It’s weird to me that anyone thinks the seller is free of all responsibility after shipping something.

I’ve been selling in this industry for 20+ years and that’s just not how people do business in this market.

Obviously communication is key between both parties but unless the package is stolen after delivery before pickup by buyer, it’s on the seller.

My father actually, I just try and hold a candle.

My wise father...
 

My Dad had many wise pieces of advice he said to me all the time...when faced with a tough decision, he would always say to me,

"Son, always try to do the right thing...and if you get burnt, then just sit on the blister."
~ Clarence Thomas (1928-2013)

What personal responsibility is a seller exactly escaping? Most b/s/t posts simply state, “1933 John Doe $225.00 shipped F/F.” Let’s examine the parties’ obligations under this clear, plain language contract.

Buyer: The buyer has satisfied his performance under the contract once he has timely sent the payment. The risk of loss is still with the seller at this point.

Seller: The contract only states “shipped.” The seller is only responsible for placing the card into a third-party carrier’s hands, paying the shipping expense, and providing the seller the relevant information (i.e. the carrier’s identity, and tracking number). After this has occurred, both parties have satisfied their obligations under the contract. The contract is satisfied and over. The risk of loss has now transferred to the buyer.

The seller has no obligation to ride on the third-party carrier’s plane, shadow the delivery person, and personally watch the delivery person hand the card to the buyer. The seller, under my above hypothetical, has no obligation to provide a refund if the package is lost.

If a third-party carrier loses an item, why is the alleged “right thing to do” for the seller to incur the lose? What did the seller do wrong? He did everything the contract required!

He has no control over the third-party carrier’s personnel, equipment, security, etc. This is the reason why there is a huge difference between a shipping contract and a destination/delivery contract.

Most members will shout, “but the buyer is also innocent and did nothing wrong.” Although the buyer didn’t cause the package to become lost, he agreed to the shipping contract’s terms. The parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. A deal is a deal.

Ignorance of the law and how the contract’s terms and conditions, which the buyer voluntarily entered into, work is no excuse - especially if the result is the seller taking the loss when he satisfied the contract.

The buyer certainly has the ability to negotiate better terms and conditions. No one made the buyer agree to enter into a shipping contract. The buyer had the ability to negotiate a destination/delivery contract. He also had the ability to negotiate G/S. The buyer could’ve negotiated the seller to buy shipping insurance for him. The buyer did not.

So, who is trying to avoid personal responsibility - the seller who satisfied the term’s of the contract or the buyer who is now adding terms and conditions, and trying to rewrite it once an item is lost?

Here's a thought. This whole thread was a shitshow from the start and yes both the buyer and seller share responsibility. Seller clearly could have communicated better and the buyer could have had more patience. Either way it could have gone much better for both without any talk of contractual obligations.

I know of one member here who offered to anonymously pay the $225 to the buyer to make him whole without any recourse from either party. Why? because it was Christmas, the buyer is a nice guy who just lost patience, and the seller has brain cancer.

Sometimes people just do something nice for fellow humans when it seems the right thing to do.

If I sell you a card and it doesn't get there, I am going to refund you even if you technically bore the risk of loss under the UCC or whatever set of rules, because it's the right thing to do. Sometimes being ethical requires going beyond the law.

When sellers say $225 shipped, I'm sure they mean no extra shipping charges. I've never took that to mean the seller is claiming once shipped, he is free from any responsibility.

To me it became a shitshow when the buyer, having learned the seller just had brain surgery, turned up the pressure on him by pointing out his posting history and complaining that he was not getting priority. Over a baseball card? Seriously? And yes, I get it that others disagree and that's fine.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with risk of loss.

I would agree with you Peter, bad form as they say.

The seller didn't communicate at all. If he feels the buyer is being impatient, that does not give him the right to ignore a buyer. This whole thing could have been avoided by the seller taking 10 seconds to reply and ease the buyers mind.

Pete, I agree. I’ve constantly stated throughout this thread that the proper etiquette is to reimburse. I only buy and sell $100 to $200 cards on here, as my two local card shops and other connections provide my bigger purchases, so I’m not too concerned with whether I get burned as a buyer or seller. Plus, I wouldn’t mess with the hassle.

However, I can’t blame some sellers if they don’t want to reimburse. You never know another man’s financial condition. Maybe the seller can’t afford to take the hit. I know there are a lot of wealthy people on here. I’m sure there are also collectors on here with limited budgets as well.

I’ve practiced law for the better part of two decades, and am just trying to educate and provide a perspective on both parties’ sides.

A seller can purchase insurance against that contingency, if worried about it.

Of course, communication solves most issue. I do find it odd that the seller is posting here without addressing a satisfactory solution to the transaction in question.

Two points to consider Well here is “Goods and services” vs “friends and family”.

Why is there such a thing as goods and services via PayPal? The buyer can pay for protection. The buyer chose not to pay the extra fee.

The other side of this - did the seller imply that he takes all risk by offering “friends and family”.? To me That’s the question

With these both in mind. Caveat emptor - the risk falls on the buyer. Protect yourself. When you don’t you should not cry foul in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 on Leon's explanation and I have a Feller in that weird issue Leon.

It has everything to do with risk of loss. Even though the card may be 3,000 miles away, you become the legal owner as soon as you pay the buyer. You don’t become the owner when you open the package at your house and physically take possession. You become the owner when payment is made.

However, despite your ownership before the card is even shipped, the question becomes when the risk of loss transfers from the seller (the possessor, but no longer owner) to buyer (the current owner, but not possessor).

“225 shipped F/F” means in exchange for $225, the seller will sell you the card and ship it to you. That’s it. There are no implied or other implicit conditions or terms. You can try to read them in all you want. Shipped does not mean delivered.

To the extent you are arguing the use of the word "shipped" suggests both parties understood it to be a "shipping contract" with what that implies for who bears the risk of loss, I disagree. Nobody thinks about it in those terms except maybe you LOL. But as to the legal effect of the contract, I agree with you, I was the first to post the relevant UCC provision if memory serves. But my point is that the ultimate question here is ethical, not legal.

When I buy something online, there usually is a charge for shipping not delivery. Are you saying that if I never receive the item, a company could tell me they fulfilled their legal requirement by sending out the item and it's not their fault it never arrived? Since you indicated in a later post you practice law, I am interested in the answer to my question because while I am fairly certain any company would issue a refund if an item never arrived, I would like to know if you are saying that legally, they wouldn't have to.

Friends and Family was never intended to be used to buy stuff. It was meant for sending money to friends and family.

In this sale the seller asked for F&F and didn't give an option that includes buyer protection. I think some people don't understand paying by F&F means giving up any protection that PayPal offers. This isn't the sellers fault, buyers should educate themselves.

If the seller accepts PayPal, they must abide by PayPal's terms and that means Goods and Services are protected until the product is delivered, not just shipped.

I’ve had that option as a buyer presented to me many times before. To pay with f&f. I will often add 3% and pay via goods and services in those instances. I don’t always do that but when I don’t I know I am taking a risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may be right. I’m probably one of the few that thinks about these things. I can’t turn it off. That is what a legal education and career does to you. :D

Ethically, I think the fair thing to do amongst friends is to split the loss. However, I’m sure this too won’t satisfy some of the folks here. They will want the seller to reimburse the buyer and pay him for his emotional distress. :p

I agree, I always add the 3% and keep my protection. Transactions can always go bad, if the OP used G&S, he'd have his money back.

In my fourth decade practicing and I have long since turned it off … well, sort of lol.

I understand that. But, the parties apparently negotiated and agreed to opt out of G/S, and agreed on F/F. The buyer lost all his protections at that point.

People are forgetting (or maybe they honestly do not know) that their experiences and transactions with/through large commercial companies, who have certain policies and rules, do not always apply to private individuals entering into a private contract. These large company transactions have created expectations that are not always the law, and do not always apply to private transactions. People, however, are applying these large companies’ rules and their conditioned consumer expectations to other contracts. This is a mistake. You cannot mix apples and oranges.

Sounds like you may have 20 years on me. I got an A+ in my UCC and secured transactions class by the way. Ha.

And it shows. :)

To the bold part. I have sold many items on here and used PP FF as one of several payments options accepted. I have no problem with the buyer then paying with regular PP as long as they pay the fees. I usually list stuff for the absolute cheapest I will sell it for. So it pisses me off when the buyer pays with regular PP and doesn't add the fees. Yes it is usually only a dollar or a few dollars but I still think it is BS.

To the original post, after a month a seller should refund no matter how bad USPS is at the time. If it does show up later the buyer needs to then pay the seller. Just my 2 cents.:)

I’ve enjoyed discussing/debating the law with you Peter. I’m an insurance defense attorney. Maybe if I pick up a few more insurance carriers or third-party administrator clients this coming year, I can afford some of your cards! You are always offering nice items.

It's funny, I just bought collectors' insurance and despite all my legal training and experience I just got too bored to read through all the fine print lol. I did, however, get the agent to confirm my understanding of the policy in writing which is something I suppose.

When I sell a card and state shipped it means free shipping, nothing else. There isn’t a person on this board who can guarantee that the card will be delivered. If the buyer wants insurance or priority shipping, he should state it. I am on the side of the seller on this one.

BS, there are many of us on this forum that guarantee the card(s) they sell will be delivered or a refund will be given.

You need to communicate that because it is not the norm on this forum. I would be pissed if you said shipped and didn't guarantee delivery.

Of course you can't guarantee it. But you can and should, and apparently according to the rules do, bear the risk of loss.

+1
or maybe even +2

Your understanding is exactly correct. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Concur. Standard practice of Amazon has forced every other e-business to guarantee delivery. Standard practice of internet sales should be expected on this site of collectors as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

This is like a law school Contracts I exam from First Year!

Larry (Buyer) is due a full refund of $225 + shipping from Brian (Seller).
Buyer never received card that he fully paid for and he should not bear any loss. Absent any language to the contrary, it is the Seller's responsibility to ensure mailing AND delivery of the card and if card is mailed but not delivered then Seller (Responsible Party) needs to refund the purchase amount.

As stated in an earlier post, 'parties can write their own contract.' You can always request/negotiate insurance be purchased on a card and incorporate that into the final price.

I don't understand why there is even a discussion of G/S v F/F via PayPal...to me both are irrelevant in this instance.

All that said Buyer does need to realize Seller did just have major surgery and have just a little more patience regardless of how many posts Seller has made in recent weeks.

It is still the Christmas season right?

Tony

A defined set of rules would certainly Cure some of the issues being discussed in this thread (sorry, couldn't resist).

"$225 shipped"

Plain language reading would mean shipped to the destination. If the destination is Toledo, I don't think "shipped to Buenos Aires" or "shipped to my cousin's house" qualifies as shipped under the circumstance. Shipped is short for "shipped to ___.

If shipped doesn't mean "shipped to you," and instead means "shipped to you or anywhere else in the world," then the word has no practical meaning and there would be no need for shipping insurance.

Not to say it isn't a "life is unfair" scenario for the seller you gave the package to the USPS. Sucks for the seller, and, as already said, it can be a financial problem for some people to have to suddenly reimburse the money.

If the seller means/wants something else ("My responsibility is to get it in the mail. If the USPS loses it, that's not my responsibility" or "$225 put it in the mail"), that can be written in the sales description.

When you sell a card, do you state that you guarantee delivery? No one states that. It is implied. A good seller will always refund but that’s not to say he has to.

Since you take the sellers side, do you think its ok for him to ignore PMs about lost package when he has the buyers $225 in his pocket?

Many times I will say "delivered" in my for sale posts. Other times I will say shipping but insurance is on the buyer if wanted. And other times I might say all shipping and insurance at the buyers expense (or words to that effect). And some other times I don't say anything and then I expect safe delivery is on me.

It is all about communication. But there won't be more rules on our forum for this. I don' feel the need to change now and don't like too many rules. If instituted they have to be enforced. The name/anonymity rule keeps me busy enough.

and to answer James' question right above. while I agree generally, with Brian's medical issues and postage the way it is, I think utmost patience should be given. In the end it is on the seller though if nothing was discussed.

Brian- I wish you a speedy recovery, btw


.

If I get my $$ to a seller then I expect the seller to get their card to me. Deal is done when both actions have occurred. Absent that someone needs to be made whole.

Leon, I don't necessarily disagree but at what point of no package and no response from seller is beyond being patient? I'd say a month is past that point.

The seller posted here on quite a few occasions in that time so a simple PM "I'm sorry, I'm having health issues" isn't too much to ask. Otherwise, how does the buyer know sellers situation? I assume the OP isn't heartless.

It is for you to get your money to the seller. Chances are you do it electronically.

I don't disagree he should have communicated. IF he is posting other stuff he can sure send a PM or email to the buyer. And 1 month is pretty long but right now I would almost give it about 6 weeks. But that is just me. A month is generally more than enough time without the holidays and the USPS issues.

Meanwhile, everything I order from Amazon arrives on time, whether it goes through the USPS or not.

I don't agree, but Cammb's points are legitimate.

People should be clear in their sales description what they mean. I don't think it's a bad argument to say "If the USPS loses it...," but, from this thread, that's obviously not what many buyers expect. Thus, be clear in the sales description.

Further, insurance can be the option of the buyer, and if the buyer chooses not to pay for postal insurance, then that buys into Cammb's argument that the buyer is choosing to take that chance on the item possibly being lost or damaged in the mail. There, it could be fairly argued that is on the buyer.

Seller in description: "I'm not responsible for the USPS's errors. You are welcome to pay for insurance, but if you choose not to have the item insured that is your choice, I am not responsible for loss or damage caused by USPS." That's a fair enough thing to say.

Obviously, Paypal, credit card company and Facebook are final arbiters of where the money goes or stays, making many arguments moot.

Also, you're choosing to take the risk when you pay with F/F. The buyer can't claim entire innocence when agreeing to do that, as he is both agreeing to give up normal protections and it involves some dishonesty.

To me, the simplest lesson here that bears repeating and is applicable in virtually any context - is that if you are buying something like a baseball card of moderate or more value from someone outside of a forum with another stated guarantee (i.e. eBay...) then DO NOT send funds FF via PayPal. They will not cover you, because the implication is that you were giving someone money, not paying for a good or service. Just because a seller has a good reputation on a forum, or nobody else has ever had an apparent problem with them in the past does not mean your particular transaction will go off without a hitch. (Anymore, likely...) the USPS is having horrible issues and sometimes takes longer to deliver packages these days than the time in which they might have been reasonably considered flat out lost in just the recent past. The seller might have major health issues, and not be able to communicate as expected.

All could have been avoided with PayPal G&S. Honestly even though it is increasingly more expensive, this is why I sometimes stick to buying things through eBay, because their guarantee is that you GET the item, without having to wade through a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo about who bears responsibility in the case that you DON'T get the item. Thusly they paid for a $150-ish card I bought about a year ago that was either lost or stolen, even though it had been marked delivered by the USPS. PayPal should have covered me as well had that transaction not been through eBay, however. I guess I'm a double glutton for fee punishment, but I don't lose $$ on cards.

Caveat Emptor. Which to me means also that the buyer should protect their purchases in some way in every situation...

> if the buyer chooses not to pay for postal insurance

Postal insurance is something that may only be purchased by the sender(seller), and any claim on that insurance need be made by whomever is in possession of the original mailing receipt, and, if awarded, is collected by the that person. The claimant may have to produce proof of value. IMO, not much protection for the receiver(buyer)...

https://www.usps.com/help/claims.htm

fwiw

Goods and services thru PayPal is the buyers protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has the seller contacted the buyer and have you two worked anything out yet?

It's been 3 days since this thread was opened. I hope by now the seller has reached out..............finally.

Just curious, if the seller requests F/F and S/S is selected (and the 3% fee is paid by the buyer), does that mean paypal is going to side on the buyers behalf if the package is NOT RECEIVED? What if the buyer produces a legitimate tracking number to paypal? Does that have weight in the decision to side with the buyer by paypal?

Bottom line, is paying paypal S/S like putting the seller on notice that they might want to consider insuring the package?

How many people on the BST pay the 3% for S/S even though the seller is asking for F/F?

Can the seller cancel the sale if F/F was requested by the buyer paid with the S/S option (and 3% paid for by the buyer)?

Just trying to get ahead of the curve here.

Precisely. Gambling debts are not enforceable but a gentleman pays his gambling debts regardless. If we have to resort to legalities here then we lose the concept of community. From a community-based standpoint, if you as a seller request PPFF you are telling the buyer that getting the item to him is on you because you are asking him to throw away all of his protections. For that reason I always, always pay via paypal's commercial process for anything expensive, even if I have to add in the 3%, just so I never have to deal with this scenario. If I want a truly unprotected transaction I can send a check or pay via Zelle or PPFF, with the understanding that I may have to eat the loss if the item doesn't arrive through no fault of the seller and if the seller chooses not to be a gentleman about the loss.

Legally speaking, I think we have a situation of in pari delicto here: both sides are culpable and the courts might not grant either relief. They agreed to use an unprotected method to transmit the payment and the item was truly lost in the mail.

PayPal guarantees delivery. They will refund when package is lost or item is different than seller described. Buyers have 180 days to file a claim. Whether they take the money back from the seller is up to them.

I guess a seller could decline a G&S when a F&F payment was asked for. Why would a seller want a buyer to forfeit their Buyers Protection? I certainly wouldn't do business with that person.

2 additional things.
PayPal requires Signature Confirmation on items over $750.

Its against PayPal rules to use F&F to pay for items, I read they are going to start cracking down on people who abuse it so everyone should be careful.

And indeed they are. The vintage card forums on FB lately have more than a few tales of people's PayPal accounts that have been mysteriously suspended without warning. In many cases these folks have admitted to taking a lot of FF payments for cards.

Well, put in a report with the local post office today given the fact of the understaffed masses working the post office. This would have been put in Saturday, but there was difficulty filling out the report in what fit what category for processing. Received a call from 845-315-2235 6:05 p.m. EST. Returned the call at 6:07 p.m. EST and given an indistinct answer as to the call location although the area code matches that of the post office for the Congers area.

+1 to this. I noticed this in the couple of card groups that I belong to on FB. I'd imagine Venmo might be a better alternative for those who are trying to skirt the 3% fee but still want to use an app/service.

Ultimately at the end of the day, Cash is king. I've put a hold on purchasing cards at the moment, just with all of the money being dedicated towards holiday purchases, however, I'd much rather make deals with people in person than through a service such as paypal. Not often the most convenient, and not always possible, but something that definitely ensures the card gets to the buyer and the money to the seller.

USPS Insurance rates:

$50.01 to $100 is $2.05.
$100.01 to $200 is $2.45.
$200.01 to $300 is $4.60.

The price per additional $100 of insurance, valued over $300 up to $5,000, is $4.60 plus $0.90 per each $100 or fraction thereof.

$500 = $6.40
$1K = $10.90
$2K = $19.9

If the insurance rate for USPS is about 1% (there about), then wouldn't it just make sense to pay the 1% USPS insurance cost rather than the PP G/S rate of 3%?

Based on the information provided, PPGS is 3% and is great for the buyer because of the protection offered.

If the buyer paid for PPGS and declined the insurance coverage offered by the seller, then it wouldn't matter if the package didn't show up (for any reason), because the buyer is protected whether or not they opted to pay for insurance. Is that abut the gist of it?

I'm still lost on how paypal could force PPGS on sales rather then PPFF. I suppose if paypal saw MANY transactions, then they could assume the payment transfers are for G/S rather than a friendly payment.

Last comment (hopefully) - Is paypal relying on the community to be honest in the transactions? I can see where paypal would like to collect fees because paypal is a business and PPFF payments are free to both sender and recipient.

For those who use Venmo, they offer zero buyer protection.

I have seen several posts that have indicated the difficulty in collecting on USPS insurance claims so that could be one reason to use G/S even if it costs more.

I’m surprised so many people are talking about USPS insurance. I thought it was common knowledge they don’t pay out on sports cards and in the limited cases they do, it’s a huge ordeal.

Third party or “self insure” — save yourself money over the long run.

So if that's the case why do they sell insurance at all?

Tired of seeing the term “side”. Who’s side are you on blah blah blah.

The problem is the problem. Let’s be for fixing the problem. That’s the side I’m on. Otherwise this experiment of Net54 is a failure and is no different than anywhere else.

I see the delivery service as the problem. Use PayPal good and services to avoid this type of problem. I think this current situation sucks for both the buyer and seller.

I’ve had tons of great interactions on this board and many great deals. Let’s keep moving forward.

Let’s make net54 great again. Lol. I need another bourbon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of my reasons for taking the sellers “side” is that I don,t like outing another member like he was some troll on eBay.

In the case of a card being lost or damaged by the USPS, both sides have been harmed. It's not that one side is innocent and the other guilty, good or bad. They're both in a spot not caused by either of them.

Just to straighten out one thing in the title, for the third time this afternoon it was stated by Audra in Larry's Conger's mail office that there was no theft.

I'm curious how they can state with certainty that there was no theft. If that is the case, do they know where the package is and then why can't they just get the package delivered?

I'm confused - why would USPS offer insurance if they're not going to cover the losses if they lose the package?

Insurance is a HUGE money maker, it wouldn't be a product if they lost money by paying out claims.

Sure but when do you throw in the towel on it "not getting there"? That's not so cut and dry. I think it's important people try to see things from the perspective of the other side. A very simple task but by no means easy. The buyer assumes the card was stolen because he was told it was most likely stolen, so to him the situation is over and he's due a refund. Additionally he's probably anxious about having paid via f&f, and not getting a response from the seller only ratchets up that anxiety. The seller probably sees the USPS dealing with historic delays that they're just now beginning to unwind and assumes it could still be delivered. Both of these viewpoints are reasonable.

As others have stated, communication is key. If I were the seller in a situation like this is like to think I'd refund the buyer with the agreement that the payment will be re-sent if the item ever shows up.

This thread’s pro-buyer crowd is placing sellers in an untenable position. A seller has no protection and is always at a buyer’s pure mercy/honesty. The issue boils down to proof. Let’s walk it through.

What proof do we have that a seller has ever shipped a card? Well, there is a tracking number. This is hard evidence that the seller upheld his end. Absent hacking, there is no way for a seller to fake a tracking number that then shows up in the third-party carrier’s computer/tracking system. The seller providing a tracking number does not rely on his word, mercy, or honesty. This is objective evidence that the seller did what he said he would do.

What proof do we have that a buyer never receives a card? Checking the tracking number is a good start. However, we have all read stories on this site and others' where buyers have claimed that they never received an item despite the third-party carrier’s system showing that it delivered the item.

Is this possible? Sure - computer glitches occur, and sometimes thieves raid mailboxes and porches. Let’s use this scenario – one where the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item, but the buyer swears he never received it?

Under this scenario, the seller has absolute proof that he shipped the card. He has a tracking number that he provided the buyer two weeks earlier. Moreover, the tracking number shows the card went from the seller’s location to the buyer’s location. This is nice evidence. The seller also has evidence that the carrier delivered the card. The carrier’s tracking number shows it allegedly delivered it.

Now, what proof does the buyer have that he never received the card? His own word - That is it. So, despite all the seller’s objective evidence, the seller is now at the buyer’s pure mercy that he is telling the truth. Sellers have to provide evidence – i.e. shipping receipts, tracking numbers, etc. Buyers do not – we simply have to just take their word?

This is a ridiculous position to place sellers in, and exactly why most states have passed laws determining that the the risk of loss passes from the seller to the buyer once he has placed the item into the third-party carrier’s hands, paid for the shipping expense, and emailed the buyer all the details – carrier identity, tracking number, estimated delivery date, etc. This rule is easy and makes sense.

To the insurance table beating crowd – under my hypothetical scenario, do you think the seller has any chance of collecting the insurance proceeds? Good luck. The third-party carrier will say our system shows we delivered the item. So, under my scenario, buying insurance will do nothing, and the seller wasted his money. You might as well use it as toilet paper. How does a seller protect himself, even if he has insurance, if the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item?

I have a hard time placing a higher standard on a private seller than a private buyer. This isn’t a small buyer dealing with a large, sophisticated, international, multi-billion dollar box store seller, who has the financial means to take the hit and wants to always keep the customer happy; this is private citizen John Doe seller dealing with private citizen James Doe buyer.

As I said before, this thread’s pro-buyer crowd has become accustomed to the policies and rules that large companies and financial institutes implement to protect the buyer. These rules are not laws, and do not apply to private individuals entering into private contracts. These companies have every incentive to protect buyers – they want future business. The customer is always right to them. This is why they have adopted rules that are oftentimes contrary to the actual laws that govern contracts and shipping.

Parties are free to negotiate a deal's terms. if a buyer wants protection then demand and negotiate it during the deal. Just know that the seller is probably not going to internalize this protection's added expense and may increase the deal's total price. Not using these protections benefits both parties. It allows the seller to not provide a refund if the buyer claims the card was never delivered. On the flip side, it allows the buyer to purchase a card for a cheaper price. Again, seller's don't simply internalize the added protection's cost, they pass it along to the seller and adjust the card's final price.

So, what is a nice compromise for a collegial collecting community? I say the two parties split the loss – King Solomon wisdom.

It’s just not as cut and dry as you’d want or expect especially when dealing with something extremely valuable.

Fed Ex will let you insure a package for basically whatever amount you want but they only cover $1k in collectibles.

Buying third party insurance and following their requirements for shipping will save you significant amounts of money as well as give you a better piece of mind than trying to get a claim through USPS

Good points and very reasonable. Had the facts played out this way I'd be with you: if the USPS shows an item I sold as delivered any problem after that is a "you" problem not a "me" problem. As I understand the fact pattern, though, the item never reached the buyer: it got swallowed up in the postal black hole. Happens sometimes. I've had a few packages go down the rabbit hole myself. So what to do when neither side is at fault? Well, had they not agreed to cheat the devil by using PPFF, the answer is clear: the buyer gets a refund and the seller is left to whatever insurance (private or USPS) that he has to cover these situations. Since they made the bargain they made, however, they have to allocate the loss somehow, and as between the two of them it is a coin-toss under the circumstances.

I am just now getting to this and looking at the tracking. Yea, that one is pretty bad. Over a month with no update. To the OP....have you ran a trace on the package yet?? There is a Consumer Affairs number you can call with the Post Office......I would get the ball rolling with that.

They will offer you insurance, but in a claim you MUST prove the value of the items. That is objective value , not a , " This is a 1/1 and the last like one that sold was a 1/100 and sold for $1 so this one must be worth $15" sort of thing. And just because you value a $7k package and they only allowed you $5k in insurance(online max) they only reimbursed you $4600 because that's all you could prove was in the package. Ask me how I know, SMH.

To the original thread, Im in the sellers camp, I think. To me being on both ends at one point or another makes this very difficult. In the end a buyer should always pay the measly 3% . I mean $7.50 would have solved this whole situation.

I had a package sent to me UPS RED (next day air) I needed that package to take on an international trip the next day.

The package was tracked, I waited for it and when I checked the status it said "delivered". Totally blew my mind. Someone had to sign for it. It was shipped to my home address and I was home ALL day waiting for that package.

After I saw the "delivered" status I called UPS and asked them where it was delivered and they indicated my home address. Obviously it was delivered elsewhere and they (UPS) had NO CLUE where it was.

I was so pissed off that I FEDEX'd an overnight letter to the UPS corporate office in Atlanta letting them know how incompetent they were. I was hoping a big Fedex truck pulled up and delivered it. After returning from my trip I received several calls from the UPS corporate office and regional offices.

This was shipped with the highest priority, signature required by a main delivery service and they totally screwed it up.

The point being - even though a delivery service package indicates "delivered", it doesn't mean it was to the correct address.

Not too long ago I was sent a package from an auction house (signature required) and the postal delivery person was trying to drop it off and run without my signature. I couldn't believe it. I happened to hear the postal carrier at my door. When I went to the door I saw the condition of the package. I about crapped my pants because there a good chance the contents could have been damaged. There was nothing wrong with the packaging by the auction house. What was a miracle is that the content was not damaged.

The point being - the idiot postal carrier that tried to drop a damaged package and run. What if I wasn't home or what if someone decided to steal the package from my front porch? It would have been shown as delivered, albeit no signature.

I asked the postal carrier why they didn't ring the door bell and wait for me to sign. They said covid protocols meant no signature had to be taken.

I was pissed and went to the post office the next day and spoke with a carrier supervisor and told them that type of service is why people are doubting the USPS. I used to try and support the USPS, but no more, not after that. The next day, I had all of my financial statements transferred to electronic delivery.

I've had several successful BST transactions (as a buyer) using USPS since then and no issues.

It might be easy to see which side of the fence I stand on in this case. I've always asked for the total price (including S/H) with the package "delivered" to my address. No ambiguity there.

I trust the people on the BST (try to make sure the seller isn't someone new on the board) and believe that we all have the bet of intentions and nobody's trying to screw anybody. Sometimes bad luck just seems to hit when it's a collectible. One more thing - communication is a good thing - even though there may be a debate about responsibility - always communicate.




https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1609275658

I had an important overnight UPSP delivery that took 13 days.

It is a legitimate issue that a seller and pro-sellers have that the seller does everything right shipping-wise, but the shipping is entirely in someone else's hands. This is why it isn't a clear cut matter of team-buyer versus team-seller. My view is it's the buyer's responsibility to have the package delivered (unless otherwise stipulated in the sales description). However, this USPS issue is why those in the minority here arguing that it's not automatically all on the seller have legitimate points. One may disagree with their perspective, but they aren't objectively wrong.

It's difficult to say something is black-and-white either a or c, when there's a b in the equation as well. One may disagree, but a legitimate argument can be that the seller is not responsible for "act of God."

In ethical (and moral) questions, there are no objective answers. It usually involves community shared subjective feelings.

It's also true that, as most people on Net54 are collectors/buyers, there tends to be a rote pro-buyer bias, and buyers often want things to all be in their forever. I remember a Net54 insisting an old auction house LOA guarantee should be forever and for the appreciated (not original sell) value, even though the document clearly said three years and he wasn't the original buyer. I said that life would be easy and we'd all be rich if we could rewrite contracts any way we wanted twenty years later and when we weren't even a party in the contract.

Likely some will say "Well, the buyer should self-insure" yet complain to high heaven when a seller adds a 25 cent self-insurance charge on a sale or even charges actual shipping and handling cost. Many or even most sellers lose money on shipping charge, so it's a curious argument that they should somehow derive self-insurance money out of that loss.

Maybe a new hobby norm is buyers should expect a small additional fee to all sales, as USPS insurance is no good and buyers expect sellers to take all the risk/responsibility. If buyers don't agree to that then maybe it shouldn't after all be on the seller when USPS fucks up.