Druyan v. Jagger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that a concert’s date and time were guaranteed when the concert ticket states “DATE & TIME ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE”
• holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that a concert was guaranteed to take place as scheduled where the ticket stated, “DATE & TIME ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE”
• holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that a concert was guaranteed to take place as scheduled where the ticket stated, “DATE & TIME ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE”
• holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that a concert was guaranteed to take place as scheduled where the ticket stated, “DATE & TIME ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.”
• noting that plaintiff failed to plead any facts \tend[ing] to impute [one defendant's] alleged[ ] [misrepresentations by ticketmaster for concert] to any of the other [promoter] defendants\
• rejecting a similar argument because “[t]he only damages that plaintiff can 6 recover as a matter of law are not ‘special’ damages: they are precisely the 7 damages contemplated by her contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).