Background and Facts

Faced with rising ticket prices and increasing entertainment options, Major League Baseball organizations have experienced challenges in getting fans to attend games. One way to attract fans is to offer them unique merchandisesuch as bobbleheads, shirts, blankets, caps, and batsthat they can only obtain by attending a game. The Cincinnati Reds, LLC, often engages in these types of promotions. The Reds' home state, Ohio, imposes a tax on sales of certain goods and services but exempts sales-for-resale. Concluding that the Reds' promotional items were purchased to give away and not to resell, the state board of tax appeals (BTA) denied the team's request for an exemption.

On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Reds argued that they resold the promotional items by promising to distribute them, and that this promise created a contractual expectation on the part of the fans, who bought tickets and attended games as consideration for receiving the items.

In the Words of the Court

FISCHER, J. [Justice]

* * * *

Consideration, in the contract-law sense, is important here: the question whether the Reds purchased promotional items for resale entails asking whether fans furnished consideration for the Reds' promise to hand out the promotional items at the games.

* * * *

* * * The BTA's finding that the Reds intended to give away promotional items rather than to sell them is not supported by any reliable * * * evidence found in the recordin fact, the evidence in the record is to the contraryand is therefore unreasonable and unlawful.

Whether there is consideration at all is a proper question for a court. * * * If consideration is found to exist, courts must determine whether any consideration was really bargained for. [Emphasis added.]

[The testimony of the Reds' chief financial officer, Doug Healy,] indicates that in the specific circumstances here, fans gave consideration in exchange for promotional items. He explained that the Reds advertise in advance to notify fans when specific promotional items will be distributed. Fans then purchase tickets to those specific games with the expectation that they will receive a promotional item. The Reds attempt to purchase enough promotional items so that one will be available for each fan. Healy offered undisputed testimony that in the event that the Reds do not have enough promotional items to provide one to each fan, the Reds would provide something of equivalent value, such as a different promotional item or a ticket to a future game.

In determining that no consideration was given by fans in exchange for the promotional items, the * * * BTA focused on their findings that fans pay the same price to attend a game regardless of whether a promotional item is offered and that the cost of the promotional item is not included in the ticket price. But Healy specifically testified that the costs of promotional items are included in ticket prices when they are set before the start of a season and that promotional items are distributed at less desirable games for which tickets are not expected to be sold out. Thus, rather than offering discounted ticket prices to these less desirable games, it stands to reason that by including the cost of the promotional item in the ticket price, one portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to attend the less desirable game and a separate portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to receive the promotional item. Based on this record, we accordingly conclude that the promotional items constituted things of value in exchange for which fans paid money that was included in the ticket prices. [Emphasis added.]

Questions to answer with explanation

Facts of the case

why are they in court?

What question did the court have to decide in this case or the issue before the court

Court Decision and facts