Getting my ducks in a row....

Status
Not open for further replies.
And you are wrong. You are trying to wiggle out of a legal rule that has been in effect for generations. You don't pick and chose words out of context to find the rule.

Wikki:

"Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Such considerations generally come into play after the contract is formed but before buyer receives goods, something bad happens.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:

Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls. [You coukld have agreed the risk pass FOB your address. But you didn't.)

Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.

Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations

If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller."


Or one can look at the law itself: UCC 2-509:

"(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but

(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.
"

Here, there was an agreement as to a "particular destination" - the buyer's address. The risk of loss is on you.
 
Hi Spinny -

You don't have any receipt for the $400 you paid for the SNG? IF you used paypal, you can use the transaction (check the link I posted above for the USPS site, section 3.2 - how to show value - it clearly states that you can use the paypal transaction record if the item was paid for with paypal, or you can use a catalog picture showing price, or you could have the manufacturer provide a value.

You sent a valuable knife and you could have shown the value of it, just like you stated the value in your trade thread.

But - all water under the bridge, I don't necessarily trust that I would ever be able to collect on an insurance claim, but I still use it.

Again - I have my fingers crossed that you will see your package pop up soon - completely on your side on that part of the issue all the way.

best

mqqn
 
Spinny said:
Well here's what I found as it relates to the Uniform Commercial Code and losses. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_of_loss

"3. Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
1. Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations"

The buyer and I both agreed that we would deliver the knives which were to be traded to USPS on a particular day. That, in my opinion, was the extent of our delivery obligations. Now I would never be the guy who says: "I did my part, so screw you, dude!" Even though based on the above I certainly could...and earn myself a negative feedback at the same time I'm sure.

Also, I looked up the USPS insurance claims process here: http://pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/dmm300/609.pdf

Per section 3.2 of this document there's no way I could have provided any proof of value under these circunstances, so whether or not insurance was purchased is irrelevant as USPS would obviously not be covering a potential loss. If anyone has successfully filed a claim under similar circumstances, I'm all ears.

It's clear that the buyer held up his end of the bargain. But it's equally clear that I've held up my end too. I've done everything that I was supposed to do per our agreement. I packaged it properly and delivered it to the agreed upon third party shipper. Never did I say that I will personally guarantee its delivery. If that had come up in our conversation, obviously measures would have been taken beforehand. And yes, in all future transactions it will now come up ;) But I've sent and received literally hundreds of packages via USPS and never has one been lost completely so it's not something I've worried about. And I've always trusted that the other party--whether buyer or seller--would respond reasonably if such a loss were to occur. And I'm confident that the many people with whom I've done business with would be willing to agree. As some have stated, if it were ENTIRELY my responsibility to ensure the goods are delivered to him in hand, short of driving from Florida to Pennsylvania I'm not sure that anything else could be 100% guaranteed. What I can't seem to understand is how a buyer can make the ASSERTION that a seller should be held ENTIRELY LIABLE for a loss when it's obvious that the seller did EXAXCTLY what was agreed upon. In this situation the fault is clearly a third party (USPS) with whom there is unfortunately no recourse. Because there is no recourse, I see it as equally the fault of the buyer and seller.
Click to expand...

Your primary confusion lies in that you think you completed your delivery obligations, which you did not do, unless the item GETS DELIVERED.

If it does not get delivered, you are responsible to make the recipient whole. Again, your failure to protect yourself falls on YOU, not the recipient.
Now, had the recipient expressly stated "do not insure the package, I will take full responsibility if it is lost/damaged/stolen/etc.", you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, not so much.

"Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller."
 
Spinny said:
Well here's what I found as it relates to the Uniform Commercial Code and losses. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_of_loss

"3. Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
1. Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations"

The buyer and I both agreed that we would deliver the knives which were to be traded to USPS on a particular day. That, in my opinion, was the extent of our delivery obligations. Now I would never be the guy who says: "I did my part, so screw you, dude!" Even though based on the above I certainly could...and earn myself a negative feedback at the same time I'm sure.

Also, I looked up the USPS insurance claims process here: http://pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/dmm300/609.pdf

Per section 3.2 of this document there's no way I could have provided any proof of value under these circunstances, so whether or not insurance was purchased is irrelevant as USPS would obviously not be covering a potential loss. If anyone has successfully filed a claim under similar circumstances, I'm all ears.

It's clear that the buyer held up his end of the bargain. But it's equally clear that I've held up my end too. I've done everything that I was supposed to do per our agreement. I packaged it properly and delivered it to the agreed upon third party shipper. Never did I say that I will personally guarantee its delivery. If that had come up in our conversation, obviously measures would have been taken beforehand. And yes, in all future transactions it will now come up ;) But I've sent and received literally hundreds of packages via USPS and never has one been lost completely so it's not something I've worried about. And I've always trusted that the other party--whether buyer or seller--would respond reasonably if such a loss were to occur. And I'm confident that the many people with whom I've done business with would be willing to agree. As some have stated, if it were ENTIRELY my responsibility to ensure the goods are delivered to him in hand, short of driving from Florida to Pennsylvania I'm not sure that anything else could be 100% guaranteed. What I can't seem to understand is how a buyer can make the ASSERTION that a seller should be held ENTIRELY LIABLE for a loss when it's obvious that the seller did EXAXCTLY what was agreed upon. In this situation the fault is clearly a third party (USPS) with whom there is unfortunately no recourse. Because there is no recourse, I see it as equally the fault of the buyer and seller.

.....and for the record I still think it'll get delivered. So this whole thread is just a big "what if..." at this point. But I see where most people's heads are at. And I thank everyone who's taken the time to chime in.
Click to expand...
I think as others have stated that you're likely getting worried about this too soon.

However, I also see early damage control in the event things don't work out. The shipper is responsible for the item until received by the buyer, period. Insurance is offered to protect the shipper for that reason. You made the choice to ship without that security.

You received what he shipped, his obligation is complete. If it turns out that he doesn't receive your shipment, the deal is off, and the trade reversed. I'm sure it's not nice to hear, but it's right.

I sympathize with you, and hope that delivery is delayed due to the time year. Hopefully you'll be updating this thread soon with the package arriving safely.
 
Thomas Linton said:
You don't pick and chose words out of context to find the rule.
Click to expand...

I chose the words which were applicable. The bold words in your post are not applicable. Firstly, because the FOB is the seller's city, it would therefore be a delivery contract, not a destination contract, with risk of loss again on the buyer.

And your quote of UCC 2-509 says "Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier...if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery."

Generally speaking, yes I believe the above would hold true. However, I believe a contract can be constructed in any manner so long as both parties agree. My belief is that our verbal agreement circumvented this. I see plenty of threads specifically stating terms that the seller is not responsible for jack once the item is tendered to the carrier.

robgmn quoted "Breach...." there was no breach.

mqqn - Yes I have a paypal receipt, but nowhere does it clearly state the goods being purchased. The more I read about the USPS insurance claims process the more worthless it seems.

Having a beer now and signing off for the night. Thanks again everyone.
 
knifehunt said:
I know first hand, how about that. You go ahead and make a trade, have it get lost then try to collect the insurance. Good luck to you.
Click to expand...

Having had a package lost (in a pass around), its really not THAT bad. You have to wait a little bit (about 2 weeks) but otherwise you're fine.
 
hope your package makes it there eventually, but I personally would be pissed if you thought for one second that its in anyway my fault and that I would have to split the loss with you.
 
Spinny,

You are not getting this. As the shipper it is your package until it is delivered. Justifications otherwise are silly. You are making a bad case for yourself here. Who would want to deal with you after this logic has been displayed?
 
Hrmm..If I was a potential buyer/trader,..I could potentially pass on any items for sale or trade based on Spinny's belief or disbelief of shipping liability..

Just a thought though.
 
I created this thread to see if my logic made sense to anyone. Apparently it does not to the majority. Ultimately I'll do whatever I need to do to make the buyer happy.

I'm going to close this thread because I believe it's purpose has been served. And further discussion isn't needed. Since the tracking link is posted anyone interested in the resolution can simply check the link for updates. Or in the unlikely event that it's never delivered, I'll gladly share the outcome in a new thread.
 
Spinny said:
If you had done everything correct on your end and documented it as I did....then YES, and YES actually.
Click to expand...

My opinion, nothing more.
When you sell someone a knife, it is your full responsibility to ensure that knife makes it to the intended destination. Using an envelope is not a good idea. Search the forums, there are stories of knives being lost that way all the time. There is also a chance the blade can cut itself out of the package and then the empty envelope arrives with a a note from the post office claiming the knife was lost in transit (not their fault, rather yours for poorly packing an item).

ALWAYS use a box, unless you can use a bubble mailer and wrap it in such a way with so much tape that it will not be damaged, or have the potential to cut itself out of the packaging. I've shipped a dozen knives at least with bubble mailers, but I take the crap out of them, I wrap the knives in layers of tape and bubble wrap before going into the envelope.
Part of a good reputation is the way you package your items and ship them. I've bought items from people and gotten them in a box with no tape, and no packing material, yes, a knife loose flopping and banging around inside the box. It was crazy seeing that because I wouldn't do that.

For fixed blades (with no sheathes or boxes), always use blue painters tape on the cutting edge, then wrap some cardboard around the blade and make a sheath. Tape it so that there can be no way for the blade to work itself loose. Let the buyer know that they will receive the knife in that condition, otherwise they might freak out when they see it as they might be newbies. One never knows, but taking care of your reputation means insurance on items according to Paypal's rules if that is what you use based on the dollar amount, signature confirmation if necessary. THose things are cheaper than having to replace a $400 knife or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top