[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

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?

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.