The PDF I have also includes extensive documentation by Maureen including pictures with circles and arrows a paragraph on the front of each one…(apologies to Arlo).
Seems to me the whole basis of this is saying that Charlie Trotter (himself) and his somm knew that is was fake when it was sold. Good luck proving that. Probably not even worth the potential litigation fees.
I do like that they are asking for travel expenses to Chicago… even though they just went there to eat dinner not with the intent purpose to buy that wine.
should have paid with a $40,000 bill.
alan
Is this why I’ve been buckled up?
Ever get a paper cut from a $40K? Doesn’t tickle…
Not as I read it. The complaint is that a merchant expert in the goods sold delivered a fake. No intent required, or knowledge on the part of the merchant that it was a fake. Most of the consumer protection statutes are based on the reliance a consumer places on expert merchants, and the merchant’s better ability to absorb the loss from a sale of a bad product. The implied warranty of merchantability (as I understand it in other jurisdictions) typically does not require any proof that the merchant knew (or even ought to have known) the goods were unmerchantable. They protect consumers from latent defects.
Essentially, to use a different example, this is why wine merchants have to take back corked bottles.
Cheers,
Blair
plenty of merchants refuse to take back corked bottles. I’m sure many on this board would love to have some sort of statute/case law to back them up when they seek returns.
Also
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”, approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.
I don’t deal with contracts in my day to day business but my reading of this seems to mean that intent is necessary.
Hi Charlie,
Many merchants try to get away with whatever they can ![[shock.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0b1dcf699ec319f43254f92e3f145786dcd93904.gif "shock"){kind=small}
. But many jurisdictions have consumer protection statutes that would cover latent defects like corked bottles. Maybe not every jurisdiction, but many. It might also be possible in some jurisdictions to vary the “implied” terms by express contract or disclaimer in a given sales transaction (ie. customer expressly agrees that goods are bought/sold “as is” without any warranty…yada yada…)
You are referring to the earlier counts in the claim, whereas I was referring to alternative counts IV and V, which are based on merchantability and should not require proof of the merchant’s knowledge or intent.
Cheers,
Blair
Why don’t we get a group of 8 of us to take a trip to Burgundy, and setup a vist with DRC. It would be nice to let them know about the Berserker community, and we can get a full explanation of the 1945 vintage from them. Whaddaya say Todd? You can pull it off for next spring. Who’s in?
Who in the Bronx has that kind of money? ![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
Is anyone else absolutely in love with the phrase “a bottle of DRC magnum”?
It is the traditional and typical of glorious counterfeit history and cultural.
As one of the rare non-lawyers here … does Trotters’ closing down his operation have any impact on this?
And btw, what ever happened to the big theft of Trotter’s wine when he was trying to auction everything off?
Edited to add: The Chicago Tribune quotes Trotter as saying:
When reached by phone, Trotter denied the allegations. He said he received a phone call a month after the purchase from one of the buyers, who asked for his money back.
“It was a disgruntled client who probably paid a lot more money (for the bottle) than he’s ever paid before,” Trotter said. “It’s buyer’s remorse.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-charlie-trotter-sued-20130613,0,6911217.story
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}
This is an interesting topic, which I’m not surprised at. I’m not referring to Trotter and team knowingly selling a counterfeit wine, which I’m sure they did not. I’m referring to the fact that they had one in their cellar. I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t the only one.
The last time I went to Trotter’s was about a year before they closed, at the request of another couple that wanted to go. After dinner, we did the obligatory tour of the wine cellar. While the others were getting things pointed out to them by one of the wine stewards, I hung back in a little corner that had nothing but magnums in the racks. Amongst them was an 1870 Lafite that at first glance looked like it was ok. However right next to it was a magnum of 1921 Petrus that had the look of a bottle that had been laying around for only a few years. It was clean, and the label didn’t appear to have any molding or spotting on it, which you would expect from a label that was 90 years old. I don’t have any information on whether or not Petrus bottled magnums in 1921.
Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 (Sale of Goods), as enacted in most states…
My amateur layman’s armchair google-fu cursory research of the matter indicates that “FRROKAJ” might just be an Albanian name.
???
That’s a strange twist to the story…
The pleading states that Trotter et al. knew, or should have known, that the magnum was a fake, based on the defendants’ experience and expertise. You buy a “diamond” from an established diamond merchant, but it turns out to be a cubic zirconium. Would it be an effective defense for the merchant to claim that he didn’t know it wasn’t a diamond, even though he represented it as such?
I do like that they are asking for travel expenses to Chicago… even though they just went there to eat dinner not with the intent purpose to buy that wine.
“On or about June 2012… Benn informed the Charlie Trotter’s employee with whom he spoke that he wanted to add a DRC magnum [from the advertised sale] to his family’s wine collection.The employee informed Benn that he should make a reservation and that he could discuss purchasing the DRC magnum over dinner.” Sounds like having dinner there was presented as a condition of the sale, at least according to the plaintiffs’ account.
There are 4 counts, with different elements.
Count I alleges fraud/mispreresentation. That’s going to be more difficult because they have to show Trotter’s knew it was fake and misrepresented it. They also have to prove reliance, which is a bit of a challenge when they claim to be wine experts.
Count III (there is no count II in the complaint pasted above) is breach of contract–Trotter’s didn’t deliver the wine contracted for. That should be easier to prove.
Count IV alleges a violation of implied warranty of merchantability–no expert in this area, but the elements seem easier to prove: the product is not as claimed, although it may be more difficult to prove it’s not useable for its intended purpose (drinking).
Count V alleges a refusal to revoke acceptance–again, no expert in this area but this seems straightforward if they make out the elements of the claim.
I suspect the biggest question beyond whether they can get their money back is whether they can recover a host of other fees, such as attorneys fees, travel expenses, etc.
I have to say that name is one of the most unusual I have ever seen. I would have no idea how to begin to pronounce it.
Given “Aubert de Villain” I wouldn’t be surprised if there were typos in those names as well.
I’m not sure how their (possibly) being Albanian adds a strange twist to this story.