Screaming Eagle removed mailing list members for flipping

quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by GlennK:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
So a representative of Screagle makes this statement in the article, "People are turning it (the Sauv Blanc) over for profit , for their own selfish greed.”

This from a winery selling $250 a bottle Sauvignon Blanc. Anyone else see just a little irony here? Confused

PH
+1000


Ditto!

Profit seems to be turning into a four letter word here in the states. Frown
While I've never flipped a bottle for profit, I do frequently share my allocations with friends at cost, as do they with me (including some of the wines mentioned in the thread and article).

I wonder what, if any, recourse one would have with the wineries should a bottle shared with a friend, either at cost or as a gift, turn up on the secondary market when the original purchaser made no profit on it, then the winery cut off the original purchaser.
"Marcassin's John Wetlaufer, whose 2007 Marcassin Vineyard Pinot Noir (release price $125) is priced as high as $645 at a Los Angeles retailer, doesn't actively patrol the Internet looking for flippers. But when someone on the waiting list wrote to say that he had been offered a mailing-list member's allocation of the most recent release at a mark-up, asking if it was OK for him to buy it, Wetlaufer took action. "We sent him a letter saying, 'You don’t have to buy it from him, you can buy it from us,' and we purged the reseller, and we sent him his check back, and he got furious," he sighed. "

oof

witch hunt!
1. No implied contract - unless they specifically told you this year that your allocation will not be reduced if you flip the wines and now change their mind - in which case you could at least argue you bought your allocation based on that and either there was an implied contract or the winery should be estopped from changing courses. Course of conduct will not be sufficient IMO unless they specifically told you that wine could be flipped.

2. They can certainly reduce allocations for whatever reason they want, including flipping

3. As long as they are not refusing to sell on the basis of race, gender, age or disability - they can basically sell or not sell to whoever they want on whatever terms they want - assuming that all high end wineries have not gotten together in a secret room and (a) agreed on how to price their wines; (b) agreed to impose restrictive purchasing terms on consumers; or (c) divided the market geographically and limited sales.

I am not an anti-trust lawyer (1 class 16-17 years ago in law school hardly gives me much additional insight), but that is where I fall on this issue. Obviously whether I think it is a good business practice on their part is a totally different story and I stopped buying from a number of wineries when I did not like how they were doing their allocations.
Profit seems to be turning into a four letter word here in the states. Frown[/QUOTE]

Can you imagine how much goodwill the current owners of SE have on the books? I'm sure the number is huge after the massive purchase price. I would bet that SE takes a loss for years regardless of their pricing. The real money to be made (if there is any) will come at the resale of the property.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×