site banner

Friday Fun Thread for March 27, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Doesn’t matter. If it’s not very clearly flagged in advance, such that he couldn’t have bought it without reasonably expecting this turn of events, then it’s not appropriate under UK law.

In general if a consumer would reasonably expect X, and not-X isn’t both clearly flagged and legally appropriate, and he has accumulated financial damage as a result, then the seller is up shit creek without a paddle. Doesn’t matter what the terms and conditions say. You can’t sign away your rights as a consumer in the UK, especially not three paragraphs into the small text.

@MadMonzer, do you have any thoughts? The above is true as far as I’m aware, and AI agrees.

This is a business-to-consumer contract, so the law on unfair terms in consumer contracts applies. This is a hugely complex area of law (the official government guidance runs to 144 pages) where the statute and regulations were re-written in 2015 to bring British law in line with EU law (and not updated since Brexit) but most of the cases predate the new law.

But the key point is that Arsenham FC can enforce the term if it is "fair" and not if it is "unfair". Hidden terms are on the "greylist" of terms that will usually be unfair, but even if the rule "we can cancel your tickets without notice if you turn out not to be a fan" was clearly state, it would be invalid if substantially unfair.

The relevant section in the guidance is 5.16.3 on unequal cancellation rights

This applies particularly to terms which explicitly say that the trader can cancel at will, without having any valid reason. But it also applies to terms which permit cancellation for vaguely defined reasons, or in response to any breach of contract (however trivial) by the consumer. Such terms may be intended to allow the business to do no more than protect itself legitimately from problems beyond its control, or from serious misconduct by the consumer. But the potential effect as well as the purpose of terms is relevant to fairness, and if wording is loosely drafted and open to abuse it is liable to be seen as unbalancing the contract.

Cancelling a contract because the customer is not a fan would be a vaguely defined reason, meaning that the term is greylisted and therefore probably unfair. It might be fair under the circumstances if @Bartender_Venator had e.g. taken advantage of a discount specifically marketed at fans.

There is a separate point that the contract isn't formed until the business accepts the customer's offer. If you booked the flights and accommodation before getting a confirmation e-mail saying "your tickets are booked" and then unfortunately got a non-confirmation e-mail saying "please prove you are a fan before we will release your tickets" then you never had a contract and are SOL.

Admirably detailed. I take my hat off to you, sir!

I'm saying that it likely was clearly marked in advance. This isn't a new thing or something they're trying to trick people about.

People don't read disclaimers even when they're clear and require active consent.

Sorry, now I see what you mean.

That would make it more complex, certainly, though personally I doubt they did this. It seems a weird way of doing things in general and you’d expect them to demand this proof at buying time to prevent exactly this scenario.

The government is also aware that people don’t read disclaimers, and as a non-lawyer I would say that buying plane and hotel tickets signalled fairly clearly that Bartender expected to be able to get in. So I think even in that scenario he’d still have a decent chance.