Unearthed one of my treasured Wynns Michael Shiraz 1990's, opened well, but hardly any nose, flat palate - wasn't going to stuff around, sent the bottle + contents directly to Wynns Coonawarra. Not long after got the word - TCA taint + oxidation. Yes, they'd replace it - with a current rel. 2003 Michael. Argued the point with cust relations, specifically asked for a 1990 if they had one, from museum stock. Wouldn't budge, they sent the 2003.
Now I'm pleased that they responded quickly, confirmed my diagnosis & sent a replacement - but still don't think a current release is good enough in place of a 1990 (which I'd bet the house they'd have, though they didn't acknowledge this)
i would think that it would be appropriate for them to replace the wine with something to atleast the same value if they did not have a 1990 available, which could be very hard to source, but you never know. A current release while is a good replacement from the point that atleast they replaced it, but its no 16 year old wine, which im sure you were waiting to crack.
They have replaced the wine as per the letter of the law.
Mind you, they could have thrown in something to sweeten the deal and lessen the pain, as I have had happen with other companies, eg 2x current release or a couple of other labels added, but then that would be seen as excellent customer relations and one can't have that, can one?
Yep, agree here, have had some wineries that will replace back vintages with same and others that will throw in sweeteners with current.
Best experience I have had is with a current replacement from Happs. Replaced vintage with same at no cost to me. Have had instances where a company will want the postage for same vintage and we have agreed that I will collect on my next visit. Will be interesting to see if bottle is still there in September and they remember me.
I opened my first ever Warrabilla Durif last night, and found it was badly corked. The wine in the initial stages was drinkable enough to atleast see its power, but became undrinkable after a short while.
Shame, as we had four people over to try it and had a meal ready to go.
Replaced it with a Bullers Calliope Durif from 02, which was a good replacement, but none the less, the ravages of cork strike again.
You are entitled to a satisfactory refund or exchange. According to my discussion with the ACCC it is you who should be satisfied with what they offer. If you consider current vintage to be an inadequate replacement you are within your rights to query it; within reason of course, don't try and screw them over.
Under the strict letter of the law:
- there is a statute of limitations here, the law doesn't protect you indefinately (I think it's 10 years from time of purchase but can be corrected).
- If it all gets nasty then they can offer a refund of your original purchase cost (ie $25 for the 1990). You've got to accept it it as this is all you are out of pocket. Implicit increase in value doesn't apply here. Going for exchange is much, much better.
- The laws relating to refunds and exchange do not apply to goods bought at auction.
Fortunately our standards of customer service here in Oz; and particular with Southcorp, now Fosters, are well above the strict letter of the law. It comes down to a quid pro quo in a lot of cases, and the response I get has been uniformly satisfactory for me.
- wasn't going to stuff around, sent the bottle + contents directly to Wynns Coonawarra. Not long after got the word - TCA taint + oxidation. Yes, they'd replace it - with a current rel. 2003 Michael. Argued the point with cust relations, specifically asked for a 1990 if they had one, from museum stock. Wouldn't budge, they sent the 2003.
