When champagne loses its fizz

Very few wine trade disputes get as far as being decided by the court and having the decision published. A recent exception was Friarwood Limited v Champagne Cattier SA. It concerned some champagne that proved something of a disappointment to Friarwood's customers. Not only did the case go all the way in the High Court, it then went to the Court of Appeal.

Background

Friarwood was a wine merchant mainly supplying the restaurant and hotel trade. In September 1998 they ordered 2,400 bottles and 600 half bottles of Cattier non-vintage Brut Premier Cru. The wine was despatched in early November. It was was initially held in bond and Friarwood did not begin to promote it until the summer of 1999. No substantial quantities were sold until about September 1999. By the end of December 2001 Friarwood had 984 full bottles and 528 half bottles in stock.

Between October and December 2001 Friarwood received a number of complaints from customers about the wine. Their directors held a tasting of one full bottle and one half bottle on 31st December 2001. Their reaction was that the wine had changed colour, had gone flat, and was oxidised. One described it as "barely drinkable". One full bottle and one half bottle were sent for analysis. It as reported that the pressures of the full bottle and half bottle were 3.6 bar and 3 bar and the free sulphur dioxide content 3mg per litre and 2mg per litre respectively.

Friarwood withdrew the wine from sale and complained to Cattier. Cattier refused to take the stock back or refund the price. They maintained that the wine had been in good condition when delivered.

The proceedings

Friarwood commenced proceedings for damages, claiming the full market value of the stock in good condition at the end of 2001. They relied on section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which provides that where a person sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods are of satisfactory quality. For this purpose goods are considered to be of satisfactory quality if they meet the standards that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of the description applied to them and all other relevant circumstances. It was common ground that “satisfactory quality” was to be judged at the time of delivery, and by the standards of a reasonable wine merchant buying non-vintage champagne from a reputable, but not top flight, producer.

The parties relied at trial on expert evidence from analytical chemists, who gave evidence of the physical and chemical properties of the wine at different stages in its life. Each party also called a connoisseur of champagne as an expert witness. Julian Jeffs QC was called by Friarwood, and Tom Stevenson by Cattier.

The two experts based their opinions on a blind tasting of samples held on 9th February 2005 . The judgment contains a detailed and fascinating review of the evidence they each gave and the points on which they agreed and disagreed. The critical question on which they disagreed was whether by the time of their tasting the champagne had aged more than could reasonably have been expected. Mr. Jeffs thought it had. Mr. Stevenson thought it had not.

The trial judge preferred the evidence of Mr. Jeffs, accepting his evidence that the wine had aged prematurely by February 2005 and his conclusion that it had been properly withdrawn from sale at the end of December 2001. Friarwood therefore succeeded. Cattier appealed.

The appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the reasons given by the judge for rejecting Mr. Stevenson's evidence did not stand up. Furthermore, he had not addressed the right questions, which were how long a reasonable wine merchant would have expected this champagne to remain saleable to ordinary consumers, and whether it had prematurely ceased to have that quality. In the circumstances the Court felt there was no alternative but to order a re-trial.

Comment

The case does not establish any new legal principles, but is an interesting insight into how our legal system will approach the resolution of a dispute in relation wine quality. The question that cries out for an answer is why on earth were the experts not asked to taste the wine as soon as possible after the dispute arose. If the most any expert could ever have done was to assess its condition on a given date and say whether it could from that be inferred that it was either unsatisfactory from day one or had deteriorated prematurely, surely it should have been obvious that the sooner that was done the better. And, conversely, that the longer it was left, the harder it would become to resolve the matter at all?

The case therefore serves as a useful cautionary tale, a reminder of why it is such a good idea to use ADR techniques and avoid full blown litigation wherever possible. One dreads to think how much it will have cost the parties so far, and even now it is still far from concluded. Perhaps wine trade disputes come before the courts so very rarely because they tend to turn into horror stories like this when they do.

Click here to view the CA Judgment in full.