trimcut123
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,107
Without saying who your buddy was.... Did he yet end up paying back the seller... Or are they taking another route?
Matt B.
Matt B.
-
All For Sale threads must have a pic showing the knife being sold with written date listed, your username & Bladeforums or BFC to prevent photo harvesting from elsewhere - scammers hate this one trick! The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Looking for Opinions
- Thread starter Darkfin
- Start date
- Status
trimcut123
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,107
Upon further examination of this case...
This should be taken care between the two... In this situation with the proof that the knife was sent indefinitely... The seller should not be 100% liable....
If i was the buyer i would not ask for a full refund.. honestly i would not... I don't know if someone else would.. Perhaps the difference could be split 50/50.... The seller may not have given the option for insurance but the buyer did not ask either...
If the seller does offer insurance and it is declined... Then the seller has no obligation to repay for the lost or stolen knife... I think it would show bad character on the buyers part.. to dispute that...
If i could i would change my poll vote to "Other" and in this situation the buyer and the seller should be understanding and be able to come to a good medium..
This should be taken care between the two... In this situation with the proof that the knife was sent indefinitely... The seller should not be 100% liable....
If i was the buyer i would not ask for a full refund.. honestly i would not... I don't know if someone else would.. Perhaps the difference could be split 50/50.... The seller may not have given the option for insurance but the buyer did not ask either...
If the seller does offer insurance and it is declined... Then the seller has no obligation to repay for the lost or stolen knife... I think it would show bad character on the buyers part.. to dispute that...
If i could i would change my poll vote to "Other" and in this situation the buyer and the seller should be understanding and be able to come to a good medium..
Rifon, I don't know why you deleted this, as I thought it an excellent post, thus I am reposting it. If you prefer I take your name off of this post, I will do so, but felt I should offer credit where credit is due. Honestly, I am embarrassed I never thought to check the UCC in the first place!
Again, excellent on-point post, thank you.
*******
Generally, the *Uniform Commercial Code* ("The UCC") governs the law of delivery of goods.
The pertinent to the issue at hand is:
*§ 2-504. Shipment by Seller.*
Where the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer and the contract does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, then unless otherwise agreed he must
(a) put the goods in the possession of such a carrier and make such a contract for their transportation as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and other circumstances of the case; and
(b) obtain and promptly deliver or tender in due form any document necessary to enable the buyer to obtain possession of the goods or otherwise required by the agreement or by usage of trade; and
(c) promptly notify the buyer of the shipment.
Failure to notify the buyer under paragraph (c) or to make a proper contract under paragraph (a) is a ground for rejection only if material delay or loss ensues.
Also pertinent to the issue at hand is:
*§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.*
(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.
(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer
(a) on his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
(c) after his receipt of posession or control of a non-negotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.
*(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.*
(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this Article on sale on approval (Section 2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Section 2-510).
So, since there was no breach of the agreement, reasonably assuming that the seller was not a "merchant",
*The seller's responsibility ended when he delivered the goods to the carrier.*
The UCC gives the buyer an "insurable interest" in the goods, and if the buyer wants to protect the goods he is entitled to obtain insurance.
************
It just goes to show that the law and popular opinion do not always agree.
Again, excellent on-point post, thank you.
*******
Generally, the *Uniform Commercial Code* ("The UCC") governs the law of delivery of goods.
The pertinent to the issue at hand is:
*§ 2-504. Shipment by Seller.*
Where the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer and the contract does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, then unless otherwise agreed he must
(a) put the goods in the possession of such a carrier and make such a contract for their transportation as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and other circumstances of the case; and
(b) obtain and promptly deliver or tender in due form any document necessary to enable the buyer to obtain possession of the goods or otherwise required by the agreement or by usage of trade; and
(c) promptly notify the buyer of the shipment.
Failure to notify the buyer under paragraph (c) or to make a proper contract under paragraph (a) is a ground for rejection only if material delay or loss ensues.
Also pertinent to the issue at hand is:
*§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.*
(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.
(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer
(a) on his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
(c) after his receipt of posession or control of a non-negotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.
*(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.*
(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this Article on sale on approval (Section 2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Section 2-510).
So, since there was no breach of the agreement, reasonably assuming that the seller was not a "merchant",
*The seller's responsibility ended when he delivered the goods to the carrier.*
The UCC gives the buyer an "insurable interest" in the goods, and if the buyer wants to protect the goods he is entitled to obtain insurance.
************
It just goes to show that the law and popular opinion do not always agree.
Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 77,067
There might be some validity to that idea, if you ever find a contract that "does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination."
I interpret that to mean the contract "does not require HIM to deliver...." (i.e., the contract does not specify that the actual seller himself is required to personally hand deliver the goods, as opposed to having them sent via a carrier.)
Well, Darkfin, I appreciate your kind words.
Thank you.
I deleted the post because it was just getting too involved, and I didn't
want to place the equivalent of a real legal memorandum here on BF.
Just thought it was "too much".
Also, my personal opinion as to what the right thing to do differs from the legal information I found and posted.
[And since I don't practice law, none of the info I'm posting on this is meant to be "legal advice".
]But being that you've re-posted it, I'm going to re-re-post it with a bit of bolding to hopefully make it an easier/quicker read...
Also, FWIW, here's an entry on the topic from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_of_loss
OK, here it is:
Generally, the Uniform Commercial Code ("The UCC") governs the law of delivery of goods.
Pertinent to the issue at hand is:
§ 2-504. Shipment by Seller.
Where the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer and the contract does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, then unless otherwise agreed he must
(a) put the goods in the possession of such a carrier and make such a contract for their transportation as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and other circumstances of the case; and
(b) obtain and promptly deliver or tender in due form any document necessary to enable the buyer to obtain possession of the goods or otherwise required by the agreement or by usage of trade; and
(c) promptly notify the buyer of the shipment.
Failure to notify the buyer under paragraph (c) or to make a proper contract under paragraph (a) is a ground for rejection only if material delay or loss ensues.
Also pertinent to the issue at hand is:
§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.
(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.
(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer
(a) on his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
(c) after his receipt of posession or control of a non-negotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.
(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.
(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this Article on sale on approval (Section 2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Section 2-510).
_____________________________________
So, since there was no breach of the agreement, and reasonably assuming that the seller was not a "merchant",
The seller's responsibility ended when he delivered the goods to the carrier.
The UCC gives the buyer an "insurable interest" in the goods, so if the buyer wants to protect the goods he is entitled to obtain insurance for them.
_______________________________________
As a practical matter, though, from a business point of view the seller might want to work with the customer to ensure customer satisfaction.
I know I would.
Generally, the Uniform Commercial Code ("The UCC") governs the law of delivery of goods.
Pertinent to the issue at hand is:
§ 2-504. Shipment by Seller.
Where the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer and the contract does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, then unless otherwise agreed he must
(a) put the goods in the possession of such a carrier and make such a contract for their transportation as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and other circumstances of the case; and
(b) obtain and promptly deliver or tender in due form any document necessary to enable the buyer to obtain possession of the goods or otherwise required by the agreement or by usage of trade; and
(c) promptly notify the buyer of the shipment.
Failure to notify the buyer under paragraph (c) or to make a proper contract under paragraph (a) is a ground for rejection only if material delay or loss ensues.
Also pertinent to the issue at hand is:
§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.
(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.
(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer
(a) on his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
(c) after his receipt of posession or control of a non-negotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.
(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.
(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this Article on sale on approval (Section 2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Section 2-510).
_____________________________________
So, since there was no breach of the agreement, and reasonably assuming that the seller was not a "merchant",
The seller's responsibility ended when he delivered the goods to the carrier.
The UCC gives the buyer an "insurable interest" in the goods, so if the buyer wants to protect the goods he is entitled to obtain insurance for them.
_______________________________________
As a practical matter, though, from a business point of view the seller might want to work with the customer to ensure customer satisfaction.
I know I would.
Yes...this contemplates the seller himself physically delivering the goods - for example in his own company's truck -
as opposed to the seller placing the goods with a third party carrier for delivery.
The (BF) community standards appear to be be higher than the legal minimum requirement, so your "right thing" may be THE "right thing" here. i.e., the buyer may not have legal standing, but the seller's BF reputation may suffer if he only adheres to the UCC standard.
Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 77,067
I think you are misinterpreting the law in ways that will not hold up in court either. Most notably, although it is possible and legal to agree to a contract that specifies delivering the goods to a point other than the buyer's door, unless you get a buyer to sign such a contract those clauses of the law have no relevance to your transaction.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am a dork with an internet connection and this is dork advice.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am a dork with an internet connection and this is dork advice.
Interesting poll. Personally, if the seller did not mention anything about ins. (Whether that it's included or additional cost), I'd ask that 1/2 the amount be paid back to me by the seller, providing that there's reasonable proof that the item was sent (DC#, returned package should have weight stamped onto it, etc). I figure the seller did his/her part & shoudn't be 100% liable for the PO's shortcomings (As much as we all complain about the postal svc., they do an amazing job considering the huge quantities of mail/packages that they send), so I figure both should share in the loss.
However, it wouldn't be out of the question for the seller to pay back the full amount just because he/she didn't provide at least the option for ins.
Something that I've found interesting while reading through all the posts is that is seems everyone wants "hobbyists" to act like stores/businesses, but with hobby prices. One of the reasons a business marks up a product is to pay or absorb such costs that most everyone seems to want the seller to pay for. I used to find it amusing when I read quite a bit of legalize on someone's F/S thread, but after reading this & other situations, I have a better understanding as to why. I also didn't/don't care for people that sell an item at a comparable price, but then add an additional amount for shipping (Like I said, I "thought" we're all hobbyists), but I can understand that more, now. While most of us don't want to pay more, I think we may see shipping added to the cost of buying or maybe a slight increase in the price of things as it becomes more of an issue. Of course, that's IF it becomes more of an issue, but I think that I can now figure who's had problems (Again, people that have quite a bit of legalize on their thread, must have it there for a reason & probably because of a past incident).
Great thread/poll, Darkfin.
However, it wouldn't be out of the question for the seller to pay back the full amount just because he/she didn't provide at least the option for ins.
Something that I've found interesting while reading through all the posts is that is seems everyone wants "hobbyists" to act like stores/businesses, but with hobby prices. One of the reasons a business marks up a product is to pay or absorb such costs that most everyone seems to want the seller to pay for. I used to find it amusing when I read quite a bit of legalize on someone's F/S thread, but after reading this & other situations, I have a better understanding as to why. I also didn't/don't care for people that sell an item at a comparable price, but then add an additional amount for shipping (Like I said, I "thought" we're all hobbyists), but I can understand that more, now. While most of us don't want to pay more, I think we may see shipping added to the cost of buying or maybe a slight increase in the price of things as it becomes more of an issue. Of course, that's IF it becomes more of an issue, but I think that I can now figure who's had problems (Again, people that have quite a bit of legalize on their thread, must have it there for a reason & probably because of a past incident).
Great thread/poll, Darkfin.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,910
:thumbup: that was very well said and i agree
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 154
It is the buyers responsibility to get payment to the seller
If the seller doesn't receive it he is not going to ship, this is 100% right 100% of the time, intent does not matter, only receipt of the payment. So the converse is also true, replace buyer with seller and payment with knife in sentence above.
Many of us here have sold numerous items on ebay, I know I have had to refund buyers because a knife got lost ( insert someone at the USPS has a nice new spyderco ). If I order something from sears and 4 weeks later I don't have it do you think they will get away with saying, "Well I'm sorry but we shipped it, better luck next time"? It is the seller's responsibility to deliver the merchandise to either the buyer or the buyers agent. Whether the seller decides to put it in the mail, UPS, Fedex or deliver in person. It was the sellers CHOICE to give it to the post office instead of giving it directly to the buyer.
If the seller doesn't receive it he is not going to ship, this is 100% right 100% of the time, intent does not matter, only receipt of the payment. So the converse is also true, replace buyer with seller and payment with knife in sentence above.
Many of us here have sold numerous items on ebay, I know I have had to refund buyers because a knife got lost ( insert someone at the USPS has a nice new spyderco ). If I order something from sears and 4 weeks later I don't have it do you think they will get away with saying, "Well I'm sorry but we shipped it, better luck next time"? It is the seller's responsibility to deliver the merchandise to either the buyer or the buyers agent. Whether the seller decides to put it in the mail, UPS, Fedex or deliver in person. It was the sellers CHOICE to give it to the post office instead of giving it directly to the buyer.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 154
The above law was taken out of context, it only applies when the shipping carrier is acting as an agent for the buyer. This normally happens when the buyer has arranged the shipping and the contract specifies seller is responsible for making goods available to the carrier for shipment be it either by delivery to the carrier or arranging for the carrier to to have access to pick up the item.
All that aside, most of us are just good ole boys who like sharp pointy things. If he didn't get it then I'm gonna send his money back regardless.
All that aside, most of us are just good ole boys who like sharp pointy things. If he didn't get it then I'm gonna send his money back regardless.
But Sears obviously, is a "merchant" to which a different rule applies.
Of course it's worth repeating that the seller - merchant or not - wants a happy customer!
So IMO you "bite the bullet" and take care of the customer.
- Status