments are aware that we are at (or at the very least close to) the tipping point where measures taken to contain Covid-19 are more harmful to society then letting the thing rip. It is an absolute certainty that the attempt to maintain anything like the restrictions currently in place until 2024-25 would result in the collapse of both the world economy and national economies alike. And potentially the collapse of society as well.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

I think we are entitled to a competition run fairly and evenly but that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, is it.