or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › B&S Archive › Your advice sought on ebay dispute
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your advice sought on ebay dispute - Page 5

post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmac View Post
no offense. but this argument is so circular that it makes no sense.

It is not circular, any more than yours is. It is a loose fish/fast fish problem: the significance of the decision not to purchase insurance depends upon what the surrounding expectation was concerning the obligation to deliver the goods. You read the ebay listing as creating a rule that goods lost in carriage are the responsibility of the buyer. Others rely upon a more general expectation that when a buyer purchases goods, the seller has the obligation to effect delivery. Neither argument is circular; each simply depends on premises the other rejects.

Putting aside the relative value to the OP of a perfect feedback record, the interesting question is whether a seller should be able to shift the risk to the buyer of unreliable carriage in the instance of low priced goods. There is a lot of reasons to say no, since it is the shipper that controls so much of the carriage -- where it is shipped, how it is packed, how legible and indelible the address, etc. -- but on the other hand shifting the risk of loss marginally lowers the cost of low priced goods for those willing to assume the risk.

My instinct is to stick with fast fish, that is, that responsibility does not transer until receipt, since that puts the burden of effective delivery where it would seem to belong. However, I confess that when I have won similarly worded auctions, I always pay for insurance, on the theory that it encourages the seller to ship properly and helps minimize the risk of disputes after the fact. So I respect the OP's sense here that his auction was sufficiently clearly worded, in ebay parlance, to shift the risk.
post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmac View Post
This is why the buyer is hanging the neg feeback blackmail over the seller's head. he has nothing else to work with. If he had used a credit card, he would have a snowball's chance with a CC dispute. If he had used paypal? Paypal would not even give him said snowball's chance. They would rule against the buyer instantly.
Paypal demands proof of delivery not of postage. Equally you can go to your credit card for non-delivery. In this case,every credit card will rule in your favour.

Delivery did not take place. An empty packet did arrive, which the buyer (correctly) refused to take posession of.
post #63 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Inseam View Post
It is not circular, any more than yours is. It is a loose fish/fast fish problem: the significance of the decision not to purchase insurance depends upon what the surrounding expectation was concerning the obligation to deliver the goods. You read the ebay listing as creating a rule that goods lost in carriage are the responsibility of the buyer. Others rely upon a more general expectation that when a buyer purchases goods, the seller has the obligation to effect delivery. Neither argument is circular; each simply depends on premises the other rejects.
I believe some of the disagreement in this thread arises because some posters are arguing from a legal perspective, some from an ethical perspective, some from a moral perspective, and some from a pragmatic perspective. (Oh, and I tried to argue from an economic perspective. ) Legally: the seller is liable till delivery and it's unlikely that asking the buyer if they want to pay for insurance is sufficient to transfer that liability. Morally: in the best of all possible worlds, buyers would buy insurance or suck it up. Pragmatically: it's an issue of buying feedback. Ethically: I see no consensus?
post #64 of 114
Come on, this is an issue from day 1 in a first-year contracts class in law school.

The seller is on the hook until the merchandise is safely in the buyer's hands. The shipper is only the seller's agent and if the shipper screws up, the seller still has to make good on his end of the contract. Hence the need for insurance. Why does the buyer have to buy insurance to protect himself in case the shipper screws up? Insurance protects the seller, not the buyer, because until the item arrives, the seller has not performed his part of the contract.

If the seller wants to free himself of the obligation to deliver the merchandise safely, then the contract can specify something like "FOB factory" -- free on board factory. Meaning the seller arranges for a shipper to pick up the merchandise at the facotry door at which point title transfers and whatever happens next is between shipper and buyer.

Look at it this way. Let's say the buyer had not yet paid for the merchandise when he gets word that the shipper lost the package. In this circumstance, does anyone expect the buyer to pay the seller for merchandise that will never be delivered?

Stop overbraining this. By not delivering merchandise that was paid for, the seller has not performed as the contract obligated him to. The buyer gets his money back.

Case closed.
post #65 of 114
I think you are probably right, legally speaking. I guess we should all just require insurance all the time, really.
post #66 of 114
If the item is lost by the shipper, the buyer cannot file a claim with the shipper. The seller must do this. Yes? And is it not the case that it is next to impossible - or at least extremely difficult - to experience a speedy and satisfactory resolution to an insurance claim? So, in the scenarios portrayed here which favor the seller because of the language disclaiming responsibility for delivery in the listing -- in these scenarios, is the buyer not at the mercy of the seller's ability to file the claim and receive full compensation? How long is the buyer supposed to wait for the seller to get the buyer's money back from the carrier? Would a seller be comfortable - legally, ethically, practically - providing regular updates to the buyer as he pursued the claim with the carrier? Is the seller obligated to pursue the claim on the buyer's behalf with any high degree of diligence? Practically, what the seller proposes in these cases strikes me as not believable. The carrier is the seller's agent, and the insurance claim must be something that only involves risk to the seller. Sellers should require it in all transactions if they fear taking a loss when their carrier fails. It's the seller's risk to assume or insure, not the buyer's.
post #67 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by auto90403 View Post
Come on, this is an issue from day 1 in a first-year contracts class in law school.

The seller is on the hook until the merchandise is safely in the buyer's hands. The shipper is only the seller's agent and if the shipper screws up, the seller still has to make good on his end of the contract. Hence the need for insurance. Why does the buyer have to buy insurance to protect himself in case the shipper screws up? Insurance protects the seller, not the buyer, because until the item arrives, the seller has not performed his part of the contract.

If the seller wants to free himself of the obligation to deliver the merchandise safely, then the contract can specify something like "FOB factory" -- free on board factory. Meaning the seller arranges for a shipper to pick up the merchandise at the facotry door at which point title transfers and whatever happens next is between shipper and buyer.

Look at it this way. Let's say the buyer had not yet paid for the merchandise when he gets word that the shipper lost the package. In this circumstance, does anyone expect the buyer to pay the seller for merchandise that will never be delivered?

Stop overbraining this. By not delivering merchandise that was paid for, the seller has not performed as the contract obligated him to. The buyer gets his money back.

Case closed.

Um:

Quote:
C.\tFreedom of Contract: The buyer and seller can agree a priori who will bear the risk for various kinds of losses, and thus "trump" the various "default" rules for risk allocation to follow. § 2-509(4).

You are going to have to explain how the fact that the seller clearly specified in the auction terms that, if the buyer chose not to pay for insurance (despite the fact that insurance was "highly recommended") that the "Seller is not responsible for uninsured items." Perhaps legally that does not constitute an agreement. But you are going to have to explain how it does not constitute an agreement for it to be case closed.

Anyways, I think we can all agree on one thing, that sellers should absolutely require insurance on all shipments. I used to make the occasional exception when shipping an inexpensive item internationally, in order to allow the buyer to save considerable money in shipping costs. That's over - from here on out it is a strict 'no insurance, no sale' policy.
post #68 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
That's over - from here on out it is a strict 'no insurance, no sale' policy.

Wise man!
post #69 of 114
One thing that interests me about this debate is that nobody has mentioned the responsibilities of the shipping company. Does it strike anyone else as vaguely ridiculous that the buyer or the seller should have to pay EXTRA for the privilege of being reimbursed if the shipping company screws up/doesn't do its job??
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
One thing that interests me about this debate is that nobody has mentioned the responsibilities of the shipping company. Does it strike anyone else as vaguely ridiculous that the buyer or the seller should have to pay EXTRA for the privilege of being reimbursed if the shipping company screws up/doesn't do its job??
I mentioned that there should be some recourse regardless of insurance, but I don't know if there actually is.
post #71 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
One thing that interests me about this debate is that nobody has mentioned the responsibilities of the shipping company. Does it strike anyone else as vaguely ridiculous that the buyer or the seller should have to pay EXTRA for the privilege of being reimbursed if the shipping company screws up/doesn't do its job??

I agree. It seems like a racket, where you pay extra to ensure your package is delivered safely, even though you already paid for it to be delivered in the first place.
post #72 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared View Post
I believe some of the disagreement in this thread arises because some posters are arguing from a legal perspective, some from an ethical perspective, some from a moral perspective, and some from a pragmatic perspective. (Oh, and I tried to argue from an economic perspective. )

Legally: the seller is liable till delivery and it's unlikely that asking the buyer if they want to pay for insurance is sufficient to transfer that liability.

Morally: in the best of all possible worlds, buyers would buy insurance or suck it up.

Pragmatically: it's an issue of buying feedback.

Ethically: I see no consensus?

they're all the same, and they're all different. and you could come up with either position under all of these perspectives.
post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by WSW View Post
I agree. It seems like a racket, where you pay extra to ensure your package is delivered safely, even though you already paid for it to be delivered in the first place.
Canada Post claims that the Universal Postal Union requires all members to include "basic parcel indemnity" of CDN$70 + $7.50/kilo. (In Canada Post and USPS's cases, I believe they extend that to $100 of the local currency for tracked packages.) Similarly, all moving companies are required to provide "released rate liability".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post
they're all the same, and they're all different. and you could come up with either position under all of these perspectives.
Perhaps you could, but a lot of hot air is being blown between people arguing from completely different perspectives.
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by WSW View Post
I agree. It seems like a racket, where you pay extra to ensure your package is delivered safely, even though you already paid for it to be delivered in the first place.

I think it's even worse, because in my experience, paying for insurance doesn't actually provide you with any safeguards. I've had to deal with insurance twice (both times with UPS) and never got a dime.

First time, I moved from school to my first job. I had just bought about 5 new suits. These babies hadn't even been altered yet. I shipped them to myself in a wardrobe box. At about 10 PM, I get a call from someone down the street "I think I have your package - it was delivered here by mistake. Unfortunately they just left it outside and I'm pretty sure its ruined." One of the worst storms in a very, very long time and UPS just left the package outside at the wrong address. It had been sitting outside for hours and the cardboard had basically dissolved/crumbled down due to the weight of the clothes inside. The suits had been sitting in a pool of dirty water for hours.

The best I could get out of UPS, and this was after many, many hours of negotiating, was to pay for dry cleaning. As pathetic an offer as that was, when it came time to collect after sending receipts, I got nothing. They never reimbursed me.

Second time, I sent my fiance one of those portraits where they hand paint a portrait of you from a picture in a really beautiful frame. When it got to her, she could hear a lot of broken glass. Since it was a surprise, she didn't know what it was or anything, she refused delivery. Well, they lost it on the way back to me.

I'm being conservative when I say that I spent 30-40 hours on the phone trying to get reimbursed for this. "We have to check this warehouse and that warehouse. Checking takes 7-10 days. Try us back. You've called the wrong department let me transfer you. blah, blah blah." I think it was about 3 months later that I just gave up. Each time I'd call to inquire, I'd view all the previous time as a sunk cost. Aside from the few hundred dollars I was out on the gift, I lost a lot of time trying to get my money. They never denied losing it; they just didn't EVER want to give up trying to find it.

*********

The MOST frustrating thing is. Not only did I lose either the item, or much of the items' value and not only did I pay for shipping the item and get no refund, but to add insult to injury I ALSO paid for insurance that didn't pay out. I HATE UPS!!!
post #75 of 114
I would ask him to take 50% of the loss for not insuring it and split it with him.

I don't think I would ever send an item without insurance and signature confirmation. Also, ALWAYS wrap around the box with tape for the openings. It saves a lot of drama.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: B&S Archive
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › B&S Archive › Your advice sought on ebay dispute