This Ain't a Box of Grandma's Cookies!

[PeterPHWS]

Well as a lawyer over here my thoughts would be to look at where "fault" lies in this .... to me the fault primarily lies with the USPS for delivering to the wrong address .... a cause of action for the declared value of the package would be possible .... if the package had no declared value and the USPS have limited their liability by contract to $100 ( going off the links in John the Texican's post ) then that is probably all that is available from them.

Turning to the situation vis a vis the two traders ..... if there is a common desire to do the best for each other without one party bearing all the loss .... the sender of the lost package could look at his home insurance and see if a claim could be lodged there. Especially given that exclusions for lost property where it is insured elsewhere would not apply here as none was taken out. If it could come under lost home contents whilst in transit then that would be a good way round matters. The trader missing his end of the deal could perhaps agree some form of way forward on this basis ???

The £100 available through the USPS claim ( again just going off info in the links ) should help cover what is lost through any insurance excess if the home insurance has that aspect to it ..... maybe by this route some financial compensation could be made available to the sender who had his package lost and he could in turn return the knives Barbarrosa sent .... this seems to me the best way forward.

Finally as to "litigation" being an option between the two traders as opposed to looking at USPS .... well .... let's not go there just now .... far better to see how things can work out by helpful co-operation.:thumbup:

 

[JohnTheTexican]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTheTexican View Post
FWIW, this is covered by § 2-509 of the Uniform Commercial Code I believe Article 2 of the UCC has been adopted by all US jurisdictions except Louisiana.:



In other words, legally speaking, unless agreed otherwise, when the contract of sale calls for delivery at a certain address, the risk of loss in shipping falls on the seller. Which might make you think that when you buy a knife and the seller ships it to a particular address, the seller bears the risk. Not so. Courts say that unless there's a term in the contract like "F.O.B. buyers place of business," it'll be presumed that it's a shipment contract rather than a delivery contract, and the risk passes to the buyer when the knife is delivered to the USPS (or other carrier), and it's up to the to the buyer to make arrangements for insurance, if he wants it.

For a more in depth explanation, see here, beginning at paragraph 13.

Caveat: While I may be a lawyer in real life, I don NOT play one on the Internet. This is posted for entertainment purposes only, and is not intended as legal advice.
Excellent post. That's what I meant by "there's more to it", the evidence you can present to the court regarding the initial agreement between seller and buyer is important in how the court looks at it.
__________________

If I am not mistaken, the UCC applies only to merchants. I don't think it would apply to people trading goods probably would not fall under UCC (I play a criminal attorney in real life, but I don't pretend that I really payed attention in that class).

You are mistaken. Some portions of it apply only to merchants, but the relevant parts of § 2-509 apply to everyone. It probably ought to be limited to transactions between merchants since it runs contrary to what most people think the law is or should be, but that's not the way the law's written.

 

[JohnTheTexican]

Rules like § 2-509 of the UCC are great as long as the rules are generally known so people know what to expect and know when they need to negotiate something different from the default rule.

But while the law may put the risk on the buyer, if I were selling something and it got lost in shipping, I'd refund the money unless the deal explicitly stated that the risk was on the buyer. Regardless of what the law actually says, I think that's what the vast majority of people think the law is or should be, and standing on legalities on a situation like that just seems bad for business.

Of course, just sending everything insured takes care of most of the problem (at least to the extent insurance is available). And if the buyer wants to decline insurance for a lower price, that's fine too, as long as the buyer explicitly acknowledges that he's accepting to accept the risk of non-delivery.

 

[doindonuts]

******

 

[LMT66]

Still waiting for 31% of voters to identify themselves. :yawn:

 

[Jaxx]

I just got one today sold as $$shipped and insured . It was left in my mailbox on the street in the middle of a neighbors party.
No insurance no signature. Honorable Man is a Dieing Breed.
Good luck Barbarossa.

Unfreakinbelievable!! This kind of crap irritates me too... Your Seller should refund this specific amount for insurance as it is stated as part of the deal, and NO DOUBT factored into the price you paid. I don't care if the package shows up intact, flanked by armed guards and sitting on a nice soft pillow... :grumpy: If insurance is stated as part of the deal, then it SHOULD BE part of the deal. Whatsammatter with people these days?????????? ...So, who IS the Seller who neglected to insure your package after making you pay for it?

Still waiting for 31% of voters to identify themselves. :yawn:

Same here.

 

[Barbarossa]

I just got one today sold as $$shipped and insured . It was left in my mailbox on the street in the middle of a neighbors party.
No insurance no signature. Honorable Man is a Dieing Breed.
Good luck Barbarossa.

I missed your post earlier drift draft. Thanks Jaxx for bringing it up again. I'm happy you received yours. I believe that maybe it should be a standard here for everything to be shipped fully insured with signature confirmation as a default.

 

[resinguy]

Agreed. If you payed with the expectation of insurance, and the package was not insured, then IMHO you are due a refund.

I know that some sellers use the term "insurance" loosely, and by it mean they alone will cover any shipping loss. Good for them, but if I see in a sale thread that the shipping will be insured, then it is not unreasonable of me to expect that the insurance is actually paid to the package delivery company,, and NOT the seller's pocket.

Some Companies ( Busse among them ), choose to not pay for USPS Insurance. They have made the business calculation that the rare loss of a shipment does not exceed the cost of insuring every package.

 

[lsheldon]

In my opinion, the shipper (seller) is responsible for the safe delivery of an item to the receiver (buyer).

I won't ship a Busse (or any other like priced knife) without insuring it. Regardless if the receiver pays for insurance or not.

Anyone with any sense is going to take the safe route. Well packaged and insured is the only way to go.......

My 37 cents worth (inflation).

 

[harkamus]

I disagree with it being the shipper's responsibility. There are plenty of extras that can be added or assumed on a shipped package. If it wasn't discussed, the shipper is only obligated to the bare minimum. "Shipping Included" can be interpreted too many ways to be assumed. "Only a few bucks extra" doesn't mean anything. One dollar that you don't have may as well be $20.

In a perfect world, the right thing would be to insure regardless. Realistically though, its a black and white scenario. Insurance wasn't asked for, it costs extra and the shipper fulfilled the basic obligation of the transaction. Its a lesson learned.

This is my thought as well. IMO, it's the buyer's responsibility to ask for insurance. Otherwise you just end up gambling.

For something expensive, I always ask for insurance. If it's something that I don't mind a whole lot if it gets lost, I don't bother. Yes, I'd be out of X amount of money, but I wouldn't beat myself up over something not worth a whole lot.

 

[JavaHog]

As a buyer I now always confirm that an item is insured or not, especially when purchasing from an individual.

Every comany and every individual does things differently. There is no standard. I make no assumptions with my hard earned money.

On BF and elsewhere, unless is explicitly states insured shipping, I assume that insurance is not included, and will confirm with the seller to see if insurance is included. If not, then I request insurance. No insurance no purchase.

When I sell anything of value I state insurance included or insurance extra. I used to have it optional but don't do that anymore. For inexpensive (under $50) items I might user signature confirmation at the buyer's risk if they have solid feedback. I won't use delivery confirmation, because that can be left anywhere like in a box out on the street. DC is worthless.

Bottom line. I now have two simple rules:
1) I won't buy something unless I confirm that it is insured.
2) I won't ship something of value that isn't insured.

 

[killa_concept]

As a buyer I now always confirm that an item is insured or not, especially when purchasing from an individual.

Every comany and every individual does things differently. There is no standard. I make no assumptions with my hard earned money.

On BF and elsewhere, unless is explicitly states insured shipping, I assume that insurance is not included, and will confirm with the seller to see if insurance is included. If not, then I request insurance. No insurance no purchase.

When I sell anything of value I state insurance included or insurance extra. I used to have it optional but don't do that anymore. For inexpensive (under $50) items I might user signature confirmation at the buyer's risk if they have solid feedback. I won't use delivery confirmation, because that can be left anywhere like in a box out on the street. DC is worthless.

Bottom line. I now have two simple rules:
1) I won't buy something unless I confirm that it is insured.
2) I won't ship something of value that isn't insured.

Exactly what I think the moral of this thread is. Expect nothing unless it's explicitly stated

 

[knife hunter]

I come and see this on a holiday ....


Especially, considering its Memorial Day Weekend. As, I previously stated, I do not agree with the 44 percent.

I will really look at who I buy from but especially who I trade with and how.

I am honestly astounished with the results. Surely, theres a bunch of non-HOgs voting...maybe even folks just doing it on purpose. either way it blows

 

[Izhmash]

I come and see this on a holiday ....


Especially, considering its Memorial Day Weekend. As, I previously stated, I do not agree with the 44 percent.

I will really look at who I buy from but especially who I trade with and how.

I am honestly astounished with the results. Surely, theres a bunch of non-HOgs voting...maybe even folks just doing it on purpose. either way it blows

Makes you wonder where America is headed, doesn't it? :grumpy:

 

[J. Oeser]

I come and see this on a holiday ....


Especially, considering its Memorial Day Weekend. As, I previously stated, I do not agree with the 44 percent.

I will really look at who I buy from but especially who I trade with and how.

I am honestly astounished with the results. Surely, theres a bunch of non-HOgs voting...maybe even folks just doing it on purpose. either way it blows

I'm with you. And I think there might be a little of this going on. I know I will continue to be very careful who I deal with. :grumpy:

 

[iamtoast]

If the receiver is paying the extra for insurance then the shipper should pay if the items are lost. If the receiver refused to pay for the extra cost of insurance and delivery confirmation then they should be the ones out of luck. If insurance and delivery confirmation was not discussed prior to the exchange of moneys then I do not have a real opinion either way but to say it should have already been discussed.

 

[drift draft]

If the receiver is paying the extra for insurance then the shipper should pay if the items are lost. If the receiver refused to pay for the extra cost of insurance and delivery confirmation then they should be the ones out of luck. If insurance and delivery confirmation was not discussed prior to the exchange of moneys then I do not have a real opinion either way but to say it should have already been discussed.

What if the receiver refused to pay for the extra cost of insurance and delivery confirmation but the shipper/seller buys the insurance anyway? By ''out of luck'' do you mean if lost, the seller should keep the money from the sale and also pocket the insurance settlement if lost?
This could get deep.
1 Buy insurance.
2 Do the right thing.

 

[BlackNinja]

If the seller posts: “price includes shipping and insurance,” then I think it is the sellers responsibility to pay for anything lost. I always insist on insurance, even if it means I have to pay the extra $$$ (IMO, its well worth the $5 - $10 extra to have it insured).
If the buyer does not insist on insurance, then they are SOL – unless the seller assured the buyer that the item in question will be insured. My 2 cents FWIW.

 

[legaleagle]

Think drift draft nailed it- Do the right thing. Look at how Jerry handled the deciphering contest. I would rather come off some money than wonder if I did someone wrong.