Stolen card please keep an eye out - And do I have any recourse?

[Luke]

Got my mail today, and one of the envelopes was slashed open and the contents missing. When I checked the tracking number, I was dismayed to find that it was a rare card - Steinfeldt with factory 30 number showing

Is there anything I can do about this? If so, any advice would be much appreciated.

And please keep an eye out for this card. It is pretty distinctive. Thank you.

[D. Bergin]

Do you have a secure mailbox? Surprised the USPS would have delivered that without a "Contents Missing" slip attached to it.

Last time I had an empty package delivered to me, it could easily be deduced to be due to very poor packing. Yours definitely looks rifled through.

[Luke]

Yes, it's a locking mailbox.

[cardsfan73]

I am also surprised it was delivered w/o the usual tag that I have seen when a package is delivered opened/damaged. I am not sure what re-course you have. You might try reaching out to the local post-master.

Really sorry this happened to you Luke.

[Jeffrompa]

I would talk to the Postmaster first if you don't get the answers you are looking for contact the Postal Inspectors they are the Police of the Post Office thats just down right theft .

[drcy]

Not to make light of the loss, but Seinfeld covered postal inspectors-- interrogation under the hot lights and all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

For not much more than what the envelope and postage cost him, the seller could have shipped in a small flat rate box.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For not much more than what the envelope and postage cost him, the seller could have shipped in a small flat rate box.

Sure, but it was slashed open with a box cutter. That would work on a box as well. I don't have any problem with the card being sent in an envelope, just with the person who stole it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

Sure, but it was slashed open with a box cutter. That would work on a box as well. I don't have any problem with the card being sent in an envelope, just with the person who stole it.

Seems less likely to me, although you could be right.

[egbeachley]

I'm not a lawyer, but that's not going to stop me.

If you ask for a refund from the seller, which you are entitled to since it was not delivered to you in good condition, then the seller is the owner of the card if (when?) found. If you take the loss then you get the card when found.

[z28jd]

There are a few people looking for T206 cards with sheet numbers, myself included, so if that comes up for sale, you'll know it.

[Luke]

I hadn't even considered the possibility that it could be anything other than theft. That would be amazing if it could be found.

Am I really entitled to a refund from the seller?

[itjclarke]

That is a really really bad and really suspicious. Sorry to see that Luke.

I still generally like the USPS and always choose them over other couriers, but they have really tested my trust recently. Earlier in the year I really had it out with a PO employee over what he was trying to charge me to ship/insure some cards. Coincidentally, I also had a rash of broken SGC cases (maybe 3-4, posted pics here), and two lost packages (later found). Shortly after, I phoned in a few complaints, one against the employee himself. I also told my trusted courier Peter that I suspected this guy may be doing this intentionally. Peter said he didn't think there's anyway the office employee would do this, but oddly I have had no broken or missing mail since.

Good luck, I hope you at least get reimbursed.

[Northviewcats]

Sorry that this happened to you. I believe that you may be able to get up to $50 back because all first class packages come with insurance. I don't know how this works, but your postmaster should be able to help you with the process. Action may have to originate with the seller.

Best of luck.

Joe

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

I hadn't even considered the possibility that it could be anything other than theft. That would be amazing if it could be found.

Am I really entitled to a refund from the seller?

I haven't looked it up, but from memory, in a transaction where you don't specify, risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers the goods to a common carrier. But don't take that as gospel.

[Joem36]

I will keep a look out for it Luke.

Joe

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I haven't looked it up, but from memory, in a transaction where you don't specify, risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers the goods to a common carrier. But don't take that as gospel.

I'm near positive that eBay policy is that the seller is responsible for getting the item to the buyer. If not, what would stop any seller from "mailing" a defective package with the item falling out and keeping the item.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

I'm near positive that eBay policy is that the seller is responsible for getting the item to the buyer. If not, what would stop any seller from "mailing" a defective package with the item falling out and keeping the item.

Did he say it was ebay?

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Did he say it was ebay?

Good point.

But I still think this rule applies to any mail transaction that does not contractually describe transfer occurs upon shipping to a common carrier or shipping is under the control of the buyer through dome manner.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Good point.

But I still think this rule applies to any mail transaction that does not contractually describe transfer occurs upon shipping to a common carrier or shipping is under the control of the buyer through dome manner.

And your basis for that opinion is what please? The basis for mine is the Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And your basis for that opinion is what please? The basis for mine is the Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

I'm assuming the sale had no written contract requiring the use of a common carrier or the use of a third-party entrusted with the possession upon further delivery instructions. Rather, this was an ordinary merchant transaction where risk passes to the buyer upon delivery.

Seller: Thanks for the purchase. What's your address?
Buyer: 123 Main St
Seller: Cool Beans. I'll mail it to you tomorrow.

That's either a "destination contract" or a merchant transaction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

I'm assuming the sale had no written contract requiring the use of a common carrier or the use of a third-party entrusted with the possession upon further delivery instructions. Rather, this was an ordinary merchant transaction where risk passes to the buyer upon delivery.

Seller: Thanks for the purchase. What's your address?
Buyer: 123 Main St
Seller: Cool Beans. I'll mail it to you tomorrow.

That's either a "destination contract" or a merchant transaction.

The buyer ALWAYS gives an address, otherwise the seller would have no way to get it there. I think without more that's still just a shipment contract. But I will take another look.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And your basis for that opinion is what please? The basis for mine is the Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

Right or wrong this is what I do. I pay for cards with pictures of famous dead people through the mail. I don't consider my cards paid for till the seller has my $ in hand. I also don't consider the cards mine till I have them in hand. I don't care how or when they got mailed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How to Spot a Destination Contract Various contract terms help distinguish destination contracts. The following terms will typically point to a destination contract: 1) FOB (Free on Board) – when delivery term in the contract states "F.O.B San Francisco" and the buyer or its distribution or logistic channel is located in San Francisco, the FOB clause points to a destination contract. The seller may be obligated to: Transport goods to the buyer’s destination Transport at the seller’s own expense Tender the goods at the buyer’s destination Assume the risk of loss during transportation 2) Ex Ship – This means "from the carrying vessel." In other words, the seller may be obligated to: Pay freight bills Ensure the goods leave the ship at destination Ensure the goods get unloaded 3) No arrival, no sale – This is a clause that gives the seller a little bit more leeway. The seller doesn’t assume liability unless the goods are damages due to the seller’s own actions. - See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar....ycBZLpga.dpuf

SO, I still think the deal at issue, and the one in Eric's example, is just a shipment contract where risk of loss passed to the buyer.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Northviewcats

Sorry that this happened to you. I believe that you may be able to get up to $50 back because all first class packages come with insurance. I don't know how this works, but your postmaster should be able to help you with the process. Action may have to originate with the seller.

Best of luck.

Joe

Joe, I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that Priority Mail comes with $50 of free USPS insurance ($100 of free USPS insurance when through eBay), but not so First Class Mail.
Val

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Right or wrong this is what I do. I pay for cards with pictures of famous dead people through the mail. I don't consider my cards paid for till the seller has my $ in hand. I also don't consider the cards mine till I have them in hand. I don't care how or when they got mailed.

That pesky law might disagree with part two.
2) Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods, despite any reservation of a security interest and even though a document of title is to be delivered at a different time or place; and in particular and despite any reservation of a security interest by the bill of lading
•(a) if the contract requires or authorizes the seller to send the goods to the buyerbut does not require him to deliver them at destination, title passes to the buyer at the time and place of shipment; but
•(b) if the contract requires delivery at destination, title passes on tender there.

It's really the same concept as risk of loss: title and risk of loss pass together.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SO, I still think the deal at issue, and the one in Eric's example, is just a shipment contract where risk of loss passed to the buyer.

Nope. There is no written contract here (not a big assumption). This is a "merchant transaction", look it up in the UCC Code you referenced earlier. Therefore risk does not transfer until received by buyer.

Also, common sense tells us that if it was FOB shipping point that there would mail delivery chaos since anyone could pretend to ship an item that gets lost in transit. That would be the easiest scam in existence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Nope. There is no written contract here (not a big assumption). This is a "merchant transaction", look it up in the UCC Code you referenced earlier. Therefore risk does not transfer until received by buyer.

Also, common sense tells us that if it was FOB shipping point that there would mail delivery chaos since anyone could pretend to ship an item that gets lost in transit. That would be the easiest scam in existence.

So you have withdrawn the claim about it being a destination contract, and now want to talk about the merchant provision. OK, let's do that.

I don't think you are reading it right. The merchant provision only applies to cases not within the first two clauses. It says so clearly. And who says there isn't a contract, either via eBay or an exchange of emails? It seems self-evident that there was a contract where Luke authorized the seller to ship the card to him. And who says the seller is a merchant here, could just be a casual collector. If someone became a merchant just by virtue of selling something, the term would have no meaning at all.

As to your second point, the overwhelming majority of people are honest and not looking to screw people over, so it doesn't impress me. Your argument is basically, the law must be what I say it is, otherwise people would act differently. So many assumptions built into that...

PS To be clear, we are just talking about the basic provision of the UCC, which may or may not be the law in any given state. And as Eric said earlier if it was an ebay transaction, eBay's own rules may apply. But still (for me anyhow) a good academic discussion perhaps because it's a problem as to which there is no good answer -- both Luke and the seller did what they were supposed to do here, and the loss isn't either of their faults.

[PolarBear]

My understanding, from being in the coin hobby many years ago, was always that the risk passes to the buyer when the item is shipped. The buyer (or seller) may mitigate that with insurance. Ebay or other rules aside, in the end, the buyer is on the hook if the seller can prove the item was shipped.

Even with ebay/paypal rules, if the seller can show the item was "delivered", ebay is going to side with the seller. In this case it was "delivered". I know the whole thing sucks but the buyer is probably going to be on the hook unless the seller just wants to issue a refund because he's a nice guy.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Nope. There is no written contract here (not a big assumption). This is a "merchant transaction", look it up in the UCC Code you referenced earlier. Therefore risk does not transfer until received by buyer.

Also, common sense tells us that if it was FOB shipping point that there would mail delivery chaos since anyone could pretend to ship an item that gets lost in transit. That would be the easiest scam in existence.

It works two ways. Common sense also tells us anyone could pretend to receive an item in the mail with tracking confirmation, put a slit in the package and say the item never arrived. That would also be the easiest scam in existence.

Unfortunately in Luke's case, the Post Office screwed up and didn't put a "Contents Missing" notice on his package. It has Delivery Tracking (which is all that Ebay requires if this is such a transaction). That would make things a little clearer for an Insurance claim.

A claim could be made by the seller that Luke put that slit in the package himself. They could also claim it was pilfered from his mail box somehow.

As a seller, Delivery Confirmation is the only tool you have going in your favor. You cannot guarantee to your buyer that his mailbox is secure on the other end. He could have a mailbox on the corner of Please-Steal-This Drive and Gold Buillon Avenue for all the seller knows.

If this is an Ebay transaction, Luke could possibly file an Item Not Received claim through Ebay. If Delivery Confirmation shows the package was delivered (sans card or not), the seller can accelerate the claim to be found in his favor, and the defect expunged from his record. If Luke is lucky, Ebay will still pay off the claim to Luke out of their own coffers instead of the sellers, if this is not a recurring theme with his account.

.....or Luke can contact the seller, see what he says and they may be able to come to some sort of an agreement without going through the EBay bureaucracy.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you have withdrawn the claim about it being a destination contract, and now want to talk about the merchant provision. OK, let's do that.

I don't think you are reading it right. The merchant provision only applies to cases not within the first two clauses. It says so clearly. And who says there isn't a contract, either via eBay or an exchange of emails? It seems self-evident that there was a contract where Luke authorized the seller to ship the card to him. And who says the seller is a merchant here, could just be a casual collector. If someone became a merchant just by virtue of selling something, the term would have no meaning at all.

As to your second point, the overwhelming majority of people are honest and not looking to screw people over, so it doesn't impress me. Your argument is basically, the law must be what I say it is, otherwise people would act differently. So many assumptions built into that...

PS To be clear, we are just talking about the basic provision of the UCC, which may or may not be the law in any given state. And as Eric said earlier if it was an ebay transaction, eBay's own rules may apply. But still (for me anyhow) a good academic discussion perhaps because it's a problem as to which there is no good answer -- both Luke and the seller did what they were supposed to do here, and the loss isn't either of their faults.

Good discussion thus far.

I know there is a contract upon the sale, even if it's verbal, but I think the UCC Code is referencing a real written contract with terms and such. That's why I believe the merchant contract applies. And any seller can be considered a merchant in this case.

I agree with the premise that most people are honest and that "common sense" doesn't mean legal. But there is just no way, in my opinion, that we just discovered a legal loophole where informal sales can be an easy source of a scam of this magnitude.

Just to be clear, I don't think there was anything nefarious going on here between the buyer and seller.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Good discussion thus far.

I know there is a contract upon the sale, even if it's verbal, but I think the UCC Code is referencing a real written contract with terms and such. That's why I believe the merchant contract applies. And any seller can be considered a merchant in this case.

I agree with the premise that most people are honest and that "common sense" doesn't mean legal. But there is just no way, in my opinion, that we just discovered a legal loophole where informal sales can be an easy source of a scam of this magnitude.

Just to be clear, I don't think there was anything nefarious going on here between the buyer and seller.

It's not oral. You meant oral, not verbal, presumably. It's most likely evidenced either by a winning ebay bid, and subsequent invoice and payment, or by an email exchange setting out the main terms, and a paypal or check payment. Anyhow, if you think you can read a UCC provision better than I can, based on what you "think" it's referencing, so be it. You're wrong there too by the way the UCC applies to oral contracts; certain ones need to be in writing to be enforced but that wouldn't apply here anyhow because there has been performance. If you're interested though, read up on the statute of frauds.

[Joshchisox08]

Ouch not the Lukester!!! Nice damn card too.

I'll keep an eye out for ye. You'd have to imagine that whomever stole it wouldn't be dumb enough to list it on eBay though. (Or maybe they are).

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

Ouch not the Lukester!!! Nice damn card too.

Out of order. This is a legal battle. Be seated.

[JollyElm]

Hey Luke,
I didn't read all the replies, so sorry if I'm repeating what was already said, but to be safe maybe you should block out your address on the picture you posted here.

[JustinD]

In a much similar situation I had a purchase that I never received. The tracking stated it was delivered, however I have no idea as to where as I don't have it.

I filed a claim with PayPal and then my credit card, both avenues were fruitless. The provided tracking number from the seller stating it was delivered shut them both immediately. They would not even discuss it.

I am left holding an empty bag.

Sorry, but I think this is the same situation you will find yourself in.

[xplainer]

Sorry to hear about this Luke.

As far as insurance goes, the seller has to claim it through the PO. I've done before on a item I shipped that got broken. I refunded the buyer - who supplied pictures of the broken item. Filed claim online had had my insurance money within three days.

Also, this community will find the card when it surfaces.

Best of luck Luke.

[Buythatcard]

I am not saying that the following story happened here but it was a similar situation. Several years ago, I had a buyer who had the same situation. He won a 1964 Topps coin from me which cost 99 cents. He claimed that the envelope arrived with a slit at the bottom and there was no coin. I didn't think twice about refunding his 99 cents. About a year later, I get an email from a buyer who also won a 1964 Topps coin for 99 cents, and claimed his envelope was slit and there was no coin. I said to myself that sounds fishy. I checked back on my old eMails (I save any emails which there is a problem with an order), and saw that this was the exact same buyer trying to pull one over on me a year later. I confronted him with my findings and never heard from him again. I wonder how many times he has pulled that stunt. I never did file a complaint with eBay because it was only 99 cents but probably should have.

To the op, I suggest that not only do you block your address in the photo (as someone else suggested), but also block the sellers address. The seller did not do anything wrong and his address should not be publicized.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

I am not saying that the following story happened here but it was a similar situation. Several years ago, I had a buyer who had the same situation. He won a 1964 Topps coin from me which cost 99 cents. He claimed that the envelope arrived with a slit at the bottom and there was no coin. I didn't think twice about refunding his 99 cents. About a year later, I get an email from a buyer who also won a 1964 Topps coin for 99 cents, and claimed his envelope was slit and there was no coin. I said to myself that sounds fishy. I checked back on my old eMails (I save any emails which there is a problem with an order), and saw that this was the exact same buyer trying to pull one over on me a year later. I confronted him with my findings and never heard from him again. I wonder how many times he has pulled that stunt. I never did file a complaint with eBay because it was only 99 cents but probably should have.

To the op, I suggest that not only do you block your address in the photo (as someone else suggested), but also block the sellers address. The seller did not do anything wrong and his address should not be publicized.

Howard,
I know Luke and I know it happened exactly as he says. I know you weren't stating that it happened like in your story, but I wanted to state this as fact.

I can only guess that it happened locally in the PO or the delivery person. Otherwise it would have been noticed and tagged as such.

Also, a bump. Don't want this to thread die.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by xplainer

Howard,
I know Luke and I know it happened exactly as he says. I know you weren't stating that it happened like in your story, but I wanted to state this as fact.

I can only guess that it happened locally in the PO or the delivery person. Otherwise it would have been noticed and tagged as such.

Also, a bump. Don't want this to thread die.

Thanks Jimmy. Yeah, not quite sure why Howard would tell that story in this thread. I can't imagine he would have any reason to question my honesty. Thanks everyone for all the advice and information. I haven't had a chance to talk to my postmaster yet due to Thanksgiving preparation, but I will update if I have any news (hopefully good).

[rjackson44]

Good luck luke your a class act

[rainier2004]

I'd be curious to know who you have told PO wise that you ship and receive vintage bb cards in the mail. That is one malicious looking slit, like they knew exactly what was inside. My postal ladies know all about my cards, but we never discuss price and I think they are nearing a couple hundred years old. I don't have the stat off hand, but in a case of robbery it is usually someone you know. I'd be looking hard at that PO staff in your town...and I like the USPS but I have also been robbed before.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

I'd be curious to know who you have told PO wise that you ship and receive vintage bb cards in the mail. That is one malicious looking slit, like they knew exactly what was inside. My postal ladies know all about my cards, but we never discuss price and I think they are nearing a couple hundred years old. I don't have the stat off hand, but in a case of robbery it is usually someone you know. I'd be looking hard at that PO staff in your town...and I like the USPS but I have also been robbed before.

++
My thoughts too.

[Luke]

This is good advice for everyone to pay attention to. In my case, I don't think it is the problem. I live in a big city and don't have any personal interactions with my postal employees other than when I mail something off (which is rarely because I print my labels through PP). But even then, I don't use my local post office for that. I don't think I've told anyone other than my friends and girlfriend what I do with baseball cards.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

This is good advice for everyone to pay attention to. In my case, I don't think it is the problem. I live in a big city and don't have any personal interactions with my postal employees other than when I mail something off (which is rarely because I print my labels through PP). But even then, I don't use my local post office for that. I don't think I've told anyone other than my friends and girlfriend what I do with baseball cards.

That maybe true, but who ever did it, sure seems to have known what was inside.

By chance, was it from an auction house? May be to tip them off?

Just a guess.

EDIT: After looking at the envelope again, this dawned on me.
It was delivered 9:57am Nov 20. There is no way the PO delivery person scanned the barcode and did not notice the cut. It goes right through the code. I have to say it is post delivery without a doubt. Well, in my way of thinking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Would it even scan with that ripped barcode? I would be cross examining the girlfriend.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Would it even scan with that ripped barcode? I would be cross examining the girlfriend.

Haha. Peter, do you have a glass eye and wear a raincoat?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by xplainer

Haha. Peter, do you have a glass eye and wear a raincoat?

LOL no just a dumb lawyer.

[xplainer]

Haha. Yeah. Been around here long enough to know you Peter. I was just thinking Columbo for some reason.

A bump to keep this near the top. Let's find this card!
T206 cards matter.