[tomerv]

This can happen anywhere, not only on software. I once bought a set of 10 or so entries to a climbing wall. Some time later I wanted to use it and was told that it was no longer valid. There was no "valid by" date on the card, but I was told that the place transfered ownership and that this decision to not accept the old card was ok'ed by the lawyers.

At least for software you can keep a copy of the installer. Unless it checks the license with the server, then you're screwed...

[jlokier]

Often when a business representative says they don't have to honour a contract, they are wrong, or lying to see if they get away with it.

If it was a transfer of business ownership, I would expect that you had a contract with the business, the business still existed, and that if you filed in small claims court you could recover at least the cost of the unused entry card due to contract non-performance by the business.

Unfortunately, a lot of business transfers are shady and aren't really transfers at all. The old business winds down or renders itself bankrupt, and a new one is started in its place. Everyone with contracts with the old business loses out. The new business is not supposed to be able to mislead everyone into thinking it's the same business, though.

I worked for a games company in the 90s which did that to its office landlord.

One week I interviewed there for a job, and got an offer. In between that and me starting 2 weeks later, they declared the company bankrupt and started a new company with almost the same name, and the same directors and owners, and I was employed by the new company under its new name instead. This allowed them to ditch their commercial lease giving 0 days notice in contravention of the terms. They moved out in secret over a weekend so the landlord would not know until the old company had disappeared.

[voisin]

> One week I interviewed there for a job, and got an offer. In between that and me starting 2 weeks later, they declared the company bankrupt and started a new company with almost the same name, and the same directors and owners, and I was employed by the new company under its new name instead. This allowed them to ditch their commercial lease giving 0 days notice in contravention of the terms. They moved out in secret over a weekend so the landlord would not know until the old company had disappeared.

There’s got to be more to this story. If you declare bankruptcy, the lenders, including trade contracts like a landlord, have the right to go after the corporation’s assets. If the directors declared bankruptcy in the bad faith manner you are saying, the courts would allow the creditors to go after the directors, personally.

[jlokier]

I agree, there's bound to be more. Perhaps it's not true, but what I've relayed here is what staff were told at the time and was relayed to me when I joined the day after the move. The staff had to pack up all the furniture and other assets on the weekend leaving nothing behind, without looking like they were preparing to move out in the preceding week, and they all knew their employment contracts were being moved to the new company. This is the story they passed on to me about why the company changed name and location between the interview and employment, and why they hadn't mentioned the significant change of location at the time of the interview.

[voisin]

> If it was a transfer of business ownership, I would expect that you had a contract with the business, the business still existed, and that if you filed in small claims court you could recover at least the cost of the unused entry card due to contract non-performance by the business.

Depends on whether the purchaser bought the shares or the assets, and whether the legal entity that you entered a contract with still exists. I suspect you’d be left in small claims court with a defunct corporation.

[quickthrower2]

Pretty dumb of the climbing wall. They will just lose repeat business. I wouldn’t go back if any business did that to me. Letting you in costs nothing by comparison! And you’d probably buy a drink each time or bring a friend who has not yet been.

[michaelt]

I agree that in principle companies ought to honour their commitments, even through changes in ownership.

But without knowing what tomerv means by "Some time later I wanted to use it" it's hard to say if refusing is all that bad for business.

You don't want to upset regular customers or active members of the local climbing community - but regular customers don't take years to use up a 10-entry voucher.

If tomerv's voucher was 5-10 years old, the threat that someone who hadn't brought anything in years would start a boycott wouldn't exactly have them quaking in their boots.

[julianlam]

> Letting you in costs nothing by comparison!

If we look at the per-use cost to the climbing gym, then there is a definite cost.

The main contributor to that overhead is insurance. My understanding is that it is very difficult and very expensive to insure a climbing gym, hence the rather high rates.

Divided at the per-visit or per-customer level, you can see then that every single visitor incurs some cost.

If it were me I'd just have them sign a liability waiver (the legal effectiveness of which is already dubious) and climb, but I'm not them.

[bruce511]

Your post here is slightly ambiguous, so I thought I'd add to it a bit in case you are falling into a common trap.

>> Divided at the per-visit or per-customer level, you can see then that every single visitor incurs some cost.

Your statement above is correct if you pay the insurance amount based on a per visit model. In other words if you report the number of visits to the insurance company every month, and your premium changes monthly. I've no idea if this is what's happening or not. If it is, then your post is fine, but if the insurance is a fixed amount then you've fallen into a common trap. Which is this;

You cannot average a fixed cost across variable use, when calculating marginal cost.

For example let's say I have a factory making various steel goods. Mostly I make fences to order. In my slack time (which all factories should have) I get otherwise-idle staff to make shopping trolleys. I supply those regularly, and so it never hurts to have stock of them.

Now, here's the question - should I add labour to the cost of those trolleys [1] or not? As labour is a fixed cost I'm paying the employees regardless. Whether they make trolleys or sit around drinking tea it costs me the same.

A costomers walks in, and wants to buy the trolleys at a discount, which covers all the materials, and half the nominal labour rate - should I sell them? The right answer is yes (better to recoup half the labour cost than none of it) the wrong answer is to say no, the labour cost was x so selling at half x is losing money. [2]

So if your insurance is say 1000,thats a fixed cost and is not part of any specific gym visit. Adding "free" visits has no impact on the insurance. The marginal cost is very much only the actual costs of that visit - which are likely close to zero (some water in the bathroom maybe?)

[1] I am assuming staff are paid hourly, not per job, are are not "sent home" during idle time.

[2] I get this is simplistic, and other factors can come into play. Like if I have limited supply and am prepared to wait for a higher offer. But presuming I have the ability to create (in idle time) more than demand, the question holds.

[colejohnson66]

Have you considered small claims court? In many jurisdictions, lawyers aren’t allowed, so the new owners would have to justify the decision.

What I bet actually happened is their lawyers said, "you can, but you might be sued" and the owners took it as an OK. Lawyers generally aren't stupid enough to just say something sketchy is OK; They will include caveats that the clients have to consider.