Assigning Contracts

GM228

Just curious in relation to a post from Peregrinus in the Being harrased over tickets thread. I've pulled this from the post:-

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I sell the ticket to you, I am assigning you my rights under the contract. Now you are entitled to be admitted to the concert, or to have the ticket price refunded if the concert is cancelled.

Contract law is certainly not my strongest point, and it seems Robbo agreed with what Peregrinus stated, but, the thread got me thinking about benefits vs obligations of a contract when it comes to assignment.

Isn't it true that you assign the benefits (which is implied), but, to assign the obligations of a contract it must be an expressed agreement of all the parties concerned, so even when you sell on something like was discussed in that thread that any obligations of the contract would not be an exception to the privity rule unless specifically agreed to.

Now assuming I'm correct, the problem then is what is considered a benfit and what is an obligation. Surely in the case of what we discussed a requirement to refund in case of a cancellation is an obligation provided for under the contract as opposed to a benefit and therefore subject to the privity rule.

Please note I don't want to start another "mob-like" (as Robbo aptly put it) type of debate which ensued from that thread again, rather I would like to discuss assignment of contracts as outlined above.

Peregrinus

In the case of a concert ticket, the ticketholder is entitled to (a) admission to the concert, and (b) a refund if the concern is cancelled. These are both benefits as far as the ticketholder is concerned, obligations as far as the concert promoter is concerned.

Suppose the terms of the ticket contract provide, explicitly or implicitly, that it is freely assignable. Ticketholder A assigns his ticket to Ticketholder B. Now Ticketholder B is entitled to the admission or to the refund. The consent of the promoter isn't needed because the terms of the contract provide for this - he has consented in advance, as it were, by entering into the ticket contract in the first place.

(I pause her to point out that the transferability of concert tickets is, I think, an implicit term, even if it's not explicit. In the other thread the OP bought four tickets for the same event. He couldn't possibly use more than one himself; if an officious bystander has asked, both parties would have said that the expectation was that he would give the other three to other people to use.)

Now suppose the ticket is only partly paid - the tickeholder pays 50 euro on isssue, and the balance a week before the contract. More than a week before the contract, Ticketholder A gives the Ticket to Ticketholder B. Ticketholder B has both the benefits (admission/refund) of the ticket, and the obligations (payment of the balance of the purchase price). Again, the promoter's consent is not needed because the terms of the ticket allow it to be transferred.

We only need the promoter's consent if the ticket is, explicitly or implicitly, not transferrable. For the reason already given, this is usually not the case with concert tickets, though there may be prohibition on resale.