I do not think that a retailer has to take the word of the customer for it but if the bottle with wine left (to smell/taste) and receipt are presented, then I do think that they should be responsible for refund or credit. They sold a defective product (and made money off of it) - it was defective from the day the bad cork was put into the bottle regardless of later treatment.
I also do not think that should be the end of it - the distributor should be fully responsible to the retailer if the retailer decides to ask to be made whole. That shouldnāt be the end of it if the distributor asks the importer or the winery, etc.
Why the consumer should bear 100% of the risk for a defective product baffles me. What other common consumer products are handled that way on a regular basis? People often bring up the length of time but that is a red herring - if the store is still in business and there is a receipt or other proof of purchase it shouldnāt matter how long it has been. Why? The proof of purchase and bad bottle are right there and storage doesnāt matterā¦ So?
Of course the reality of it is that few people bring back bad bottles from recent purchases and the rarity of it is magnified over time - that should make it easier for the wine industry as a whole to ādo the right thingā and stand behind their products.
this is the best policy I think. If you know the store can get credit, then by all means take it back. In a situation like this, and you are a good, consistent customer, I see no problem expecting a store credit.
I recently had this experience with an older bottle of wine that I acquired directly from the winery. The wine was a vintage 2000 bottle, and sadly it was corked. I contacted the winery, explained the situation, and asked them if they wanted me to ship them the bottle. I didnāt know if they had enough older bottles still left to replace the bottle, but sure enough they did.
Of course, I have bought wine from them for a number of years, and itās not as if Iām constantly contacting them to replace corked/defective bottles. Even so, itās my view that a corked bottle of wine is a defective bottle of wine, and the customer doesnāt typically āassumeā the risk of buying a defective product. Whether a winery or retailer will make me whole on a defective bottle of wine is a relevant factor to consider in deciding whether to buy from them. YMMV.
Assuming I have understood your original post, this wine was ācorkedā, you took it back, they recognised it as theirs from their sticker and barcode although they could not identify the specific purchase from their records which did not extend that far back.
So they had the bottle [and some/most of the wine?] and they agreed the wine was ācorkedā and, as the case with ācorkedā/TCA infected wine, will have been infected virtually from the moment the cork was inserted and certainly by the time you bought it from them.
So they sold you a defective product and your retailer should reimburse you. Of course I speak from a UK perspective and US consumer protection laws may be different BUT on a strictly commercial basis your retailer would seem shortsighted if refusing to give you [a āsignificantā customer] a āreasonableā credit - recognising a direct replacement might not be possible e.g. a more recent vintage or equivalent as a bottle or credit. IMO only of course BUT I would have taken your bottle back.
I personally think the risk of abuse on this by unscrupulous customers is more theoretical than real. Certainly, if someone is bringing corked wines in suspiciously often relative to the amount of wine purchased there, the retailer could stop giving refunds, but I doubt this hardly ever happens. Iād bet 95+% of the corked wines that a retailer sells never get returned.
This is the first corked wine Iāve ever returned to retail in my life, and I have a 1200+ bottle collection just at present, and itās a <$100 wine, so itās pretty clear Iām not up to anything fishy. Actually, a big part of the reason I did it was to see what the experience would be like, not having done it before.
I really appreciate the thoughts (the ones that cut in all directions) on this thread. I want to be treated well here, but I also donāt want to act unreasonably towards a retailer who Iāve had a good relationship with for a long time. Iāll loop back with how it turns out.
Absolutely, but unfortunately, thatās almost never how it works with older wines. Iām not saying that situation changes what defines good business practiceā¦
I recently had a serious leaker- an 06 chambolle 1er from Liger-Belair- literally overnight the wine lost over an inch of wine. I emailed the store where I purchased the bottle (along with approx 2 cases from the same producer) and they refused to do anything, in fact, they clarified that they only consider bad corks/TCA on a case by case basis and no guarantee. The email was terse and not apologetic in the least. I was frankly taken aback as I have spent well into 5 figures there (probably closer to 6) and have only reported bad bottles twice before- both were replaced with store credit immediately with no questions asked. The only reason I cared was because I recently realized how much I loved chambolle wines and was disappointed by the loss of 1 of 6 bottles. Frankly I was hoping they would replace with another chambolle- even if a different producer. This was extra frustrating because we were still sorting out their loss of a number of bottles that they were storing for me. Honestly, it has soured me on them and Iām not sure how much more business I want to do with them.
Maybe Iām just a contrary cat, but if I was a six figure customer of some store, I would not expect that I was a charitable donor to them. Presumably Iām getting wines, prices, and a range of services (good web site, some intermittent storage, allocated offerings, email chatter, hold & ship, etc.) that merit the expense.
Iām going to flip this on question on its head, and ask if: if I thought a merchant was good enough to spend all that at, would I throw a vendor like that over board for (I donāt know, Iām guessing) a $100 bottle? If one is in this hobby for a long time, or expects to be, why reduce your supply options?
I canāt think of any practical way, in a mobile world, where people buy via internet/mailorder/shipping/auction of how to flow back the cost of bad bottles back to the culprit - the winery. The only way I can think of: donāt pay too much to start with in any situation where you cannot immediately return it. If people observe a disproportionate share of tainted wines, share it on the internet. That will eventually cause the wines to start showing up at the WTSO, LBW etc. where someone will take economic pain for that. Then the winery might start to care, and do something.
Have you gotten in touch with Cabot directly? That is always the obvious thing. Contact the source you purchased your bottle from, in this case the winery.
Well- at this store, Iām not a big fish. Iāve been a regular purchaser since 2007. I donāt get deals that arenāt offered out to others. To be fair, I had other concerns, such as the missing bottles from storage and they had turnover internally that made it frustrating to get issues resolved. It seemed like everyone that I regularly worked with left. That was a large part of my frustration.
The way this was handled was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I had already branched out and started purchasing at other stores as a result of my interactions over the last year to year and half. This just solidified my decisions.
Short sighted policies regarding returns by some retailers often reflect deficiencies concerning their overall attitudes toward customers. While it is true that untrained employees may not handle a situation properly, this reflects on the owners who should be doing a better job with personnel who meet the public.
I used to own an importing, distributing and retailing wine business, where we told our employees that the most important people they would meet on any given day were those who crossed the threshold of the store. Accordingly we asked them to treat customers in a manner that they would expect if they were the customer.
From time to time we had to deal with some customers concerning returns that were clearly due to improper storage after the sale. We viewed this as an opportunity for education of the customer. Each instance had to be based upon its own merits but the hope was that we encouraged repeat business. Long standing customers, like Chris, would be handled strictly on accepting his or her word concerning the reason for the return. Asking a customer to come up with a receipt 12 years after the fact is absurd.
A few bottles, or even a few cases, over time can be viewed as an expense for improved customer relations.
I read above where some may feel the important factor is whether the distributor or importer would grant credit to the retailer. That should have no bearing on how the retailer relates to his or her customer base. Customers could care less about credits from distributors or importers, as their total experience is directly with the retailer, who should stand up and be accountable. If the retailer ultimately obtains credit from his sources, that has little to do with how he handles his customers.
Arv, youāre not being cynical but your two arguments seem odd. The first is what weāve already discussed ā placing the risk on the customer, which makes no sense to me. And the second is that we, the customers, should be grateful that we are allowed to purchase from retailers. Our dollars support them, not the other way around.
As for your solution: here again, you put the onus on the customer to find a solution to a problem that we donāt create, canāt control, and almost always end up paying for.
You know what Iām going to say in advance, but Iāll say it again:
The store āshouldā make you happy by refunding you your money . . . BUT if they canāt get their money back from the distributor/winery, should they then be out the money?!?!?
The money trail as it pertains to corked wines SUCKS!!! Who is responsible? Well, it should be the cork company that supplied the āfaultyā product in the first place, but they will not be held liable at all . . .
It could be the winery, and a āgoodā winery will stand behind their product, but it sucks that they are in essence covering for a defective product.
Iām trying to think of other industries where the KNOWN failure rate is as high as with corks and yet a āsetā system is not in place to deal with it.
Sorry for your hassles, Chris. As others have said, I do hope the store handles it well - but it would be terrible if they have to do so out of their own pockets because they are not reimbursed down the line.
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
)![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
