I think the difference is in distribution. I have not heard anything to suggest that the alcohol is treated differently to other consumer products.
Check out the Commerce Clause and the 21st Amendment in the Constitution.
I think Wilfred’s point of bringing in the Credit card people is a good one. Not sure how timely that would have to be though. I think in the case of DRC, the retailer might be the only place to make good, and then only if you are a great customer.
Ok, surprise me. What does it say about fitness for sale?
Mark,
Did you give your claret any air exposure before bringing it over to your friend’s place?
Just brought the bottle. A 1998 Figeac which showed very well.
Let’s work backwards. How many cases do you know of which have come out on the end-consumer’s side when it comes to flawed product? Because the instances are rarely reported, and often many years after the original date of purchase, and because the legal vagarities don’t necessarily pin it on the retailer, there are plenty of ways to avoid responsibility. At least you might get some recourse with the Drouhin. As previously stated by others, DRC doesn’t seem interested in making consumers whole. I haven’t heard of any class action lawsuits against them because of it.
I wouldn’t let the retailer suffer for something that was beyond their control, especially I work closely with them. Amex may be able to help, IMO.
OK. In that case, you didn’t bring an untainted bottle; rather, you brought a bottle that turned out to be untainted. As far as you knew, until you opened it, you DID bring a tainted bottle of claret.
Under Australian Law, a product must be of “merchantable quality”, thus a corked wine should be replaced without question. I suspect that the distributor wears the cost in this instance if the consumer or retail/on-premise customer pushed the point.
Fortunately I have never had a corked DRC to test the theory, but the same distributor have replaced a corked Dujac without question.
The reality is though only a small percentage of corked wines are detected and a much smaller proportion are ever returned for replacement.
Negociants are DRC’s Australian importer and they will and do replace out of condition bottles (maybe not yours though Mark).
It has been a while since I looked, but I believe some state laws forbid (or appear to forbid) a consumer returning for refund or exchange any alcohol product. If someone cared enough to fight it out, it would likely take a federal-level court to decide that Commerce Clause (a la Granholm) superceded the States’ power to regulate alcohol.
I was recently told by a retailer that the distributor required him to agree that bottles of Leroy were un-returnable. He politely declined to carry the product.
A.
Ye Gods!
That’s beyond pain!
Had a few bottles of the Meo CP (made by HJ) and it was one of the wines o’ the vintage…
TTT
I think the age is key here. Suppose you bought a book at Barnes & Noble and didn’t read it for 10 years. By the time you opened it and discovered there were pages missing, it was out of print. Do you think B&N would take it back? I don’t know.
I don’t see the argument there. There’s no right to a refund in the Constitution that would conflict with and trump a state law.
From the main FAQ page of the NY SLA (State Liquor Authority) website:
http://www.sla.ny.gov/faqs#compliance7
“Can a liquor store take returns of unwanted purchases? No, the State Liquor Authority does not approve the acceptance by a package store of the return of liquor or wine purchased by a customer in error. The State Liquor Authority authorizes package store licensees to accept the return of liquor or wine from a customer only if the merchandise is defective in quality. The bottle should be sealed and tagged with a statement as to the date and reason for its return and should be sent back to the manufacturer or wholesaler from whom it was purchased within a reasonable time.”
“A reasonable time” defined by most wholesalers is a 14-30 day period from the time the store is invoiced for the product. There may be an occasional work around, but it tends to be strict. Which means the onus is more on the retailer than the distributor to make good, at least in NY.
We had a corked 85 Jayer Echezeaux that was pretty frustrating.
It’s funny, but on my one visit to DRC, in 1998, tagging along with Claude Kolm, Aubert de Villaine opened a 96 La Tache along with the other 96s and it was corked. Our glasses were quickly whisked away and a replacement bottle was procured.
That was meant to convey the unlikehood of the argument.
OTOH, I think there if were some relevant federal statute regarding consumer protection, it could be deemed to over-ride the State law. I see this argument winning out (if anyone cared to take it this far) if the wine was purchased in one state and (legally) shipped to another.
A.
The only consolation was that at least a bottle drank from the same stash was one of the top three wines of my lifetime. I wonder if the 85 Meo version somehow is not as good as the Jayer version.
'85 Jayers are very problematic, I have had 2 corked Echezeauxs…