I see repeatedly in Commerce Corner that the “buyer assumes all risk” for wine that is shipped. Is this fair? The seller is packing the wine, wine which the buyer has never seen. Most wine stores don’t pass the risk to the buyer, do they? I don’t understand–and choose not to buy from such sellers. What’s the deal? Why isn’t the buyer entitled to receiving the wine without risk on his part?
alan
It’s a “dickered” term of a contract. Up to you whether you agree to the deal, and you can always try to negotiate. If a seller refuses to negotiate on that, that might be a signal to you that something is going to go wrong with the deal. But also look at it from the seller’s viewpoint… plenty of frudsters out there who might try to pull a fast one. Cuts both ways.
I think most sellers do this as they do not have a shipping license, so the wines could be confiscated from FedEx or UPS. But then again, they don’t have a license to sell wines either, but a little less risk with that.
+1 to poppy. Your retail store can claim insurance for broken bottles. Most CC sellers can not. You take that chance buying from private sellers who im sure you are buying from them because they are cheaper than retail.
This term doesn’t bother me really. If I were buying from such a person I’d want to see photos of the wine (if the wine was expensive) and I’d want to specify how it’s packed (“I’m fine assuming risk as long as you pack it in styro and ship before the 15th when it’s supposed to get hot…”)
However, let’s invert it… seller assumes risk. OK, when does that end? When the wine’s received? Tasted? What if the buyer doesn’t like the wine? What if the bottle happens to be corked? At what point is the wine the buyer’s problem?
If seller ships when it’s cool but the buyer has a delivery issue on their end that causes the box to sit for days in some UPS warehouse and it’s exposed to high heat because of that… is that the seller’s fault? And… well… the seller has limited ways to mitigate the risk too. If a bottle’s corked and I return it to the store I bought it from, they just pass it up the chain. Ultimately that’s a minoir blip on the financials of some business. For an individual seller, it’s not. And really, should they be on the hook for something like that?
Privte transactions are always a risk and really an act of faith. If I buy from someone I need to trust that the wine has been stored well if they claim that. I need to trust that they’ll pack it well and seal the box well. I need to trust that they’ll ship on Monday like they said so it doesn’t sit over the weekend… If I don’t trust the person about any of that then I shouldn’t buy wine from them.
Back in 2004, when people offering houses said that they would only accept noncontingent offers, I knew it was time to get out of the market and rent instead (and for far less $). I would say the same thing here (even though you can’t rent wine;) ).
<I think most sellers do this as they do not have a shipping license, so the wines could be confiscated from FedEx or UPS. But then again, they don’t have a license to sell wines either, but a little less risk with that.>
What about taxes i.e. sales taxes and ultimately, capital gains.
They are illegal transactions anyway, so I doubt anyone is collecting sales tax.
given that an individual seller cannot rely on common carrier insurance, the buyer would have to pay a premium price to the seller for the deal to be worth it in case of loss. at that point, it would no longer be the below-market prices that are realized on commerce corner. if you want to pay market/retail (and receive all the benefits inherent with that transaction, such as an insured shipment), then you can pay retail. if you want to pay below market, you need to somehow “pay” for the (potential) increase in value by taking on the risk of loss.
btw, to your actual question; yes, it’s absolutely fair because it’s disclosed up front. can’t think of anything more fair than 2 adults entering into a transparent transaction.
I’ve had the exact same thought… which has made me think twice on reaching out on a few commerce corner items.
While I don’t agree that the seller should assume all the risk I do see a big problem with the idea that the buyer assumes ALL risk.
What if the seller just tosses the bottles into a box with a few packing peanuts and something breaks along the way… how is that the buyers responsibility?
Certainly something to consider on any commerce corner inquiry… “How EXAACTLY are you packaging this?”
Again, Joel, it’s perfectly fair to ask for photos of the bottles and to specify how things are packaged. But at the end of the day, buying like this involves some trust, trust that’s usually enforced by the seller and buyer both being known members of WB. I’d trust Alan implicitly since I’ve known him via this board and eBob for years.
The issue comes up with someone like yourself. Unless you’ve lurked here for a while, you won’t have a good idea of who among us is trustworthy aside from post count and we can’t know you. That’s a risk, so you do what you can to mitigate it (ask for photos, specify shipping windows, etc). If one is uncomfortable with this then private transactions probably aren’t the right venue for them.
I’d like to re-raise the issue of when risk IS passed, though. Shipping risk should, I feel, be shared. I don’t expect the seller to take on all risk, but neither should they get to keep every dollar of the sale price if the box is lost, etc. But what about risk of the bottle being off? For example, if I sold a case of white Burg here… what’s my disclosure responsibility regarding premox? If I’ve priced that in but the odds bite the buyer and a bottle is premoxed, who bears the risk? What about other defects, i.e. TCA, high levels of brett, etc?
I was burned on a transaction like this. I bought an anniversary wine for my 25th, and it turned out to be cooked. The seller had been nice and casual and friendly while the transaction was pending, but didn’t lift a finger to make good on the wine after it was shown to be bad, even though an expert sommelier had validated my judgment that the wine was severely heat damaged. I haven’t entered into a private transaction since then. I only want to deal with a vendor who cares about their reputation.
Well said Rick.
On top of that, I think almost always, the private sellers on Commerce Corner are going to be a good % lower in price than a retailer. If you want the security of your corked bottle getting a return (which is no guarantee from what I see more and more with older bottles) , shipping insurance… pay the extra money and buy it from the retailer. Inherent risks are being taken when you purchase wine from non -retailers, we all know one of the only reasons anyone buys from private sellers is due to price.
Transparent terms aren’t necessarily the same as fair terms; no one needs to enter into a transaction that they deem unbalanced, but just because one side discloses some terms that doesn’t make the terms equitable.
I agree that Commerce Corner transactions need an element of trust: You send me the money first, or I’ll send you the wine first… one of us has to go out on a limb and assume some risk for a while.
Could they reasonably have known? Did they represent that it was bought on release and stored in temp controlled settings until sold? If so, that’s not OK.
However, sometimes a purchaser might buy some wines on the secondary market. The fill etc looks fine when they get it, but unbeknownst to them, it was exposed to some high temps prior to their purchase. Should they still be at risk? I’d say no, as long as they were upfront about what they knew about provenance ('Bought from Store in 199x, stored in temp controlled cellar since then") And if it’s a special occasion wine then it’s also up to the buyer to ask reasonable questions like “Did you buy this on release? How has it been stored?”
What if the wine had been corked? Should the seller be expected to take it back? To me, no. If the wine is represented honestly and shipped in good condition, then the buyer needs to own the risk from that point out. If the seller lied about the wine’s provenance or condition, that should move the risk back to the seller.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Rick,
I agree for the most part… certainly need to feel a level of comfort that you’re dealing with a member that is known or reputable.
I for one would never look for my cash back if the bottle proved to be cooked or bad in any way. That is a risk I would assume I would have to take in dealing with a private seller vs. a retailer. I’m comfortable with that.
But I’m not necessarily sold on the idea that I would be responsible for a package (either partially or totally )the moment it’s tendered to the shipping carrier. How can I be responsible for something I didn’t take possession of? How can I take responsibility of something I never touched, handled or influenced?
I guess it’s a risk that I will indeed take one day and it makes for an interesting debate to be sure.
buying a cooked wine at auction provides zero recourse as well.
Not with us. We would get the lot returned to us and taste a bottle or two to determine if it indeed was cooked. If the wine was determined to be cooked, you would be refunded your money.
I have dealt with auction houses that gave me $$ back even for single btl lots.