Vinomofo Wine Deals

[Wozza]

ah, minor additional googling reveals that it is likely the ulithorne la familia, a new label and bottling made from local (but not their) grapes:

https://ulithorne.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/ulithorne-wine-spring-babies/

And so, the $20 (or should I say, $60) a bottle question: have many of us here been seduced by temptress Fo and her alluring ways, or have we secured a genuine Fo bargain ...?

My instincts are not giving me a warm and fuzzy feeling on this purchase, but I am hoping my instincts are wrong ...

 

[Wozza]

Interesting to see that the voucher has expired - I wonder how they tracked that it had been abused, as far as I was aware you could not use the same phone number/CC twice as I tried to buy for my folks but had to use their card as mine was on another account.

My Devils Lair Chardy arrived today. Took quite a while to make the journey but I am sure it will be worth the wait. Review to follow.

My very helpful Fo broker says they have some nifty anti fraud software in place. They had also spotted the person here who explained how they rorted the system. I am sure there were many others. I think the $100 credit was like a Black Friday $1 for a plasma TV deal - it's too tempting for some, and will bring the worst out in people.

My guess is the deal was too good and resulted in too many people abusing it. Sad, but glad they are honouring legit referrals on a case by case basis. For me, I would rather see the Fo go from strength to strength with increased legit members, so they can continue to offer great deals on great wines.

I rest my case.

 

[Dr Ralph]

Not quite sure how they can legally get away with doing that. There is no mention in the advertising about the possibility of withdrawing the offer early.

There doesn't need to be notice of a with drawing of the offer.

No problems with contract law or consumer protection law.

You provided no consideration for the offer (which probably wasn't an offer - rather an invitation to treat), so they don't need to keep it open.

 

[Wozza]

There doesn't need to be notice of a with drawing of the offer.

No problems with contract law or consumer protection law.

You provided no consideration for the offer (which probably wasn't an offer - rather an invitation to treat).

True, but I would respectfully suggest you could argue:

a. Section 29(1)(m) of the ACL has been breached, in that a person in the course of trade or commerce, in connection with a possible supply of goods (i.e. no need for a contract, just course of business offer), has made a false and misleading representation concerning the existence of a right - in this case, the right to a $100 credit for a legit new member referred by an existing member in a specified period (it was sometime in October from memory); and

b. Section 32(2) of the ACL has been breached, in that a person in the course of trade or commerce has made an offer for a rebate, gift or other free item that it has does not honour in the time specified in the offer.

There are defences to the above provisions, but prima facie, the Fo ought to honour it's offer to those prospective members who are legitimate new referrals during the original advertised period. They are not naive, so my guess is they know this but are battening down the hatches to weed out the dodgy claims.

That's my 100th post, and most serious so far. I better get back to that Tomich 1-777 Pinot Noir .... Ahh, that's better!

 

[Wozza]

I have just become a Member!!

Feeling very grown up, having shrugged off my Junior Member status! At what point do you become an Established Member?

 

[Dr Ralph]

True, but I would respectfully suggest you could argue:

a. Section 29(1)(m) of the ACL has been breached, in that a person in the course of trade or commerce, in connection with a possible supply of goods (i.e. no need for a contract, just course of business offer), has made a false and misleading representation concerning the existence of a right - in this case, the right to a $100 credit for a legit new member referred by an existing member in a specified period (it was sometime in October from memory); and

b. Section 32(2) of the ACL has been breached, in that a person in the course of trade or commerce has made an offer for a rebate, gift or other free item that it has does not honour in the time specified in the offer.

There are defences to the above provisions, but prima facie, the Fo ought to honour it's offer to those prospective members who are legitimate new referrals during the original advertised period. They are not naive, so my guess is they know this but are battening down the hatches to weed out the dodgy claims.

Not my understanding of how the ACL applies in this instance. You might want to check some instances of how the ACL has been interpreted and applied by the courts (Hint there are several cases which involve similar provisions that existed under the now defunct TPA)

Whilst I've been highly critical of VM in the past and offered to take cases pro bono on behalf of people who had reported breaches of the law by VM, on this occasion I'd be happy to take the case for VM.

PS. I've never lost a case.

 

[Dr Ralph]

Feeling very grown up, having shrugged off my Junior Member status! At what point do you become an Established Member?

1000 posts.

 

[Wozza]

Not my understanding of how the ACL applies in this instance. You might want to check some instances of how the ACL has been interpreted and applied by the courts (Hint there are several cases which involve similar provisions that existed under the now defunct TPA)

Whilst I've been highly critical of VM in the past and offered to take cases pro bono on behalf of people who had reported breaches of the law by VM, on this occasion I'd be happy to take the case for VM.

PS. I've never lost a case.

Then, dear sir, I shall defer to your greater wisdom and experience in these matters. And glad to hear you would defend them. I would do the same.

 

[Buzzard]

Given that I have a daughter and SIL that are lawyers, isn't that what lawyers do - disagree

 

[Dr Ralph]

Given that I have a daughter and SIL that are lawyers, isn't that what lawyers do - disagree

No. They usually agree, but just don't admit it.

 

[i like wine it is good]

Calm down guys, i know we all love the fo' and trust me i do too, i've referred family members and spent more than is logical in wine over the last few months.

But they're still a business, a big business, in 2014 after three years they already had 30,000,000$ in revenue and nearly a quarter of a million members. and that was a year of growth ago.

Like all businesses they understand when they release deals people will use them, and if they can be abused they will be, i personally was a little amused it was so easy, i didn't really do anything, just set up a new account using my partners details, if she did it herself it there would have been no issue anyway.

I'm sure Vinomofo has a very skilled team who should understand that when they release a $100 deal with little to no safeguard they should understand the cost/benefit beforehand.

i understand this won't sit well with a few but such is life.

(Dear Vinomofo rep: i'm sorry guys it was just too easy to ignore but if its a consolation i've spent ALOT of money on Vinomofo and will continue to spend ALOT of money.)

 

[Dr Ralph]

Calm down guys,

Wow, how ostentatious of you.

 

[Wozza]

Given that I have a daughter and SIL that are lawyers, isn't that what lawyers do - disagree

Oh yes they do! It's hard-wired into our nature!

That said, I have just eavesdropped on the official Fo terms and conditions for the first time (and no, I rarely read terms that are actually relevant to me!), and spotted a few interesting things:

On topic, I spotted the right to withdraw or amend a promotion at any time. I think Dr Ralph mentioned that in his original post.

But more interestingly for this blog, every Fo member - every one - must not publically reveal a black market or contraband deal. That's one of their most important rules of membership. I am guessing this has been discussed previously. It's interesting for me, as they know I blog on this site and they know who I am. I suspect this is the same for many others. So I am guessing they are turning the other cheek - maybe because many of us our their loyal and happy purchasing customers.

 

[Buzzard]

Wow, how ostentatious of you.

How much can a koala bear?

 

[i like wine it is good]

But more interestingly for this blog, every Fo member - every one - must not publically reveal a black market or contraband deal. That's one of their most important rules of membership. I am guessing this has been discussed previously. It's interesting for me, as they know I blog on this site and they know who I am. I suspect this is the same for many others. So I am guessing they are turning the other cheek - maybe because many of us our their loyal and happy purchasing customers.

They've actually posted in this thread asking very nicely for it to stop.

 

[Tannin]

But more interestingly for this blog, every Fo member - every one - must not publically reveal a black market or contraband deal.

Which is why forum aliases are awesome! As is free speech.

 

[Dr Ralph]

On topic, I spotted the right to withdraw or amend a promotion at any time. I think Dr Ralph mentioned that in his original post.

A good lawyer does their homework.

 

[beefarmer]

Re: Wynns V&A Lane 212

You are not wrong ehiggo! Us lawyers are about as subtle as Beefarmer speaking on an over-sold, very average Pinot!!

PS. Beefarmer - I loved yesterday's pictorial wit. It made me chuckle! When I am out (which I guess is not very often these days), I seem to be the only one not drinking beer. Can't stand the stuff, especially the hoppy, hipster-esk craft beers that are all the rage at the moment.

I am sure we will have one as a starter....

 

[Dr Ralph]

But more interestingly for this blog, every Fo member - every one - must not publically reveal a black market or contraband deal. That's one of their most important rules of membership. I am guessing this has been discussed previously. It's interesting for me, as they know I blog on this site and they know who I am. I suspect this is the same for many others. So I am guessing they are turning the other cheek - maybe because many of us our their loyal and happy purchasing customers.

It has definitely been discussed. You'll find that I offered an opinion based on relevant laws of electronic contact formation (click wrap) as to when any contract was formed and therefore whether the terms were validly incorporated into the contract.

 

[Dr Ralph]

They've actually posted in this thread asking very nicely for it to stop.

And they've been politely told NO.