I have read the book "The billionaire's vinegar" before I had some knowledge about wine. And then got to know MB (a.k.a. Michael Broadbent). He seems to enjoy an impeccable reputation in wine society. So personally, I think MB has no incentive to be involved in the "crime" even probablistically it's possible and econonmically, he could have done that. He could well claim that he just sticked to his own principles even those principles can easily put a person into an embarassing position under the current law-based, instead of conscience-based, society.
Actually, this issue becomes so complicated that no final judgment is able to cover all. A law suit is aiming at addressing this problem from an economic angle which has been tried but failed before. But first, it involves with several secret issues that remained unchallenged in high-end market. After all, credit and trust are the default assumptions in such market. If they arebroken, hard to say if it's good. Second, even from economic angle, those buyers, sellers, auction house, even those doubters like Mr. Wallace, are well benefited. So what's the point of a final judgment? It serves no so-called justice purpose but only economic drives of the same greedy people.
没有评论:
发表评论