Drew Hall wrote:[u]Sure they sell their wine to Negociants USA and Negociants USA will obviously sell to anyone but I can see why Yalumba would not want their product to be associated with the NRA much less help fund raise for them even though the path might be indirect.[/u]
I can't.....sometimes you have to stand up to what's right! and Yalumba dropped the ball!!!!
How so, Drew?
If they sold to Necociant and Negociant sold it to someone else,how did d'Arenberg drop the ball?
Once d'Arenberg sold their wine, it ceased to be their property. Negociant had the right to sell it to some other company (as long as there was no law preventing it), and that company had the right to do what they wished with it----it had become their property.
When a winery makes an agreement with a distributor/wholesaler, the winery agrees to sell the wine to the wholesaler. Then it legally becomes the wholesaler's property. Agreements are usually drawn up so the winery still has say in how the wine is marketed, but not always.
Same thing for retailers: once a wholesaler sells you the wine, he can't legally restrain you from doing whatever you wish with it. When I was in marketing, believe me, I begged and pleaded at times with retailers who had decided to drop the price of one of my wines as a "loss leader" because I didn't want the price perception of the wine to be debased. But there was no way for me to constrain the retailer if that was what he wanted to do.
I don't understand how d'Arenberg is different here.
Once they are sold they're not d'Arenberg's property any longer.