We’ve all got some absolutely unforgettable concert experiences. Some are so memorable because the band or artist played their hearts out and everything just seemed to click, others are memorable because everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
It happens, folks. Not every concert you see can be an absolute cracker of an evening. It’s just a part of life. Sometimes you buy a product that doesn’t deliver on its promises or go to a restaurant that proves to be more lacklustre than its Yelp reviews indicated.
The difference between these experiences and going to a concert is there’s not much you can do about a bad gig. You go home a little disappointed and eventually you get over it. After all, it’s not like you can get a refund just because the performance was crappy, right?
Not so fast. Some music fans apparently can. And when we say “some”, we mean those living in Finland. As Stereogum reports, thanks to a new ruling in a Finnish court case, concertgoers in Finland can now ask for a refund if a performance falls short of reasonably expected standards.
According to Finnish news outlet Yle, the country’s Consumer Disputes Board have ordered the organisers of a 2013 Helsinki concert featuring rock and roll icon Chuck Berry to pay attendees a 50 percent refund on their ticket purchases.
Apparently, the legendary guitarist was feeling a little under the weather on the evening of the show, even apologising to the crowd for his crook state. The resulting performance was deemed “well below reasonably expected standards” and the CDB decided a refund was in order.
But don’t go thinking this applies to any show you happened to dislike. “Anyone seeking a ruling like this is always spurred by a subjective opinion,” Board chairman Pauli Ståhlberg told Yle, “but that’s not enough to get a refund.”
“What is significant is a generally agreed view that the concert was a failure, as it was in the Chuck Berry case,” added Ståhlberg. There’s also certain criteria that have to be met in order for a performance to be declared legally shitty.
[include_post id=”436428″]
For one thing, as Consequence of Sound notes, sickness could be a reasonable cause for a dispute, but inebriation may not be. “On the other hand, it’s not at all unusual at rock festivals that some artists are high, and that doesn’t even necessarily affect the quality of their performances,” Ståhlberg said.
Basically, if an artist is known for being under the influence when on stage, attendees can’t rightfully expect anything different when they hand over their money for a ticket. This will, for all intents and purposes, be henceforth known as the ‘Scott Weiland Clause’.
What’s more, this ruling could potentially have ramifications on other kinds of entertainment, like music festivals or even circus shows. However, the bar for measuring reasonable expectations for each type of event will differ.
“There are numerous different performers at a festival and so it have to be evaluated as a whole,” Ståhlberg explained. “Even the marching order affects perception of the overall quality. A failed performance by a featured star is a bigger deal for consumers than one by a warm-up band.”
Let’s hope this works out well for Finland, so we can get it instituted here in Australia ASAP.
