Alpine Brewing Thread

The powers that be at both places revel in running things differently than many other places, i.e. their own way.

As Sebowski said, Green Flash's answer to special distributions would be to pair with very expensive finger food, and then secretly distribute the rest of it afterwards w/o telling people that was what they were going to do. I was under the impression that even under the new model, GF was going to let Alpine handle their own special release stuff.

 

I don't think anyone's suggested that the dude should get his bottles or at least a refund. The terms were clearly stated so anyone who missed their chance to pick up bottles only have themselves to blame. The uproar is Pat's alleged response. If his responses were, indeed, true, then it only further solidifies his less than impeccable reputation. There's no excuses for that considering the person making the inquiry about his purchase seemed to conduct himself in a civil manner.

As for boycotts, it would be irrational to conduct background checks on every company out there, however, companies whose owners have no qualms about about broadcasting their social and political beliefs should be prepared for the backlash. With regard to Alpine, they'll do just fine without my business, but at least I can take comfort in the fact that I'm sticking to my conviction, however idealistic it may appear to be.

 

Man some of my best friends are bigger dicks than Pats message was. Leave it to social media to make people way to sensitive about one liner burns. Pats has always been known for being a dick, the rest of the crew at Alpine have always been more then helpful imo. Even being a douche won't make me not drink their beer.

 

Are there any BA members who are lawyers who can comment on this? I have no skin in the game as I didn't buy any KH, but out of curiosity I asked a close family member, who is a lawyer, about this situation. He's not into beer, so I thought I could get a pretty honest answer from him.

He said that based on the California Business and Professions Code, a brewery would either have to provide the beer or a refund. It doesn't matter if the terms stated a specific window or it they stated "no refunds". If an individual paid for a product, they must either receive that product or a refund. I thought that the "ticket" aspect may throw off this position, but apparently it doesn't matter. You're not paying for an event, you're ultimately paying for a product. What is more worrisome for the future online sales (which sucks because I love BPT) is that he said that this could open up any brewery to a class action lawsuit -- meaning a brewery could be sued on behalf of every customer who never picked up beers. Consumers are protected which I appreciate, but I don't want to see breweries being sued over something stupid like this.

If any BA members who are lawyers have similar or differing interpretations of the law, I'd love to read them.

 

You are not purchasing tickets to an event. You are purchasing tickets explicitly stating that it is for a product.

On the BPT page for Kiwi Herman, Alpine explicity stated "Price includes 1- 500 ml. bottle of Kiwi Herman @ 15.99 each, plus tax and crv." I think that's a tough argument to say it's an event ticket.

 

I posted a slightly lengthier than expected post in the general discussion thread. But I disagree with your family friend's position. But since my legal expertise is not in business transactions or contracts I asked my friends that do involve themselves in the type of law.

They believe the terms and conditions are fine unless the time frame (the condition) is impossible to meet hence putting the purchasing party at an inequitable position from the offerer. Since almost everyone picked up their beer with ease, there isn't much to argue.

Also there are multiple examples of contracts/purchases formed that if someone does not comply within a time limit, their money is forfeit and they don't get their product. If not completely forfeited, at least a significant monetary penalty. (earnest deposits in escrow for home purchases)

 

Yes, because the way groups of friends joke among themselves is precisely how they should treat strangers in business relationships.

 

Interesting. The lawyer that I spoke to (it's my brother), stated something similar about the potential for a monetary penalty for not picking up (similar to a re-stocking fee that many retailers charge). He mentioned that this would have to be stated in the purchase terms.

And just from a logical perspective, I would think that it would hurt the purchaser's argument since he didn't contact the brewery until after the time limit was over. Had he informed them in advance with a legitimate reason and provided a couple of reasonable pick-up alternatives, it may have more weight.

The interesting thing is that we don't actually know that almost everyone picked up their beer with ease. I would assume it, but it still seems like there may be grey area within the law about how many people (or percentage) didn't pick up and what is a "reasonable" time limit.

I don't really know if this is apples to oranges, but when you place an "online to store pick-up" purchase at places like Macy's, Target, Walmart, etc. and you don't pick it up in the required time frame (usually 30 days), they'll refund you (albeit sometimes with a re-stocking fee applied). This may just be their company policies, but my guess is that they were at least shaped by the law.

Please definitely post when you hear back from your contracts colleagues. I think this is pretty fascinating.

 

I'm not a lawyer so I'm only looking at this from a point of logic, rather than law, but it seems like the common thread in a lot of scenarios where money isn't returned is that either a service has been rendered one way or another, or the deal not being completed can cause some sort of tangible loss/hardship (ie, a home falling out of escrow). In the case of a beer not being picked up, the only real argument you could make on hardship for Alpine's case would be taking up space in the coldbox, but considering the value of the item relative to its expense of storage, as well as the time frame, I would think the decision would go in the customer's favor.

I don't think any of us honestly wants to see it litigated, but it seems as though it would be in a brewery's best interest to just issue a refund, both to maintain happy customers, as well as to prevent the risk of chargebacks or an admittedly far-fetched lawsuit.

 

I get what your saying. It's just Alpine and Pat more specifically have ways been know to act this way and not concern themselves with superior customer service. They more act like a bunch friends who make great beer and run it accordingly. Not saying it's right or wrong, just to be expected and not really new news.

 

I already did hear back. I posted their answer

 

What would've been in their best interest, IMO, is to have not responded like an ornery bastard and instead politely reminded the buyer of the terms they agreed to by making the BPT purchase. If that's what Pat had done, would anyone honestly be arguing that Alpine owed the dude a refund? If Pat had replied, "Hey brother -- so sorry you missed the pickup window. Unfortunately, the terms of the BPT sale prevent us from issuing any refunds whatsoever. We apologize for inconvenience but hope you make it up to Alpine soon to enjoy a pint!" would anyone be demanding a refund? I don't think so. Personally, I think most of us would say, "Dude, that sucks you spaced the pickup window. Better luck next time!" My issue is that, even acknowledging the dickhole response, there are a lot of folks essentially encouraging the buyer to do something incredibly disingenuous, which is to file a claim when the terms he agreed to were incredibly clear. This is some eye-for-eye stuff that just comes off as unnecessary. Dude made a mistake -- yeah he got a dick response, but he should take the high road here.

 

I've realized that over the course of the last 12 hours, I've greatly gravitated toward the buyer as I've thought more and more about this. I think your rationale makes sense, but it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and grey area. The buyer only lost out on ~$34 and openly admitted that he spaced out on the pickup window he agreed to. But what if it he lost $165 (based on an upcoming release from another San Diego area brewery) because a family member died on the pickup weekend? Extreme example, I know, but consumer protection laws are in place to eliminate the "grey area". If you pay for a product, you are entitled to receive the product or receive a refund minus any reasonable penalties (i.e. restocking fees). It's not as if these bottle go unsold. They'd actually end up selling them twice to release the inventory most likely.

 

I agree there's totally potential for gray area here, and the scenario you present is an interesting one. To me, though, the terms weren't especially onerous, and though random, unavoidable conflicts may arise (such as the one you suggested), I think the general model works. (In such the case of such conflicts, you'd certainly hope they address it more expediently than two weeks after the fact. But I digress.) It certainly sounds like something that might prove an interesting case for the courts, I suppose, but common sense says to me that if you can't comply with the terms of sale, you shouldn't enter into the contract in the first place.

 

Is that actually true? Because I thought BPT was the middle man that the process went through and it actually goes to the brewery. That's why places like Alesmith don't accept Amex, because it's not BPT that is getting the payment, it's the brewery and its based on what CC they can accept in their system already.

 

For the sake of all beer lovers, I dearly hope it doesn't become an issue for the court (as interesting as it may be). I completely agree that you shouldn't buy a product when you know you can't comply with the terms of sale, but I think the argument is that the buyer initially thought he could honor it, or using the stronger argument, someone that has a legitimate unforeseen hardship should be protected under unforeseen circumstances. I thankful that through all the BPT and Eventbrite releases thus far, that it's taken this long for situations like this to rear their ugly head.

 

The response should be Bwahaha instead of Bwaaaahaha?

 

100% agree with this, which makes the response all the more pointless. Maybe Pat thought that nothing would come of it, or maybe he genuinely doesn't give a shit about public reaction, but simply responding without being a prick wouldn't have required any extra effort on his part and would mean this whole conversation would've never taken place on this or any other forum. I'd like to believe that Pat would handle it differently if he knew the consequences ahead of time, but I'd also like to believe in unicorns that pee Drie Fonteinen Oude Gueuze Vintage (yes, I'm ISO).

I actually agree that filing a chargeback is somewhat disingenuous, even though I don't think it would be a bad idea. That sounds contradictory on the surface but it's disingenuous on a moral level, yet a good idea on a practical level since he'd likely receive his money back. The moral/high road discussion has a few views to it - on one hand, you could argue that he did try to take the high road by seeing if an exception could be made, or lacking that, get a refund. Alpine lost nothing since they maintained possession of the bottles, so it's not as if a refund would cause them any hardship. Hell, offer him $40 in store credit. On another hand, it's a relatively small amount, for a luxury item - if the $40 is lost, it's probably not a huge deal, so perhaps he should just drop it. On yet another hand, Alpine is a business that has displayed in very clear terms here that they couldn't give a shit less about trying to do right by a paying customer, so why should the paying customer do right by them? People will talk about the "craft beer community" but if the craft beer community is a brewery acting like that, of what value is that sense of community?

I don't think either side of the chargeback debate is right or wrong, I can see entirely defensible views on both sides. I would hope that any fallout from this doesn't end up damaging the viability of BPT releases since it has been a huge step in the right direction, but if it does, it will ultimately be due to a brewery pushing their luck with an unenforceable contract and terrible customer service.

 

I went back and looked at my credit card statement, and it appears that it varies by release and how the brewery sets up the event. For Beer Geek Speedway, my CC statement shows Alesmith (as have all past Alesmith releases). For Funky Lomaland, my CC statement shows BrownPaperTickets. Someone who bought Kiwi Herman would need to look at the statement to clarify how this specific release was set up.

 

Good thoughts here, @Xul. While I tend to feel fairly strongly about the properness/legitimacy of the buyer not filing a chargeback, I understand where others are coming from. Again, I think Pat's response is the only thing keep this debate going, though. If he responded nicely, I doubt we're talking about whether $40 is a hardship (for either side), the whole notion of a craft beer "community", etc.

At the end of the day, though, I do hope this doesn't affect the BPT setup. I think it's, while not an airtight process, a marked improvement over the usual shitshow that highly anticipated/limited releases become. And if it does change, it's not just CA folks who are going to be affected -- not to beat a dead horse, but, most recently, Hill Farmstead ran the Ann release is a very similar way. Folks didn't seem to mind that, and I don't think they mind BPT, terms and conditions included, so long as the brewery doesn't take some sort of sick glee in the misfortune of those who couldn't abide by them.