So that’s the reason similar threads (think Rare Wine Co) were so short? Utility would be information sharing for a start. The unspoken question here is, what would be the utility in NOT posting on a message board about it? For that question, there are a number of answers, one of which is protecting current players from past or present association with this.
Information sharing isn’t a utility in and of itself in when the loses are after-the-fact is it? Unless its just to get some sort of cathartic release from ranting about it, posting about it seems fruitless unless there is some altruistic motivation to feed the curiosity of voyeuristic onlookers.
What is the motitvation for you in NOT putting on a 15th century tavern serving wench outfit and getting in a cage fighting tournament in Tallahassee Florida in order to win the right to make out with the town’s mayor’s uncle? You can ask that sort if question about anything someone doesnt want to do when they see no need to do it. The answer is: because there is nothing in it for them.
If nobody is being hurt, and someone might find the information useful, the benefit/cost trade-off seems to favor honest, constructive information. If I recall correctly, the long-past threads about Rare LLC on other boards helped people to avoid losing on its post-bankruptcy reincarnation. One can always choose to ignore irrelevant or unproductive discussions.
That sounds like a reasonable utility: helping others in the same boat who might bennifit from some information that they don’t yet have.
Yes, that is exactly the point.
Carolina Wine actually had some pretty massive assets when they closed their doors - they just ran out of the operating capital [or cash flow] necessary to ship the wine which they had been storing for their customers [and, for that matter, the operating capital necessary to take delivery of a container of really nice 2003 Bordeaux which had been meant for them - a container which ended up being sold (or “re-sold”) by a rival outfit down the street].
Afterwards there was a huge court fight over it:
http://rapidshare.com/files/457440191/09-02275-8-ATS.pdf
[click on “Slow Download”]
The federal decision turned on two precedents [and some North Carolina “passage of title” statutes] involving North Carolina furniture retailer bankruptcies [in similar circumstances], with the court essentially reaffirming the old common law maxim which holds that “possession is 9/10ths of the law”.
Beware also anyone who buys off of Wine Commune. Jim sells under the handle of 1bigwino. He’s had multiple complaints about either slow or non-delivery of orders. With this revelation it’s even less likely you would ever see your unless he tries to sell off inventiry to avoid creditors.
I should apologize to Laura. I didn’t mean to sound so harsh.
Laura, sorry about your troubles.
Nathan, even after your years of “Chrish Peel of Carolina Wine is the greatest retailer of all time” posts, this is bizarre. Where is there any evidence that these “massive assets” existed? Did I miss the part about container of 2003 Bordeaux being “re-sold”? If there was a container of (paid for) 2003 Bordeaux, were the lawyers too stupid to list it as an asset? That link is about a court case over whether the wine in Carolina’s warehouse that Chrish pledged as an asset (but had already actually sold) belongs to the lienholder or the poor folks who trusted him. If it was a case of “cash flow preventing shipment” (weird assertion, as they charged for shipping when they shipped) why were folks turned away when they came to pick up in person?
People got the runaround from Peel for years. I’m glad my cc company was responsive (a couple years before bankruptcy filing) when I gave up on CWC. The word is Ponzi, not cashflow.
What about blacklisting for chargebacks? Given the dollar amounts typically involved in wine transactions, I would think this would be a concern. My understanding is that processing companies access these lists and block any transactions of persons on the lists.
![[soap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7ea1fffd3ef237e8f19d17a83270ad8452218ca.gif "soap"){kind=small}
still have 2 bottles of 99 Arcadian Sleepy Hollow Chard Vinegar
If you’re asking whether processing companies would block you from using your credit card at a merchant because in the past you had initated chargebacks, the answer is “absolutely not”…there is no such blacklist (and there is no universal list of chargebacks shared by the many processing companies). Each chargeback is “resolved”, either in favor of the customer or the merchant, based on the specific facts of the case. Visa/MC would never permit the processors from blocking customers who had availed themselves of the chargeback rights that Visa/MC implement (and the card-issuing banks follow) for the specific purpose of enticing customers to use their cards.
On the other hand, if you showed a propensity to engage in unjustified/fraudulent chargebacks (for example, you were ordering goods online, receiving them at your home address, signing for them upon delivery, and then claiming they were never delivered), you would “lose” those chargebacks…and in addition, this might cause your credit card-issuing bank to terminate your credit card account. But simply initiating a chargeback based on reasonable grounds should not cause you any troubles at all.
Just an example…when Carolina Wine went under, I had about $3,500 of wine that they had not delivered. These were paid for in about 10 separate credit card purchases (ranging from $100 to $500 each). I charged all of them back. Each was considered a “separate” chargeback. I won all 10 chargebacks and received my money back. I have never had any problem continuing to use my credit card (which I still have today)…
A follow up post–it would almost certainly be illegal for a merchant’s card processing company to refuse your credit card based on prior chargebacks, as this information (your chargeback history), used in this manner, would constitute a consumer credit report…yet they are not registered as a consumer credit bureau, and would not be complying with any of the requirements to access or use this information to decline you, nor do they give you any adverse action notice at the point of sale telling you that you were declined based on this information (and how to verify the information and correct errors, etc.). The Fair Credit Reporting Act was specifically intended to prevent the type of “blacklisting” you mention–where a consumer is unable to use their card or get credit based on some undisclosed information that is not properly regulated, is subject to the consumer’s ability to access and challenge, and may be used for impermissible purposes.
In addition, it would clearly violate the Visa/MC/Amex rules which require a merchant who accepts these cards to “honor all valid cards” offered for payment. A merchant’s processor can’t simply block your card based on a secret “blacklist”.
This is what I am talking about.
http://consumerist.com/2008/05/the-chargeback-blacklist.html
and
http://www.walletpop.com/2010/03/02/doing-a-credit-card-chargeback-even-once-can-lead-to-blacklist/
That’s interesting, I hadn’t even heard of this (and I’m in the business), so I am quite sure this is a very “fringe” type of product. These articles make good press because they tend to alarm, but the reality is that you are extremely unlikely to EVER shop at a merchant using this illegal product.
From the article you linked to this business clearly illegal under US law (“ChargeBackBureua’s headquarters are conveniently located in Panama, which is convenient for its American clients, as such databases are illegal in the US.”) I also believe that it would be illegal for a merchant in the US to even use this product/service (probably under federal law such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but at least under various state laws). The second article also discloses that only 7,500 merchants (in the entire world) actually have signed up to use this database, and that their entire database only includes 40,000 chargebacks. Those are incredibly small numbers (especially given the fact that NONE of those customers would be a large or national merchant with any real concern for legal compliance). Finally the article notes that …“any California merchant who signs up for ChargeBack Bureau could be engaging in an unfair business practice under state law,” and urges anyone who receives an e-mail from ChargeBack Bureau about being listed on the company’s database to contact the attorney general’s office.
Thanks for all the information, John. I ran across this when I was searching for TX consumer chargeback info.
I did note that Bankruptcy is not a screen out for an assertion under your “claims and defenses”, although there are some other criteria that have to be met. Given that Chapter 7 is in progress, however, is there some risk that a chargeback would become an asset controlled by the trustee? I know it sounds crazy on the surface, but perhaps one of our bankruptcy lawyers can opine.
No chance…from your perspective, the chargeback is actually an obligation of the “merchant acquirer” (i.e. the processor) who has contracted with the merchant to provide services, not the actual merchant. The merchant acquirer is directly liable to Visa/MC for unsuccessful chargebacks (regardless of whether the acquirer can recover them from the merchant). The acquirer’s right to recover from the merchant IS subject to bankruptcy, but the acquirer’s obligation to make good on chargebacks (directly to Visa/MC, and through them, to the issuing bank, and throught the issuing bank to the cardholder) is entirely independent of the merchant. Even if the merchant disintegrated (or, never even existed, which can happen when a make-believe merchant name is used to set up a processing account specifically to engage in some quick fraud and then disappear), the acquirer has to pay. And the acquirer’s obligation is to Visa/MC. It is the card-issuing bank that has the obligation to pay the cardholder. They can then recover from Visa/MC (who in turn can recover from the acquirer). If the merchant is solvent, only then might the acquirer recover from the merchant…
The only “right” to the chargeback that the trustee might have, would be the right to provide the normal types of evidence to contest/rebut the chargeback. For example, if the cardholder alleged that he/she never received the wine. The trustee could prove that the wine was delivered or that the cardholder was actually present and took delivery of the wine (for example, if the merchant/trustee had a physical imprint of the card and a sales receipt signed by the customer). This would allow the trustee to prevent IT’S chargeback liability to the acquirer from becoming another obligation of the bankrupt entity.
Just a quick heads-up to folks. It appears that Jim Leeuw is again selling on Wine Commune under the user name of " tleeuwda". It appears that he started this new alias recentkly in March based on his feedback histiory. He currently has some open lots. I’ll let anyone interested to draw their own conclusions.