Ld Griggs

Ticket Scalping: Its Legal and Economic Effects on the Illusion of Perfect Innocence

The scalping of tickets for major sporting events is controlled throughout much of the United States. Recently, in response to perceived public backlash against the scalping of tickets for the AFL Grand Final, Victoria introduced its own legislation, the Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Act 2002. This legislation seeks to control the secondary market in the selling of tickets as well as controlling this activity in the physical vicinity of venues. From a consumer perspective, the issue is fundamental: does the anti-scalping legislation allow consumers to pocket the economic surplus from the under pricing (deliberate or otherwise) of tickets and, through this, paternalistically protect the consumer from the alleged price-gouging that can occur in the secondary market; or does it operate to harm consumers by inefficiently allocating a scarce resource? This article explores the economic arguments for and against scalping, as well as identifying what the author submits are the relevant principles behind consumer protection in anti-scalping legislation. Practical solutions will also be offered as a way of reaching a compromise between the economics of allowing a scarce resource to be allocated to the person prepared to pay the most, as against the inherent backlash by the traditional fan towards perceived extortionate prices charged in the secondary market.

In Personam, Garcia v NAB and the Torrens System - Are They Reconcilable?

Claims in unjust enrichment are undoubtedly becoming more important. This article explores the relationship between these claims and the Torrens system of land registration. Does the recognition of unjust enrichment as a basis for an in personam action undermine the notion of indefeasibility that is a central tenet of the Torrens system?

Natural justice: an alternative ground for intervention in corporate decision making?

This paper seeks to show that the existing regulation of corporate decision making fails to provide a comprehensive shield to minority shareholders. Instead of urging another addition to the plethora of statutory controls over corporations the authors suggest a more radical, but simple solution to this lacuna. This radical and simple solution would be to apply the rules of natural justice to corporate decision making, thus providing a safety net of last resort for minority shareholders who are unable to gain the protection of a statutory or common law remedy. TTiere is no doubt that at present the law governing the decision making powers of companies, at a board level or in the general meeting, are inadequate, at least insofar as procedural matters are concerned. As injustice may arise as a result of this inadequacy it will be submitted that the principles of natural justice should apply to company decisions. Against this backdrop this article considers the existing regulation of corporate decisions before examining the bases for the imposition of natural justice. The grounds for denying the implication of natural justice will also be discussed. Ultimately we will conclude that there is no insurmountable barrier to the application of the rules of natural justice to corporate decision making organs. The authors acknowledge that the solution we propose involves important policy considerations. This policy debate has been addressed in other articles.1 Our paper is based on the premise that once it is accepted that it is possible to move or adjust the private/public boundary then important advantages could occur to minority shareholders.