[Tyruscobb]

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.