Alcohol delivery hours

Uncle Pierre

Hi all. Wondering about something which isn’t exactly the most pressing of legal matters, but curious about it all the same.

Recently placed my first online order for wine from O’Brien’s, and it arrived by courier this morning around 9.30 a.m.

However, if I’m doing regular grocery shopping with Tesco online, and book a 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. delivery slot, it won’t allow me to add wine (or any other alcohol) to my order, on the grounds that “alcohol can only be delivered from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday-Saturday, and from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday”.

Wondering what’s the legal position here? Are O’Brien’s and/or the couriers wrong to allow delivery at an earlier hour? Or are Tesco wrong in how they do things?

Thanks in advance.

Thoie

I haven't had a Tesco delivery in a while, but iirc they charge your card (process the sale) around the time that the delivery is marked "completed". So if your delivery was at 9am, their systems might not allow the sale to go through at that time. Perhaps O'Brien's process the sale in their systems the night before?

Uncle Pierre

Ah, could be something like that all right.

Then again, you could probably place an online order (and have payment processed automatically) with somewhere like O'Brien's at 2 a.m. some day, and have your order delivered at 9 a.m. a couple of days later - both of which would be outside the designated hours.

Anyway, seems like could be more of a retail systems thing than different interpreration/operation of the law. As I said, was just curious.

Claw Hammer

The issue would turn on when the property in the wine passes. If it passes when you pay for it, the time of delivery is irrelevant, the key issue is the time the wine comes into your ownership.

Pauliedragon

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Hi all. Wondering about something which isn’t exactly the most pressing of legal matters, but curious about it all the same.

Recently placed my first online order for wine from O’Brien’s, and it arrived by courier this morning around 9.30 a.m.

However, if I’m doing regular grocery shopping with Tesco online, and book a 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. delivery slot, it won’t allow me to add wine (or any other alcohol) to my order, on the grounds that “alcohol can only be delivered from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday-Saturday, and from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday”.

Wondering what’s the legal position here? Are O’Brien’s and/or the couriers wrong to allow delivery at an earlier hour? Or are Tesco wrong in how they do things?

Thanks in advance.

What time of the day did you order? Maybe if you ordered between 10.30am and 10pm and payment was processed so it's all within takeaway sales it mighn't matter when it's delivered. On the other hand Irish people never met a liquor law we don't like to break. Pints in my local stop at about 4am on weekends. And they sell nagins after that.

Uncle Pierre

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The issue would turn on when the property in the wine passes. If it passes when you pay for it, the time of delivery is irrelevant, the key issue is the time the wine comes into your ownership.

I reckon this combined with the suggestion above by Thoie would probably explain it all right.

So far as I know, Tesco just takes payment when they actually do the shopping for you. So if I ordered at 4 p.m. today for a 9 a.m. delivery tomorrow, the wine doesn’t go into the shopping trolley until maybe 8 a.m. tomorrow, and then their system is set up to not allow alcohol sales be processed at that time, no matter when the order was actually placed.

Again – looks like a retail systems matter, not a legal one. Thanks for input anyway.

seamus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The issue would turn on when the property in the wine passes. If it passes when you pay for it, the time of delivery is irrelevant, the key issue is the time the wine comes into your ownership.

I expect like any other contract of sale, the lynchpin is the point at which the contract is completed. That is, when it has been paid for, and the goods have been received.
Nothing is considered "sold", until the buyer has possession and the item is paid for in full.

Thus a supermarket can charge you for alcohol at any time but can only give it to you inside the specified times.

In O'Briens' case, there are one of two possibilities:

1. They are just less concerned about the legal issue than Tesco are

2. They can rely on the fact that the courier is a 3rd party, where Tesco drivers are employed by Tesco. Thus if the courier takes delivery when it is legal to do so, then the courier may not be bound to only deliver the alcohol inside the prohibited hours. This is actually a grey area, one that O'Briens obviously aren't too worried about.

Claw Hammer

seamus wrote: »

I expect like any other contract of sale, the lynchpin is the point at which the contract is completed. That is, when it has been paid for, and the goods have been received.

That is not correct. Things are considered sold when a contract of purchase is made. Property in the goods passes according to the terms of the contract. For example a hose is considered sold on the day a binding contract for the sale is entered into and Capital gains tax becomes liable from that date. Some wholesalers insert retention of title clauses so that property i the goods does not pass until the goods are paid for.

ghost of ireland past

I think this is interesting, and the following is only my opinion.

O'Briens say on their website that they deliver from 9am to 5pm.
They also say as follows, 'You MUST be over 18 to order on our website and identification to prove this will be required by the delivery driver if they think you look under 23.'

O'Briens expect the delivery driver to ensure the client is over 18.

Is that a legal obligation on the courier?
Is the courier aware that they are carrying alcohol?
obviously yes, they are aware, if they're checking ID.

I think the courier is supplying alcohol outside of the allowable hours, and committing an offence. The courier is intrinisically involved in this sale if he's checking ID. He is not an un-involved third party. This is only my opinion, I'd be interested in seeing the laws surrounding sale and supply of alcohol.


You cannot pre-pay for alcohol with an off-licence and then come back at any time of the day or night to collect 'your' alcohol. That would be unlawful supply, outside of the allowable hours. (I'm guessing)

This case has similarities I think.

Thoie

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I think the courier is supplying alcohol outside of the allowable hours, and committing an offence. The courier is intrinisically involved in this sale if he's checking ID. He is not an un-involved third party.

On that point, I was ordering a kitchen knife from Amazon recently, and there was something along the lines of "the postman might ask you for ID". Now, the situation didn't arrive, as I (perhaps unfortunately) would never be mistaken for anyone under 25, but even if I did I was wondering if the postman even knew what was in the box, and how would it be his problem if he did hand it over to someone under age.

ghost of ireland past

I'd also wondered about that thing on Amazon with knives and postmen checking for ID.

I'm not sure how the obligation to check IDs, which originally falls on the retailer, is transferred to the courier. It must be covered in law, rather than being an ad hoc arrangement but I can't find any laws on it.

A confounding issue is that you need a licence to supply alcohol, therefore the courier is most likely acting only as an agent of the seller of the alcohol. So, the obligation to check ID falls on the seller, and the seller is hoping his own agent will assist. If the agent fails, what happens?

I would guess that the courier has a different status to that of an employee who stands in a shop and sells alcohol directly to customers, but I'm not sure exactly how the status is different. Both the courier and the employee are working for the seller, and both are supplying alcohol to customers.


If alcohol was delivered to an underage person, because the courier didn't check ID, I reckon the seller would be prosecuted and the courier would be treated more or less like an employee who didn't do a very good job.

If alcohol is delivered outside allowable hours I'm not sure, but I'd guess the courier is liable, but the seller should not be directing the courier to deliver outside of the allowable hours, so the seller is also liable.

Claw Hammer

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I think this is interesting, and the following is only my opinion.

O'Briens say on their website that they deliver from 9am to 5pm.
They also say as follows, 'You MUST be over 18 to order on our website and identification to prove this will be required by the delivery driver if they think you look under 23.'

O'Briens expect the delivery driver to ensure the client is over 18.

Is that a legal obligation on the courier?
Is the courier aware that they are carrying alcohol?
obviously yes, they are aware, if they're checking ID.

I think the courier is supplying alcohol outside of the allowable hours, and committing an offence. The courier is intrinisically involved in this sale if he's checking ID. He is not an un-involved third party. This is only my opinion, I'd be interested in seeing the laws surrounding sale and supply of alcohol.


You cannot pre-pay for alcohol with an off-licence and then come back at any time of the day or night to collect 'your' alcohol. That would be unlawful supply, outside of the allowable hours. (I'm guessing)

This case has similarities I think.

What do O'Briens terms and conditions say about when the property in the goods passes? Does the property in the goods pass on payment so the courier is simply collecting the alcohol for the buyer, or does O 'Briens reserve title in the goods until they are satisfied that the buyer is 18?

ghost of ireland past

O'Briens don't really speak of when the title passes, but goods must be paid for in advance of delivery as far as I can see, so the issue is moot. I have seen conditions of sale that said risk in the goods passed immediately, whereas title to the goods only passed on payment.


I have an interesting issue.
This regulation was made on the 9th January this year.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/4/made/en/print

Explanatory Note.
The purpose of these Regulations is to prohibit the use of bonus or loyalty card points in relation to alcohol products, (and more)...


I would suggest that free delivery from a website when you spend over a particular amount is in breach of those new regulations.

Here's the relevant text.

(the following is prohibited) (a) the award, whether directly or indirectly, of bonus points, loyalty card points, or any similar benefit, to any person arising from the purchase by that person, or by any other person, of any alcohol product,

Does that include the benefit of free delivery?

In my view, yes it does, if you're being strict.


edit.
regulation not in force yet.
2. These Regulations shall come into operation on 11 January 2021.

odyssey06

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I would suggest that free delivery from a website when you spend over a particular amount is in breach of those new regulations.

Delivery is not a similar benefit to loyalty points though.
The regulations do not state that you cannot get ANY benefit.

ghost of ireland past

He he, yeah, i was sort of thinking that myself too. It will definitely be challenged.

Actually though, if you check the rest of the regulation..
(b) permitting the use of any such points or benefit, whether directly or indirectly, to obtain alcohol products, or any other product or service, at a reduced price or free of charge,

Free Delivery based on spending a certain amount is definitely banned, or will be, next year when the regulation comes in.

This would affect Dunnes Stores too, who allow alcohol to be used towards their 10 euro off vouchers, if you spend 50. I think in the future Dunnes and other retailers will have to remove alcohol from their voucher schemes and their points schemes.

Peregrinus

I think the aim of the regulations is twofold; you can't get reward points for buying alcohol, and if you get reward points for buying other things you can't use those points to obtain free or cheaper alcohol.

Free delivery for purchases over a certain amount is not reward points or a benefit similar to reward points. You could argue that giving a discount for large purchases is a benefit similar to reward points - it's as if you were awarded reward points and then immediate redeemed them for a discounted price. But even if that argument is sound free delivery is not a reduced alcohol price or free alcohol; the alcohol is still being sold at full price; it's the additional service of delivery which is being discounted or given for free, and that's fine.

As the regs create a criminal offence, they will be strictly interpreted in favour of the defendant. As long as the benefit you get is not a discount on the price of the alcohol itself, I think the merchant will be safe.

ghost of ireland past

I would disagree slightly there.

I agree it's as if you are being awarded a token when you spend a certain amount, and you can then redeem the token for free delivery. Of course, there is no token, but you receive a benefit as if there is. That is prohibited.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/4/made/en/print wrote:

the following is prohibited.
(a) the award, whether directly or indirectly, of bonus points, loyalty card points, or any similar benefit, to any person arising from the purchase by that person, or by any other person, of any alcohol product,

(b) permitting the use of any such points or benefit, whether directly or indirectly, to obtain alcohol products, or any other product or service, at a reduced price or free of charge,

in paragraph b, it says you cannot redeem the token from paragraph a, to obtain any service at a reduced price or for free.
Free delivery has to be considered a service, which you ordinarily pay for, and which is free if you spend more than a certain amount. That is prohibited.



I agree that it probably wasn't the intent of the framers of the law to ban free delivery. But it is definitely banned on a literal reading, and I think the courts will ban it, even after arguments.

It could be argued that free delivery is something that many websites offer, and that it's based on the amount of money spent, and the fact that money is being spent on alcohol is incidental, and I agree with all of that, but I still think that free delivery is banned, as you cannot get a service for free based on the money you have spent on alcohol.

They can crib and moan about being a website but in the end the free delivery is directly associated with the spend on alcohol products, and that's not allowed.

ghost of ireland past

I've been wracking my brains to come up with ways around this law. It is very tight.

I was thinking about pints and half pints, and how the half pint isn't exactly half the price of a full pint. You get a discount for purchasing a full pint. That seems to be in breach, (of a different section this time, section 4)

4. A person shall not sell or supply, or cause to be sold or supplied, an alcohol product at a reduced price or free of charge to any person on the purchase by that person, or any other person, of -
(a) one or more other alcohol products (whether of the same or a different kind), or
(b) any other product or service.

So what that's saying is you cannot get a price reduction based on how many you buy. You cannot offer 'buy 6, get 1 free' for example, nor can you say 'buy these toilet rolls, get a free can of beer'.

But what about offering a full pint for less than double the price of a half pint?

I'm just not sure about that now. It could well be in breach. The half pint might have to be exactly half the price. When I started writing this I was going to say the opposite, that because the half pint and the full pint are different products they can have different prices but I'm not sure now. It's the same beer in the glasses, at different prices.



Free delivery from websites is also quite complicated for a few reasons, maybe that should be allowed.



edit. Actually no, different prices for half pint and full pint are fine, it's a single purchase, therefore it can't qualify for that section quoted.

ghost of ireland past

I now have full loopholes for this law. The half pint, full pint example shows the way.

Consider a 1 liter bottle of vodka for 20 euro. You cannot sell three bottles for less than 60 but you can sell a single 3 liter bottle for any price, say 40 euro. People would be just as happy to buy a large 3 liter bottle of spirits than three smaller ones. It doesn't suit people giving gifts I suppose so it doesn't suit everyone but it is a pretty good start.

I also have a second idea which works great for crates of beer, and bottles of wine.

The manufacturers have to make a bit of effort with different container sizes but I think they'll be ok with that, they often do it anyway for marketing reasons.


Minimum pricing can't be got around though I don't think.

GM228

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I now have full loopholes for this law.

:pac:

Not my usual type of reply, but the most appropriate I think given your statement

ghost of ireland past

Well, in fairness, what is a loophole?

The law tells us what cannot be done. We just have to act in ways that don't break the law. In other words, finding loopholes is the whole point of the law. If the law says, for example, no bottles larger than 1 liter then everybody will make bottles of 995ml.

What's the difference between a loophole and compliance?
Loopholes are attempts to subvert the intent of the law while remaining compliant with the letter of the law. I just made that up but it seems pretty good.


For the crates of beer you could of course just sell a single 12 liter container for any price, which is the same quantity of beer as 24 smaller cans. That's compliant with the law because it's a single purchase of a single product. Most people though don't want a single huge container, they want smaller individual containers that they can keep fresh. I have a method whereby you can sell smaller containers in bulk and remain compliant. It seemed a little contrived at first but then I modified it slightly and now I think it's brilliant.