What does "at the buyers risk" really mean?

[jaxs]

I'd hazard a guess that no such message exists. Most likely tracking looks like "left US" and then nothing.

Not sure how often you send items overseas with tracking - but when an item is being processed by customs, it will state the following:
"Customs Clearance, August 09, 2011, 4:56 pm, AUSTRALIA"

and when clearance done:
"Customs clearance processing complete, August 09, 2011, 5:20 pm, AUSTRALIA"

Never seen "left US" and then nothing...

 

[Thomas Linton]

So "insurance," if paid, is only payable to the shipper/seller? What kind of insurance for the buyer is that?

 

[ooitzoo]

Not sure how often you send items overseas with tracking - but when an item is being processed by customs, it will state the following:
"Customs Clearance, August 09, 2011, 4:56 pm, AUSTRALIA"

and when clearance done:
"Customs clearance processing complete, August 09, 2011, 5:20 pm, AUSTRALIA"

Never seen "left US" and then nothing...

And if it fails customs, what does that look like? Howabout outside of australia? Is this uniform throughout the world?

Fact is, very simply, my policy is that I take no responsibility for postal theft once the package leaves the US. This policy is spelled out for anyone (who requires international shipping) doing business with me in advance. If one is unhappy with that then they are free to cancel a deal anytime they like.

 

[jaxs]

So "insurance," if paid, is only payable to the shipper/seller? What kind of insurance for the buyer is that?

I guess that's why there would be a bit of angst for international buyers when there are caveats like 'at buyer's risk' - who rely on the seller/shipper to initiate the claim with USPS and return any monies paid out to them by USPS.

 

[ooitzoo]

I guess that's why there would be a bit of angst for international buyers when there are caveats like 'at buyer's risk' - who rely on the seller/shipper to initiate the claim with USPS and return any monies paid out to them by USPS.

Its simple: the seller agrees to assign any payment from an insurance claim to the buyer. I am not sure how else this would work.

Also, instead of raging at American sellers on the forums, might I suggest that non-US buyers rage at their respective governments' ridiculous rules. I imagine that these are democracies that we're talking about; ultimately these people were elected and its up the residents of a given country and its up the residents to make the appropriate change.

 

[tendy]

Its simple: the seller agrees to assign any payment from an insurance claim to the buyer. I am not sure how else this would work.

Also, instead of raging at American sellers on the forums, might I suggest that non-US buyers rage at their respective governments' ridiculous rules. I imagine that these are democracies that we're talking about; ultimately these people were elected and its up the residents of a given country and its up the residents to make the appropriate change.

Respectfully, I don't read anyone raging here, just frustration, people just want to be treated equally, after all we did pay the same for a membership to BF to have the privilege to buy and sell on BF to begin with. Also even if the shipping is $5 different the principle is what matters. I have heard over and over how important integrity is on this forum. As for ridiculous rules, I don't imagine you have to look further than NYC when it comes to silly knife rules, we are all in the same boat, collecting a item which the media has deemed "evil".

 

[ooitzoo]

Respectfully, I don't read anyone raging here, just frustration, people just want to be treated equally, after all we did pay the same for a membership to BF to have the privilege to buy and sell on BF to begin with. Also even if the shipping is $5 different the principle is what matters. I have heard over and over how important integrity is on this forum. As for ridiculous rules, I don't imagine you have to look further than NYC when it comes to silly knife rules, we are all in the same boat, collecting a item which the media has deemed "evil".

What does "treated equally" mean? International buyers/traders are inherently different then CONUS buyers/traders. If you don't agree with this then there isn't anything to really discuss here.

I don't see how acknowledging the difference lacks integrity in any way. Maybe you can explain this.

I've literally never had a problem with shipping/carrying in NYC. Not even close. There certainly is no documented evidence of NYC seizing private packages between individuals. This is quite contrary to Europe/Asia/etc.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Its simple: the seller agrees to assign any payment from an insurance claim to the buyer. I am not sure how else this would work.

I have never seen that language used. Did I just miss it?

 

[ooitzoo]

I have never seen that language used. Did I just miss it?

What do you mean? If I sell you something and we agree that you take the delivery risk (no reason for that to happen in Ohio but still) and then we get insurance. Let's say the package gets lost then I file an insurance claim; once that gets paid out I send over the cash. Obviously, if it takes a year then it takes a year.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I mean I have never seen a solicitation of an offer to purchase that both states that risk of loss passes on shipment and that the buyer is the beneficiary of any insurance purchased by the seller.

I am sure that could be the agreement.

 

[jaxs]

Its simple: the seller agrees to assign any payment from an insurance claim to the buyer. I am not sure how else this would work.

Also, instead of raging at American sellers on the forums, might I suggest that non-US buyers rage at their respective governments' ridiculous rules. I imagine that these are democracies that we're talking about; ultimately these people were elected and its up the residents of a given country and its up the residents to make the appropriate change.

I don't think anyone is raging, merely trying to find a situation where all buyers and sellers here can buy and sell with no worries. These little details need to be worked out.

If there was a forum rule stating that seller/shipper must initiate an insurance claim on behalf of buyer and return all monies paid out by that insurance claim to the buyer, then I'm sure many international buyers will be more at ease.
However, I'm not sure how this could work. Which is why a general rule stating seller has responsibility for item until delivery confirmation is received would be more straightforward.

Not sure how there could be a political solution in our own countries, because this is an issue concerning insurance bought from the USPS by US residents for goods originating from the US and payment for these goods to the US.
Insurance is purchased by the seller/shipper and is the responsibility of the seller/shipper, which is why USPS will only accept a claim and return any monies from that claim to the seller/shipper.

 

[jill jackson]

I see a knife being sold and this statement made " however, once I drop it off at the post office, it is no longer my responsibility. The knife is sold as is/no returns." (yes one was just sold with that exact statement)

It seems to me this would be against the rules here at BF, to sell under the condition, there are no returns and it should be against the rules to not take any responsibility for the knifes delivery. After all insurance is for the seller's protection and unless the knife is being shipped overseas where no insurance is available and the buyer agrees to take the risk, it should fall on the seller to ensure delivery. A statement such as that should not in my opinion be allowed, in a for sell thread. I myself would never purchase a knife from a seller stating that.

 

[jill jackson]

I would also like to add that, eBay does not even allow it's sellers to make such statements, or to not take responsibility for delivery. They do allow sellers to block buyers from certain countries, they don't feel comfortable shipping to. I feel BladeForums should at least hold it's sellers to the same standard.

 

[ooitzoo]

I don't think anyone is raging, merely trying to find a situation where all buyers and sellers here can buy and sell with no worries. These little details need to be worked out.

If there was a forum rule stating that seller/shipper must initiate an insurance claim on behalf of buyer and return all monies paid out by that insurance claim to the buyer, then I'm sure many international buyers will be more at ease.
However, I'm not sure how this could work. Which is why a general rule stating seller has responsibility for item until delivery confirmation is received would be more straightforward.

Not sure how there could be a political solution in our own countries, because this is an issue concerning insurance bought from the USPS by US residents for goods originating from the US and payment for these goods to the US.
Insurance is purchased by the seller/shipper and is the responsibility of the seller/shipper, which is why USPS will only accept a claim and return any monies from that claim to the seller/shipper.

The political situation has to do with customs policy; effectively stealing some percentage of items. It has nothing to do with insurance.

Ultimately, if the buyer wants insurance then they pay for it.

I see a knife being sold and this statement made " however, once I drop it off at the post office, it is no longer my responsibility. The knife is sold as is/no returns." (yes one was just sold with that exact statement)

It seems to me this would be against the rules here at BF, to sell under the condition, there are no returns and it should be against the rules to not take any responsibility for the knifes delivery. After all insurance is for the seller's protection and unless the knife is being shipped overseas where no insurance is available and the buyer agrees to take the risk, it should fall on the seller to ensure delivery. A statement such as that should not in my opinion be allowed, in a for sell thread. I myself would never purchase a knife from a seller stating that.

I am not sure how its against BF trading rules. If I tell you that this is my policy in advance of a trade or sale then what is the problem? (No one has been able to answer this directly) Its at your sole option to not go thru with the trade/sale. Its no different then if told you the knife had a ton of blade play; if you know that to be the case and go thru with the trade then you've got no reason to complain.

I would also like to add that, eBay does not even allow it's sellers to make such statements, or to not take responsibility for delivery. They do allow sellers to block buyers from certain countries, they don't feel comfortable shipping to. I feel BladeForums should at least hold it's sellers to the same standard.

So let's put it to the international community: would you prefer to buy/trade with the "at buyers risk" language OR simply have folks unwilling to ship internationally? Unfortunately, that is the choice in most cases.

 

[jaxs]

The political situation has to do with customs policy; effectively stealing some percentage of items. It has nothing to do with insurance.

Ultimately, if the buyer wants insurance then they pay for it.

But we're not disputing that buyer should be responsible for customs issues. At least no one on this thread has done so thus far...
And no one is disputing that buyer should pay for insurance if it is wanted.

I guess the ambiguity lies in what exactly does 'at buyer's risk' pertain to:

-Just customs issues?
-Lost and damage items as well?

If risk includes everything and seller bears no responsibility whatsoever, then what is the point of getting insurance when insurance has to be claimed by and is paid to seller?

 

[jill jackson]

The insurance is to protect the shipper, not the person that buys the knife. I would never ship a knife without it. I've had them lost before and I had to file claim and I had to get my money back and I had to reimburse the buyer. Why? Because it was my knife and I was the one sending it, it didn't become the buyer's knife until it was delivered. All that trying to hang delivery responsibility on the buyer is a load of crap. It's not the buyer's responsibility it's the sellers, like it or not. And yes if you don't feel comfortable shipping a knife to anybody, or anyplace that is your call too. The only exception to this is when sending a knife overseas and insurance is too expensive, or unobtainable and the buyer does agree to take the risk, rather than to not have it sent. Otherwise, spend the few dollars extra and protect yourself, as it's still your knife until it's delivered.

 

[ooitzoo]

But we're not disputing that buyer should be responsible for customs issues. At least no one on this thread has done so thus far...
And no one is disputing that buyer should pay for insurance if it is wanted.

I guess the ambiguity lies in what exactly does 'at buyer's risk' pertain to:

-Just customs issues?
-Lost and damage items as well?

If risk includes everything and seller bears no responsibility whatsoever, then what is the point of getting insurance when insurance has to be claimed by and is paid to seller?

Umm...it reads like folks are unhappy with taking the customs risk. I don't believe there is a way to differentiate between customs seizure and "lost"; even if there is its hard to see how a seller can be responsible for international PO's "losing" something. I can say that, in the US, its very infrequent. I cannot, however, say the same thing elsewhere in the world.

The insurance is to protect the shipper, not the person that buys the knife. I would never ship a knife without it. I've had them lost before and I had to file claim and I had to get my money back and I had to reimburse the buyer. Why? Because it was my knife and I was the one sending it, it didn't become the buyer's knife until it was delivered. All that trying to hang delivery responsibility on the buyer is a load of crap. It's not the buyer's responsibility it's the sellers, like it or not. And yes if you don't feel comfortable shipping a knife to anybody, or anyplace that is your call too. The only exception to this is when sending a knife overseas and insurance is too expensive, or unobtainable and the buyer does agree to take the risk, rather than to not have it sent. Otherwise, spend the few dollars extra and protect yourself, as it's still your knife until it's delivered.

Within the US, I agree.

Internationally, that's just not true. How can a seller be responsible for laws outside of the US? Again, the choice is simple: either take the "delivery risk" or we won't ship to you. I still don't see an answer.

 

[NMo4Show]

Originally Posted by jaxs
"If risk includes everything and seller bears no responsibility whatsoever, then what is the point of getting insurance when insurance has to be claimed by and is paid to seller?"

I'm sure any reasonable seller who receives the insurance money will forward that onto the buyer, otherwise they'd be receiving twice the amount of money. ooitzoo is a first class member with which I've had many great transactions and I don't see a single thing wrong with his point of view. There are plenty of knife dealers that will ship overseas, but it's gonna cost you a lot more.

 

[ooitzoo]

Originally Posted by jaxs
"If risk includes everything and seller bears no responsibility whatsoever, then what is the point of getting insurance when insurance has to be claimed by and is paid to seller?"

I'm sure any reasonable seller who receives the insurance money will forward that onto the buyer, otherwise they'd be receiving twice the amount of money. ooitzoo is a first class member with which I've had many great transactions and I don't see a single thing wrong with his point of view. There are plenty of knife dealers that will ship overseas, but it's gonna cost you a lot more.

Thanks Nmo. I am not sure how this is causing so much controversy.

 

[AusieGav]

I have never had a problem paying for shipping, I do not feel the seller should eat that expense. The only thing that irks me, is when a seller offers free shipping in the USA but then charges full shipping rates to International customers. IMO the seller should deduct the difference, and the buyer pays the remaining costs. It just seems like the fair thing to do.

+1 for this