Your thoughts on Alpine's decision?

Yes, they are called Pliny the Younger.

 

I think a person has a good faith basis to say the bottle is "mint" condition when it is in the same condition "unopened" like many collectibles (Action figures in package worth more v. out of package. . . sure its the action figure, but the container is very important, same w/ old magazines, newspapers, everything. . . pristine condition is worth more than otherwise).

Rather than rely on pejorative terminology like "you're full of shit" you should probably reinforce your substantive argument. It comes off as a defense mechanism from a position of weakness as opposed to a persuasive argument.

 

This

 

It's become obvious you lack the professional experience, knowledge and insight to understand that parsing words in regards to statutory construction is one of the best ways to combat the application of said statute upon a client.

Did you win your fantasy attorney league this year? I won our fantasy football league, but I'm not out telling any real coaches they don't know shit. . .

 

It's more like a fact, I'm saying that you know you're full of shit even if you don't admit it and I knew you would bring up the mint condition which is why I mentioned have the brewers reproduce it with water inside instead of beer on a run just as limited and you won't see any interest in buying it for high prices because people are after the beer inside. As the people with the action figures in mint condition if they're planning on opening them and having their kid or grandson or w/e play with it. You'll get a resounding hell no! Ask someone who bought a "collectible" beer on eBay and their answer most if not all of the time will be hell yes, I'm gonna drink it. If you maintain that people are actually after the container itself in mint condition because of the container then we're done here but I hope you have enough sense to know you're just lying to yourself.

 

Asking for corroboration and verification of a claim is being childish?
Isn't applying said label when someone abides by the "trust but verify" addage what is truly "childish"?

 

I'm not saying you don't know shit I'm saying what you pointed out makes no sense. Agencies mailing piss for testing isn't the same as people mailing beer and I think any jury, even one full of average joes with no higher level education would be able to see the flaw in an argument like that.

P.S. We're not in a court room with a jury so you don't need to use words most people without a law degree won't have a clue what you mean.

 

That's the problem sometimes w/ some amatuers. That's why there's bar exams these days. But in this instance, it was just a reading comprehension thing, as opposed to a higher level of skill (or lack thereof).

 

I wonder if I could sell some drugs and claim that the plastic baggie it came in is collectible. Certainly that baggie full of drugs is much more valuable than if the baggie had been opened and the drugs consumed. No one wants to collect empty baggies.

 

Its not a jury issue per se. Its a statutory construction issue. Juries generally don't make determinations whether a statute is unconstitutional or not.

The very difference you see, where one is prosecuted, but the other is not, yet both are actionable under the statutue, make for the argument that the statute is impermissibly written.

 

plenty of hacks out there that passed the bar.

 

I don't pretend to know the inner workings of a person I don't even know as to why they purchased an item. I'm proud you have a degree in tarot cards or fortune telling or whatever it is that allows you to determine why an unidentified person bought something.

 

Yes, old cans of Coca Cola with cocaine in them, or firearms, which would be illegal today, are relics and have exceptions generally made for them.

 

For one I'm pretty sure the law is clear about saying liquor/fermented alcohol. Drunkard's piss doesn't fit into that category.

 

True, but it weeds out more hacks than it lets in. Same w/ every standardized exam in every field.

 

I disagree.

 

Without reading all 300+ responses, I don't care for his decision. You sell the beer, what happens to it is out of your hands. People are going to do what they want with it. If you are THAT concerned about the illegality of it, take it up with the proper authorities. If you are pissed someone is profiting off of it, then I guess you're angry with supply/demand and capitalism. Let's not forget, capitalism is the same thing that allows his venture to be profitable in the first place. If it's not "fair" that someone is charging so much more and making so much more off the fruits of his labor, then price it higher.

If he's actually so concerned and distraught over illegal practices that he's pulling the plug because he doesn't want to aid in that, then I actually can accept that. That really would be taking a stand. However, he throws it in almost as an afterthought, and not his main point.

This line in particular I find a bit of an overreaction:

"The fact that people drove down from LA to make a quick buck and denying the locals the chance to buy some is also just plain wrong."

No, basically saying this is some sort of moral issue is ridiculous. It may be distasteful or frustrating for the brewer, but there is nothing wrong about it. Even if it is illegal, let's not confuse legality with immorality.

 

You don't have to pretend to know...there is nothing collectible about the container so it stands to reason whoever paid for it will drink it. To bring up your action figure example, if the action figure wasn't inside the package then no one would be after the package. Also if the action figure inside the package decayed and turned to dust in a matter of years, it stands to reason the person with it would actually take it out and play with it before he just had some dust in a package. Same goes for the beer...the buyer will drink it before it goes bad or pass it on to someone else that will. Because they know it'll go bad, they're buying it to drink eventually. It's clear why we all buy beer on eBay...we're beer people. It's just your lawyer head talking but you know those beers are getting bought for a reason, which is to be drank unless they're buying it as an investment to resell a few years down the road. No one is buying them to watch the beer go bad and keep the container in mint condition.

 

I still don't get it why brewers don't do this. Virtually every hyped beer with limited production is undervalued and that turns you're 20 dollars into 90 or so the moment you pay and walk out with your bottle of beer. Most brewers seem to be against eBay yet they won't sell their beers at market price which would prevent a whole lot of the issues they have with eBay. It's always baffled me that the beers that have throngs of people coming from everywhere to get some are sold at cost plus.

 

You could definitely hire him as a lawyer after you do it and he'll argue the baggie was collectible till his face turns