Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyruscobb
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.