Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyruscobb
To the seller: Do not issue a refund unless the shipping terms were negotiated and the parties agreed that the seller incurred the risk until successfully delivered. Absent those terms, the seller satisfied his requirements under the contract when he delivered the card to the third-party shipper.
The seller has provided proof this occurred. The buyer had the shipping risk once the seller handed the card to the Postal Service. I’m optimistic this is the correct legal outcome. The parties certainly had the right to negotiate and change these terms and outline who bore the shipping risk. Apparently, this did not occur.
Why should a seller now eat the cost, if the contract did not include the shipping method, type, insurance, etc. Absent those terms negotiated and agreed upon, the seller satisfied the contract when the Postal Service took possession and the seller has provided proof he shipped the item.
This was not an eBay transaction or a regular PayPal one (Friends and Family I’m assuming). This was a transaction between two private individuals. It’s a tough lesson, but the correct outcome. The seller wins this dispute.
|
I completely disagree.
__________________
"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?"
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President.
|