I am only curious what the legal consequences are of consuming the wine and not what everyone knows is the right thing to do. In the below scenario my friend did the right thing and notified the retailer.
My friend purchased a mixed case of Italian wine from a prominent reseller. Approx cost ~$1500.
The mixed case that was delivered was DRC, Clos de Beze, Lafite, and similar. Aprox cost ~$15,000.
While my friend contacted the reseller and the wine was returned someone commented that the recipient was under no legal obligation to notify the reseller and/or not consume the wine. My question is regarding consuming the wrongly delivered wine. The view was that the mistake was on the Retailers part and the recipient did not improperly take the wine from the retailer and until notified was under no legal obligation to refrain from drinking the wine.
While members of this board will have grave ethical issues with this view, I am curious if this view regarding consumption has any legal basis (fully understanding some states may have different laws)?
Not a lawyer. Just a spectator to the thread. Iâd be surprised if the retailer couldnât go after the recipient for such a large number. This is analogous to âsomeone accidentally shipped me a $5MM diamond bracelet, so its MINE now!â - doesnât feel right. Feels like unjust enrichment. Or even theft of the wine/bracelet from the customer who had actually ordered it.
I have no idea if there is any criminal exposure, but would imagine a serious civil suit. The other hypothetical is what recourse if the recipient simply says, âIâm not an expert on wine and didnât really look at the bottles, just drank them. Who can understand those fancy wine labels anyway?â
Itâs called a Unilateral Mistake when one party to a contract makes a mistake of fact. Those contracts are usually enforceable UNLESS the non-mistaken party knew or should have known about the mistake, or if enforcing the contract would be unconscionable.
As presented, the non-mistaken party actually knew of the mistake and, in my opinion, enforcing the contract would be unconscionable.
Does enforcing it mean that he gets to keep the expensive wine for the cheap price?
My understanding is that if it was delivered unsolicited (I .e to the recipient without any request from the recipient if any type), then they could do what they wanted and were under no obligation to pay.
Thanks M. Kaplan. Your explanation is (I believe) what the individual is referring to.
And if I read your final sentence correctly, you are suggesting that while the recipient should have known it was not his wine, making him pay for the wine is unconscionable.
Therefore, in the hypothetical, if the recipient drank two DRCs @ $5000/bottle, the retailer is likely out of luck. Am I reading that correctly?
Courts have the power to reform contracts under the doctrine of equitable relief (they have the power to make things fair/balanced between the parties). If the recipient knew or should have known that the wines he drank werenât the wines he ordered and were materially greater in value, a court may require payment for the wine consumed. The party seeking equitable relief has the burden of proof.
Iâm just an old, reformed lawyer. Consider that when reading my comments about this stuff.
If the recipient didnât notify the sender, is there any way the sender could prove the recipient got the DRC, Lafite, etc ? Couldnât the recipient simply say â I got the wine I ordered, prove otherwiseâ.
Pat, that is beyond the hypothetical and I am sure the recipient in your scenario could and would argue any number of things.
I was only concerned where:
all parties acknowledge the mistaken delivery,
the consumption of expensive wine (materially in excess of the wine ordered) is not in dispute, and
(it was alleged) that the Retailer lacked likely recourse against the recipient who drank the wine.
All legal responses are speculation and subject to law specific issues in a jurisdiction. But I was wondering if the weight of the law was in support of the initial assertion that the Retailer was SOL regarding the expensive wine consumed by the recipient. It would appear that is not the case.
They still are SOL. They could still charge you the $1500 and maybe get an order to return anything not consumed. But they canât demand payment for anything you consumed before being notified and best of luck to them proving what you consumed when.
I donât think this is the same. Unsolicited deliveries are different than mistakenly filled orders.
As I recall, unscrupulous companies would send stuff unsolicited then demand payment. This discussion is about an order that was filled with a more expensive product by mistake.
Oh I agree. But also this is a consumable item not a gold bracelet. Certainly a gray area but I think theyâd have an incredibly difficult time winning judgment for wines you consumed before being notified of the error.