Comments on: “Vinegar” indeed: Broadbent sues Random House http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/ Food and Wine from Napa, Sonoma and the Bay Area • Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:15:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: thirstyreader http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/comment-page-1/#comment-1561 thirstyreader Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:20:52 +0000 http://www.thirstyreader.com/?p=862#comment-1561 Congratulations, and that shows you what I know about legal matters! Congratulations, and that shows you what I know about legal matters!

]]> By: Bartholomew Broadbent http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/comment-page-1/#comment-1560 Bartholomew Broadbent Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:38:00 +0000 http://www.thirstyreader.com/?p=862#comment-1560 My father has won his lawsuit The press release reads: The libel action centred on the book The Billionaire’s Vinegar, the subject of which was the provenance of a number of bottles of wine said to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper. In a statement read out in open court today, Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages. Commenting on the settlement Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker’s Defamation department, who acted for Mr Broadbent said: “The Billionaire’s Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation. We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial. My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country’s leading wine experts has been fully restored.” My father has won his lawsuit
The press release reads:
The libel action centred on the book The Billionaire’s Vinegar, the subject of which was the provenance of a number of bottles of wine said to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper.

In a statement read out in open court today, Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages.

Commenting on the settlement Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker’s Defamation department, who acted for Mr Broadbent said:

“The Billionaire’s Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation. We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial. My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country’s leading wine experts has been fully restored.”

]]> By: Bartholomew Broadbent http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/comment-page-1/#comment-1483 Bartholomew Broadbent Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:31:38 +0000 http://www.thirstyreader.com/?p=862#comment-1483 Thanks, also, to be fair, I should explain that my comment "hundreds of mistakes" is meant as a figure of speech, not purporting to be accurate. I do not know how many mistakes there are but they fill 20 pages of notes sent to me by my father. Anyway, please accept that as a figure of speech and I apologize to Ben. Bartholomew Broadbent www.broadbent.com Thanks, also, to be fair, I should explain that my comment “hundreds of mistakes” is meant as a figure of speech, not purporting to be accurate. I do not know how many mistakes there are but they fill 20 pages of notes sent to me by my father. Anyway, please accept that as a figure of speech and I apologize to Ben.
Bartholomew Broadbent http://www.broadbent.com

]]> By: thirstyreader http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/comment-page-1/#comment-1480 thirstyreader Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:56:40 +0000 http://www.thirstyreader.com/?p=862#comment-1480 Well, now I feel guilty. I will mull this one over in the meantime. But, point taken, your father's wine criticism does have provenance in nearly every instance -- I was referring to the dubious rarities mentioned in the book. I could have worded that more clearly, and will make an edit tonight. Well, now I feel guilty. I will mull this one over in the meantime. But, point taken, your father’s wine criticism does have provenance in nearly every instance — I was referring to the dubious rarities mentioned in the book. I could have worded that more clearly, and will make an edit tonight.

]]> By: Bartholomew Broadbent http://www.thirstyreader.com/vinegar-indeed-broadbent-sues-random-house/comment-page-1/#comment-1478 Bartholomew Broadbent Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:08:44 +0000 http://www.thirstyreader.com/?p=862#comment-1478 This is a great blog. It only goes to prove that the book resulted in defamation of character, for which they are being sued. I do agree with you that the book is a good read, however, you'd have to be pretty informed to spot the hundreds of mistakes that insiders know of. The fact that, as a result of the book, you are dismissing a large section of my father's tasting notes, where you claim provenance was questionable is sad. In the vast majority the notes, the provenance was well known, 99.99% was probably very clear. As to whether my father has a case or not is a good question. In America, libel laws are weak, in the U.K. there is clear libel, some of which the author has already agreed to remove from re-prints. But why sue? For a start, so that Will Smith doesn't make the same errors when he makes the movie. Why sue so late? Well, he isn't, it was only just made public but the lawyers have been on it since the book was for sale in the UK. Anyway, yes, my sense of humor appreciates yours, we all like to see the elite getting in trouble but only when justly deserved. In the case of my father, you can laugh but I don't think you'll have the last laugh! Bartholomew Broadbent, www.facebook.com/broadbentselections This is a great blog. It only goes to prove that the book resulted in defamation of character, for which they are being sued. I do agree with you that the book is a good read, however, you’d have to be pretty informed to spot the hundreds of mistakes that insiders know of. The fact that, as a result of the book, you are dismissing a large section of my father’s tasting notes, where you claim provenance was questionable is sad. In the vast majority the notes, the provenance was well known, 99.99% was probably very clear. As to whether my father has a case or not is a good question. In America, libel laws are weak, in the U.K. there is clear libel, some of which the author has already agreed to remove from re-prints. But why sue? For a start, so that Will Smith doesn’t make the same errors when he makes the movie. Why sue so late? Well, he isn’t, it was only just made public but the lawyers have been on it since the book was for sale in the UK. Anyway, yes, my sense of humor appreciates yours, we all like to see the elite getting in trouble but only when justly deserved. In the case of my father, you can laugh but I don’t think you’ll have the last laugh!
Bartholomew Broadbent, http://www.facebook.com/broadbentselections

]]>