Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Thanks for catching that. Mental slip. I'll change it.

Just figured out where that came from... :-)

The last Gvt agency I had contact with was security on flights too and from Australia.

 

Still makes no sense to me, as it seems that the FDA oversees most things that are ingested for consumption or health purposes. Alcohol has nutritional properties such as caloric content, and alcohol itself is considered a drug. I assume there must be some political lobbying involved to prevent FDA oversight.

Generally, when something is made, and it comes out different than intended, you do a recall or fix the issue. I don't understand why everyone is so forgiving to a brewery, when something like food, even if its safe, when smells or tastes off, results in a recall.

Generally, most responsible companies do voluntary recalls on products which do not meet their quality standards. Goose Island must know beer drinkers don't give a shit and will pony up another $100 next year.

There's been much more frivolous lawsuits that have been filed and subsequently won. Anytime there is money and a product involved, there could be a potential for a lawsuit.

 

This, sir, is both reductio ad absurdum of your point, while at the same time alluding to a key downfall in modern America that is one reason behind the high insurance rates that are bankrupting us. Kudos!

 

Well even though it makes no sense to you that's the way the world is at the moment.

Who's being forgiving? Most of what I'm reading is people trying to sort out what happened and why. A beer was released that by normal standards and procedures was fine. It took a couple of months before reports of off flavors began. The brewery is still investigating the problem (which appears to have been caused by a bacterium that was prevously thought to be harmless.) Meanwhile they did a recall on a couple of beers and most folks who contacted them got the refund. (There were also some who got a "refund" when they'd not purchased anything at all. ) So now many people simply want them to do a knee-jerk refund just as they already did earlier in trusting all callers and not even requiring receipts.

Whether they will be "responsible" and do a refund program of some kind is still something that is on hold.

So riddle me this, how would you suggest they do a recall that is fair to legitimate customers that does not leave them open to fraudulence on the part of some who would exploit them? ( BTW if you bought one of their beers you are the fourth owner. )

 

My suggestion would be to have designated stores to accept trade ins of empty or full bottles for a coupon or replacement beer, or even other free merchandise. Pretty simple.

If I could take in my empty BCBCS bottle and trade it in for a 6 pack of a GI year round beer, that would suffice for me, honestly.

 

I don't understand what so absurd about buying a beer, expecting it to be a non-sour barrel aged imperial stout (which I've had on many occasions), it tasting like absolute crap, and then wanting a refund.

That sounds absolutely reasonable to me. Which is why usually, the threat of these lawsuits are what makes companies do the right thing. Are we seriously okay with just throwing away money?

 

Sorry dude, I am starting to feel like I am discussing with that almost drunk guy on the next stool who still remembers words well enough to string them, but doesn't remember what he's responding to, so, I'm out. It's been fun Cheers!

 

You fit right in with the elitist BA's. Sorry bro I don't understand your latin. You imply that a lawsuit would be frivolous, which it isn't. But you must be a lawyer, right? Appreciate the fake cheers though. Thanks.

 

Goose Island issued refunds, what more do you need? I don't see your argument.

 

So if they offered refunds for a single day, is that considered issuing refunds? Completely absolving them of any responsibility just because they offered up a refund for a limited time?

 

It seems that most that purchased bottles claimed refunds for all of them even the ones they didn't drink. Sorry it didn't work out for you, they took more responsibility then they had to.

 

I'm guessing you work for a brewery or distributor or liquor store? In every other industry, that poor level of customer service would be considered unacceptable. But for some reason, breweries seems to be exempt from responsibility.

 

Nope I have just seen many, so many infected beers sold and people cry foul and breweries don't do anything because they don't have to. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I know your salty about the 2 month window, I've read every one of your posts on this thread and you have a moral cause that isn't supported by real life or facts.

 

So buying beer is just a known risk and we take on all the risk as consumers? If my bottle of Rare goes bad next month, oh well? Yep. No accountability because they don't have to do anything about it. That's just the cultural norm for beer drinkers I guess.

Things never change because that's the attitude people have.

 

I have purchased bad beer personally a few times.

1. Best case scenario the store where you bought it will refund you or give you store credit for something else.

2. Second best scenario is you contact the brewery and they send you some free beer and swag(clothing, coasters, glassware)

3. Most common practice is to deny and move one.

 

Pretty sure if it happens again they're done.

 

Bourbon County being done. Highly doubt that

 

When does this end....

 

That, again, is another issue -- this thread should be limited to BCBS (where no refunds were ever issued). Amazing how complacent people are with defective beer purchased with their hard-earned money. "Common practices" where other breweries are failing to own up to their mistakes or make things right doesn't justify poor business practices or make it right. In what other context is this (i.e., buyer-beware without initial disclosure of such risks) ever acceptable?

Equally absurd is the allegation that, because some people abused the system (because the initial refund process was flawed or not well thought-out), should mean that the rest of us with defective bottles be denied compensation for what was paid. Taken it to its logical conclusion, it would be okay for breweries to benefit from their mistakes on the backs of their customers.

 

Couple of thoughts after reading the last few pages. First, the hunt was not caused by GI. It was caused by the distributors who hold back product to increase demand, and by merchants who raise the prices up well above MSRP to take advantage of the artificial lack of supply. To demand that GI cover any additional costs does seem absurd.

That leads to my second point. Once the beer leaves the brewery on its way to the distributors, the brewery has lost (basically) all control over the product. Since the three-tier system forces them to sell the beer to a distributor, they can't (easily) control the factors I mentioned above. Yes, I understand that breweries can influence distributors to send beer where they want, but my understanding is that this is more of a good business practice than legally allowed.

Lastly, the idea that a class action lawsuit can be filed against GI on BCBS being infected seems preposterous. What law has been broken? I am not a lawyer, so I can't answer with certainty. However, the beer is technically safe to drink, so what has GI done wrong from a legal perspective?

GI knows something went wrong with the 2015 batch of BC beers. They claim to still be working on a solution. A refund is a big deal, so I understand the time it is taking them to figure it all out. I would love to be refunded for my infected beer, but I'm going to judge GI on how they handle this situation.