Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
That is not my understanding of the law in general. What do you base that on? As we discussed here recently, the general/default rule under the Uniform Commercial Code is that risk of loss passes to the buyer upon delivery of the goods to a common carrier. That said, the right thing is obviously to refund the money, and if it's an ebay transaction their own rules would apply anyhow.
|
I wasn't aware of the previous discussion on the subject. I thought that the UCC common carrier article only applies where there is no breach, which can be interpreted as a contractual obligation "not fulfilled". Since this transaction was not fulfilled, a breach of contract could at least be claimed. It was my understanding that in these cases and/or where the UCC does not govern, superseded by host rules (IE: eBay) if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss.
Side note: My understanding was also that the UCC is not adopted in all jurisdictions, has many disputed articles and interpretations as well. To what extent, I'm not sure .. I'm not a lawyer, so I may indeed stand corrected. I've had some previous experience in this area which led to my general understanding and interpretation. I guess if push came to shove, I wouldn't want (or expect) the UCC common carrier interpretation to be my sole crutch.
All that aside, IMO the bottom line goes back to what you and others have noted about doing the right thing and in this case, moot as eBay rules will govern. The buyer is backed unless proof of delivery and in same condition are provided.