Grand Vin Wine Merchants WORST transactin of the year

[David Co]

Please tell me if I am wrong or of this is not the wackiest of transactions ever!
On 12/10 I placed an order with GrandVinWineMerchants
Order was for 2x 2011 Fonseca, 1x 2011 Grahams, 1x 2011 Taylor and 1x 2011 Warres (5 bottles total)
On 12/17 (week later they did not ship or process order but whatever fine with that) Got an email saying we may have shipped you the wrong wines.
On 12/23 I received the wine 4x Fonseca, 1x Grahams and 1x Taylor (6 bottle total no Warres)
I asked GrandVinWineMerchants to add up cost of shipping me warres, cost of shipping them the 2 fonsecas and the cost of the bottle of warres and deduct that from cost of the two fonsecas to save them all the shipping and I would keep the extra fonsecas I did not order. They run the math but charged my credit card the amount of the 2 fonsecas minus the 1 Warres. They thanked me for saving them the shipping but didn’t feel like they had to pass the savings along to me. Furthermore they mentioned I saved on the initial shipping since I paid to ship 5 bottles not 6 bottles.
They will now be shipping me my warres. They will have to figure out how to package and ship the two bottles of fonseca which I will be leaving on my front porch for them to deal with as I feel I bent over backwards for their mistakes and they really treated me poorly.
Although they had competivie prices, there shipping and customer services makes them go on my blacklist. Buyer beware with GrandVinWineMerchants ladies and gentleman.

[Andy Velebil]

Dave,
I sent you an email some time ago, I've not yet heard back.

[David Co]

My name can be either david c or Dave c if available and did reply same day you emailed me and I just foward ed my initial reply back to the admin@forthelove of port address. Sorry if you did not receive my email.

David

[Glenn E.]

My name can be either david c or Dave c if available and did reply same day you emailed me and I just foward ed my initial reply back to the admin@forthelove of port address. Sorry if you did not receive my email.

I'll send you an email, Dave. Both of those usernames are already taken, so we'll have to come up with something else.

[David Co]

David C. or Dave C. or if need be David Co would also work.

[Glenn E.]

David Co it is! I went with that so that it's a little more clear. "David C" vs "David C." is a pretty subtle distinction.

[Andy Velebil]

David,
Mistakes happen, they notified you before the wines even arrived of a mistake, there is no costs for you to ship back the 2 Fonseca's as you decided on keeping them, at least at first. However, if you decide not to keep the extra Fonseca they can send a pre-paid shipping invoice, so no cost to you. Obvisouly, you decided you wanted the Warre's as well and they sent it to you. And you've decided not to keep the Fonseca's after all. You seem to want some financial compensation for what appears to be a simple mistake, to which they notified you before the package arrived. You've posted this same thing on at least 3 wine forums. Obviously your intentions are to smear this retailer. And I fail to see how this mistake warrants the smear campaign you're trying to start.

[Rob C.]

And I fail to see how this mistake warrants the smear campaign you're trying to start.

I don't think it is the original mistake he is angry at - it's the principal that, following that mistake, he offered a reasonable proposal that was cost neutral to them (vs the extra shipping costs involved in rectifying their mistake) in order to save admin / hassle on both sides. They did not accept his proposal, apart from cherry-picking the part that involved his offer to keep the Fonsecas and cancel the Warre order (advantageous to them, since it allowed them to avoid those extra shipping costs!).

Without checking or confirming, they then proceeded to charge his card for an amount he had not authorised, plus to rub salt in wounds tried to mollify him by saying he'd actually saved on shipping the extra sixth bottle (despite it not being part of the original order).

I would not be happy with that treatment.

It is not clear from the OP, but presumably the Warre is now being sent because Dave saw what they had attempted and insisted that the original order be honoured and the unauthorised transaction on the Fonsecas to be reversed.

[Andy Velebil]

And I fail to see how this mistake warrants the smear campaign you're trying to start.

I don't think it is the original mistake he is angry at - it's the principal that, following that mistake, he offered a reasonable proposal that was cost neutral to them (vs the extra shipping costs involved in rectifying their mistake) in order to save admin / hassle on both sides. They did not accept his proposal, apart from cherry-picking the part that involved his offer to keep the Fonsecas and cancel the Warre order (advantageous to them, since it allowed them to avoid those extra shipping costs!).

Without checking or confirming, they then proceeded to charge his card for an amount he had not authorised, plus to rub salt in wounds tried to mollify him by saying he'd actually saved on shipping the extra sixth bottle (despite it not being part of the original order).

I would not be happy with that treatment.

It is not clear from the OP, but presumably the Warre is now being sent because Dave saw what they had attempted and insisted that the original order be honoured and the unauthorised transaction on the Fonsecas to be reversed.

I read it differently. But it is lacking some key details, that I can assume from years of similar posts like this, aren't favorable to the poster so they are conspicuously absent. He's posted the same thing on at least 3 different wine forums, here, TPF, and WineBerserkers. It's obvious he's trying to start a smear campaign against this retailer, one which by others accounts is a reputable shop. Sorry if I call things like I see it.

[Glenn E.]

I read it the same as Rob. David offered them a proposal, and rather than accepting it or making a counteroffer, they simply changed the order and charged his card.

They may be a fine retailer, but in this instance it sounds like they've screwed up. Twice.

[Andy Velebil]

Uh he wanted them to subtract the cost of shipping a bottle they didn't ship from the price of the fonsecas. Then he gets upset when they don't. What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E.]

Uh he wanted them to subtract the cost of shipping a bottle they didn't ship from the price of the fonsecas. Then he gets upset when they don't. What am I missing?

He's asking them to add up their costs to fix the problem, deduct that and the money he's already paid for the Warre from the cost of the Fonsecas, and then he'll pay the difference and save everyone the trouble of having to fix the problem.

To fix the problem they would have to pay to ship him the Warre and pay to ship the two Fonsecas back. But he's already paid for the Warre, so that needs to be counted as well if he's not going to receive it. Deduct all of those costs from the price of the 2 extra Fonsecas, he'll pay the difference, and no one has to actually deal with doing any of that crap to set things right.

Are there other reasonable solutions? Yes. Is his proposal outlandish? No. What's absolutely not right is for the store to unilaterally change the deal he's proposed and charge his card for it. In fact I believe that's probably technically illegal.

Personally I'd have probably asked them to ship the Warre at their cost and deduct the cost of shipping the two Fonsecas back from their price, but that's just me.

[Tom D.]

I read the original post several times and still have no idea what's going on.

They will have to figure out how to package and ship the two bottles of fonseca which I will be leaving on my front porch...

What?

[Andy Velebil]

I read the original post several times and still have no idea what's going on.

They will have to figure out how to package and ship the two bottles of fonseca which I will be leaving on my front porch...

What?

It appears to me, but details have been omitted as I mentioned, David didn't like the fact they didn't want to give him credit for a bottle they never shipped and two bottles he wanted to keep. So at some point (I'll assume) he made the veiled threat of leaving the Fonseca's on his front porch for someone to try and come claim as he didn't want to package them up and wait for a return call tag. Bad form for what was a simple mistake.

Again, his order was like this;

- He got two extra Fonseca's and no Warre's.
- David wanted to keep Fonseca's and cancel getting the Warre's
- David asked for credit on the shipping for the Warre's that was never shipped. And a credit on the cost of shipping back Fonseca's to Merchant even though he wanted to keep said bottles. Merchant said no.
- Some dispute happened, but one can assume from deliberate missing info, David got upset, possibly made a threat to leave bottles on porch, and merchant charged his card.
- David's upset because the merchant wouldn't give him credit (discount) on the Fonseca's in the amount it would cost merchant to ship two Fonseca's back to merchant and Warre's to David.
- David decided to send back both Fonseca's and ask for the Warre's to be shipped to him per original order.
- David posted on no less than 3 wine forums with the apparent intent of smearing them or shaming them for not giving in to his demands.

[Andy Velebil]

[
Are there other reasonable solutions? Yes. Is his proposal outlandish? No. What's absolutely not right is for the store to unilaterally change the deal he's proposed and charge his card for it. In fact I believe that's probably technically illegal.

Personally I'd have probably asked them to ship the Warre at their cost and deduct the cost of shipping the two Fonsecas back from their price, but that's just me.

First of all it's not David's deal to change. It's the merchants. See my other above points....in short, he wanted credit for two bottles to be shipped back (Fonseca) that he planned to keep (why would merchant do that), and credit for a bottle (Warre's) never shipped (Why would merchant do that).

[Glenn E.]

Are there other reasonable solutions? Yes. Is his proposal outlandish? No. What's absolutely not right is for the store to unilaterally change the deal he's proposed and charge his card for it. In fact I believe that's probably technically illegal.

Personally I'd have probably asked them to ship the Warre at their cost and deduct the cost of shipping the two Fonsecas back from their price, but that's just me.

First of all it's not David's deal to change. It's the merchants. See my other above points....in short, he wanted credit for two bottles to be shipped back (Fonseca) that he planned to keep (why would merchant do that), and credit for a bottle (Warre's) never shipped (Why would merchant do that).

Sure it is. The merchant screwed up. It's absolutely David's right to propose a solution to the problem. It's also the merchant's right to decline David's proposal and instead arrange to correctly fulfill David's order.

But that's not what happened. Instead of arranging to correctly fulfill David's order, the merchant cherry-picked parts of David's offer and then charged his credit card for an amount that he did not authorize. The merchant does not have the right to do that. Period.

The merchant's only out if David was being unreasonable was to correctly fulfill the original order.

[Glenn E.]

Again, his order was like this;

Looks to me like you've added in some supposition. We read the reported timeline differently.

[Andy Velebil]

Again, his order was like this;

Looks to me like you've added in some supposition. We read the reported timeline differently.

Yes, because years of experience has taught me many posts like this the poster leaves out info that doesn't paint them in a good light. There are two sides to every story. And the merchant has the final say on what prices we all get, that's their right. But don't get upset and try to slander a retailer because you didn't like their proposed offer. Simply send back the wines you got by mistake and have them send the missing bottle.

[Eric Menchen]

...in short, he wanted credit for two bottles to be shipped back (Fonseca) that he planned to keep (why would merchant do that),

Because otherwise the merchant has to pay for the return shipping. In the proposed deal, the merchant gets to sell two bottles, which generates a profit (possibly eaten up by the shipping, but that is a sunk cost). This is better than paying for shipping and putting the bottles back into inventory.

... and credit for a bottle (Warre's) never shipped (Why would merchant do that).

Because he paid for it and didn't get it.

[Andy Velebil]

...in short, he wanted credit for two bottles to be shipped back (Fonseca) that he planned to keep (why would merchant do that),

Because otherwise the merchant has to pay for the return shipping. In the proposed deal, the merchant gets to sell two bottles, which generates a profit (possibly eaten up by the shipping, but that is a sunk cost). This is better than paying for shipping and putting the bottles back into inventory.

... and credit for a bottle (Warre's) never shipped (Why would merchant do that).

Because he paid for it and didn't get it.

Interesting and glad you brought it up. He originally, as it's stated here, decided to skip the Warre's and keep the 2 extra Fonseca's....if the retailer did what he wanted. They obviously didn't. Here is where things get murky as David get real vauge on details so see my earlier comments. Regardless, the retailer didn't like David's proposal and said no. Their right to do so and none of us can get upset about that. So is it that hard to ship back the two Fonseca's (at their cost) and have them send you the Warre's, no! There is no need to try and start a slander campaign.