Shipment and Destination Contracts. Roderick Cardwell owns Ticketworld, which sells tickets (a sale of goods, according to the court) to entertainment and sporting events to be held at locations throughout the United States. Ticketworld's Massachusetts

office sold tickets to an event in Connecticut to Mary Lou Lupovitch, a Connecticut resident, for $125 per ticket, although each ticket had a fixed price of $32.50. There was no agreement that Ticketworld would bear the risk of loss until the tickets were delivered to a specific location. Ticketworld gave the tickets to a carrier in Massachusetts who delivered the tickets to Lupovitch in Connecticut. The state of Connecticut brought an action against Cardwell in a Connecticut state court, charging in part a violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of a ticket for more than $3 over its fixed price. Cardwell contended in part that the statute did not apply because the sale to Lupovitch involved a shipment contract that was formed outside the state. Is Cardwell correct? How will the court rule? Why?

Shipment and destination contracts
The Connecticut state court in which the action was brought held that Cardwell violated the statute. The court ordered him to stop selling tickets in Connecticut for more than $3 over the fixed price of each ticket, ordered restitution to Lupovitch in the amount of $185, and assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,500. Cardwell appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed part of the lower court's holding. The state supreme court held that title to the tickets passed, and a sale occurred, when Ticketworld delivered the tickets to a carrier in Massachusetts, rather than when the carrier delivered the tickets to Lupovitch in Connecticut. The court explained that a sale occurs when title passes from seller to buyer, that title passes when the seller delivers the goods, and that unless the parties agree otherwise, delivery occurs at the place of shipment. The court emphasized that the sales contract did not include any explicit agreement by Ticketworld to bear the risk of loss until the tickets were delivered. This made the contract a shipment contract that was formed outside the state, and the state statute did not apply. (The lower court also found Cardwell guilty of misrepresentation, which was the object of a different state statute with different requirements. A Ticketworld employee had told Lupovitch that the tickets were for seats directly in front of the stage. In fact, the seats were in a far inferior location. The state supreme court upheld this conviction, and others, and the penalties.)