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 6

post #76 of 114
Do veteran ebay sellers have better experiences collecting on insurance? compfi's story more or less sums up my expectations from the shipping insurance. I admit I have never filed a claim--mainly because I have heard far too many stories like this to buy insurance with the idea that I would waste hours of my time pursuing a refund.

Sellers should self-insure. Buyers will pay more than actual postage with no questions asked. Sellers should add a bit of self-insurance and drop the fantasy that buyers would be protected if only they were prudent enough to pay extra postage for a service (this shipping insurance) that's widely regarded as wasted money. Self-insure by adding a buck or two to your S&H charge and drop all language about postal insurance. Also drop all the silliness of "I will not be responsible for your delivery but you can trust that I will be a great representative for you against the carrier if they deliver your suit into a puddle of filthy water."

Are there not many stories, in addition, of boxes being opened because they were insured for hundreds of dollars? Is the insurance sticker not also a "steal me" sticker? This may be an urban legend, that well-insured boxes are opened by thieves in the system. But as a postal service customer, it makes sense to me. I would not insure a priority mail box containing, for example, a valuable watch, for several hundred dollars. I would send registered mail or priority in a box disguised as a care package from grandma. I would love to be disabused of this notion by a series of stories about the efficiency and honesty of the insurance claim departments at the major carriers. But I've never heard them.
post #77 of 114
I think whether to self insure or not is all about quantity. Each transaction includes a certain amount of risk. If I'm only selling a couple of big ticket items then I may not be willing (or financially able) to take that risk. Someone else who is a major seller can easily diversify away the risk of any individual transaction. Someone who sells a large quantity of goods would be crazy IMO to not self-insure. There are two obvious benefits. One, no need to waste countless hours of time begging for the insurance payout. Two, why let the insurer earn a profit, when you can save that money yourself? If the risk of loss is 0.75 percent and the insurer is charging 1 percent, then there a quarter percent savings right there.
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
Um:

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.
.

I don't think it would qualify as a legally binding agreement. Especially when compared with the e-bay agreement the seller and uyer agree on when clicking the bid button. I think that it is likley that this would overrule the situation.

But as others have said your overcomplicating the situation somewhat. Either you re-fund him the $40 ( although $40 in credit would be a better option which you can probably get away with). or you get a neg feedback and a lot of hassle from the customer though the disputes process. You have to decide which is worth more to you.
post #79 of 114
As I said, that may be, but I've yet to see anyone offer more than speculation. BTW, I'm not the one who started the thread, it wasn't my item.
post #80 of 114
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, I just bought 3 almost identical polo shirts on ebay from 3 different sellers. One charged $9 shipping, one $7.50 and one $4.65. All said shipping was by priority mail. All offered insurance. Somehow, I was more sympathetic to the low priced shipper's request for an additional amount for insurance than the others who were clearly charging more for shipping than it cost. At $9 to ship a polo shirt, I think delivery should be included in that I think there is enough additional being charged for the seller to self insure.
post #81 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave5 View Post
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, I just bought 3 almost identical polo shirts on ebay from 3 different sellers. One charged $9 shipping, one $7.50 and one $4.65. All said shipping was by priority mail. All offered insurance. Somehow, I was more sympathetic to the low priced shipper's request for an additional amount for insurance than the others who were clearly charging more for shipping than it cost. At $9 to ship a polo shirt, I think delivery should be included in that I think there is enough additional being charged for the seller to self insure.

Shipping price does not require "actual" shipping costs. Some people like to charge a "handling" fee. Sometimes it can take 15 minutes packaging an item, getting the box, etc. To ask for $3-4 for that isn't unreasonable. (One off the cuff comparison is tipping a bartender $1-2 for 10 seconds of work for pouring a drink he's suppose to be pouring you as part of his job, yet people continue to tip). Additionally, people use shipping, (rightly or wrongly, I don't care, and hopefully it doesn't start a side discussion) to defray the astronomical fees e-bay charges for listing, final value, and paypal.

But I agree, if you're going to mark up the shipping, do it in such a way as the seller absorbs the insurance. If buyer says shipping is too expensive, they can either not bid on the item, or realize insurance comes along with it. If I bid on shoes and the seller says $20 for shipping, which includes insurance, I'm not going to complain if I know there is an extra $5-8 mark up, but will be assured of delivery.
post #82 of 114
I am aware that there is usually some markuyp on shipping, although I don't think it takes 15 minutes to put a polo shirt into a priority mail package. My point is really, and I think you made the same point, that when I'm charged a shipping amount that obviously has a markup in it, it is irritating to be asked for an additional couple of bucks to insure a low priced item. It has the feeling of being nickel and dimed. Obviously, this is not true about an expensive item, like a $1000 suit, where you can tell if the shipping is including insurance.

Now while it is true that large stores typically charge more than postage costs for shipping, they are paying employees in the shipping department and have an out of pocket cost. In addition, they generally stand by delivery without a separate insurance charge. So if ebay sellers want to charge a handling fee with the postage, I don't know why they cannot have it include insurnace as well.
post #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
Um:



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.

Because unilaterally opting out does not constitute an agreement.

I'm surprised that posters here seem to believe that the seller performed as the contract specified.

Let's change a couple of facts. The seller sends the merchandise before the buyer pays. The buyer then puts money in an envelope and mail it to seller. Envelope never arrives. Has the buyer performed as the contract required?

There's a reason we don't send cash in the mail, that we pay with checks and credit cards and money orders. It's how we, as buyers, protect our end of the contract. We're responsible for getting payment into the hands of the buyer.

And the buyer is responsible for getting us the merchandise.

Lost in the mail, whether by buyer or seller, means the party putting item into the mail, is responsible.
post #84 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by auto90403 View Post
Because unilaterally opting out does not constitute an agreement.

I'm surprised that posters here seem to believe that the seller performed as the contract specified.

Let's change a couple of facts. The seller sends the merchandise before the buyer pays. The buyer then puts money in an envelope and mail it to seller. Envelope never arrives. Has the buyer performed as the contract required?

There's a reason we don't send cash in the mail, that we pay with checks and credit cards and money orders. It's how we, as buyers, protect our end of the contract. We're responsible for getting payment into the hands of the buyer.

And the buyer is responsible for getting us the merchandise.

Lost in the mail, whether by buyer or seller, means the party putting item into the mail, is responsible.

God, I wish I had put it this way a long time ago. Well stated!
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Because unilaterally opting out does not constitute an agreement.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of terms?? A buyer agrees to the terms of the sale by bidding. Pretty basic. And in this case there was the added element that the buyer DECIDED, CHOSE, OPTED, not to pay for insurance despite a recommendation to the contrary by the seller, and a clear statement that the seller would not be responsible for uninsured packages. Everyone seems to want to repeatedly dodge this, but it is the crux of the matter.

I'll put it this way. The seller states in the terms that the buyer can choose not to buy insurance but in such a case the buyer is agreeing that the seller is not liable for uninsured packages. The buyer chooses not to buy the insurance, and then attempts to force the seller to compensate him for the lost package, despite the earlier agreement. THAT is unilateral.

Again, I may be wrong, but cite something concrete, not just a repeated assertion that I am wrong.
post #86 of 114
I have not read the ebay policies, but is it the case that the buyer agrees to whatever terms the seller specifies by bidding? And that the implicit agreement is enforceable as a matter of ebay policy and the law? I think that is what is being discussed. Those "dodging" this are arguing that the seller does not have the legal right to unilaterally shift the risk of loss in transit simply by so specifying in the listing.

Now I don't know who is correct about this, but the question cannot be answered just by repeating that the seller specified the buyer would be responsible, and the buyer agreed by bidding. The buyer can just as well say he bid without intending to accept this term. So it depends on what the law is, and whether the specification by the seller is sufficient to constitute an agreement by the buyer if the buyer bids.

In fact, if the seller is legally liable (and again, I have no idea) there is no moral reason for the buyer to purchase the insurance just because the seller would like the buyer to buy it.
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of terms?? A buyer agrees to the terms of the sale by bidding. Pretty basic. And in this case there was the added element that the buyer DECIDED, CHOSE, OPTED, not to pay for insurance despite a recommendation to the contrary by the seller, and a clear statement that the seller would not be responsible for uninsured packages. Everyone seems to want to repeatedly dodge this, but it is the crux of the matter.

I'll put it this way. The seller states in the terms that the buyer can choose not to buy insurance but in such a case the buyer is agreeing that the seller is not liable for uninsured packages. The buyer chooses not to buy the insurance, and then attempts to force the seller to compensate him for the lost package, despite the earlier agreement. THAT is unilateral.

Again, I may be wrong, but cite something concrete, not just a repeated assertion that I am wrong.

No. Asserting something or unilaterally opting out does not constitute accepted terms to an agreement.

When the valet parker hands you a claim check which has printed on it some words about not being responsible for damage to your car, do you think you can't go after them if they scratch your bumper?
post #88 of 114
You assert, but offer nothing but your assertion. So for the last time, I admit there is a possibility I'm wrong, but ask for those who disagree to BACK UP what they are saying if they expect to prove a point.
post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Harris View Post
You assert, but offer nothing but your assertion. So for the last time, I admit there is a possibility I'm wrong, but ask for those who disagree to BACK UP what they are saying if they expect to prove a point.
You don't hang around CE much do you?

I'm not sure that putting terms in an ebay auction that "you agree to x by placing a bid" would be legally defensible, unfortunately. Ebay probably has overriding policies on that sort of thing.
post #90 of 114
I just spoke with my ebay account manager about this. It seems there is nothing in the ebay policies/user agreement that specifically cover this. He thinks it is purposely vague. But his feeling is that the seller is the one who will ultimately get screwed on the deal, he even cited circumstances where a buyer recieves the package, fraudulently claims damage, and ends up with the item AND the money. I suppose the only consensus that is going to be reached is to insure every package - no doing the buyers favors by making it optional, period.
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