Partially ripping a card opening the mail

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So suppose the thing is in a top loader, instead of ripping it you only crease it. Do you still blame the seller?

Of course not. Totally different. In your scenario, the seller did what he was supposed to do to protect the card.

I answered your question, please answer mine:

Let's say the card (shipped the same way it was) would have been damaged during shipping by a postal machine. Is it the post office's fault, or does the seller assume liability since it wasn't packaged properly?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Of course not. Totally different. In your scenario, the seller did what he was supposed to do to protect the card.

I answered your question, please answer mine:

Let's say the card (shipped the same way it was) would have been damaged during shipping by a postal machine. Is it the post office's fault, or does the seller assume liability since it wasn't packaged properly?

That would be 100% on the seller for the poor packaging, as would all other damage that may occur prior to the package ending up in the buyer's hands. I think I've been pretty clear about my opinion on this...............

Once the buyer has it in his possession, responsibility transfers to him. If he rips it or drops it in the toilet, that's his doing.

Look, this is pointless as we simply do not agree on the basic concepts involved. This will be my last post on this thread (I can hear the applause from across the country...)

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

That would be 100% on the seller for the poor packaging, as would all other damage that may occur prior to the package ending up in the buyer's hands. I think I've been pretty clear about my opinion on this...............

Once the buyer has it in his possession, responsibility transfers to him. If he rips it or drops it in the toilet, that's his doing.

Look, this is pointless as we simply do not agree on the basic concepts involved. This will be my last post on this thread (I can hear the applause from across the country...)

I gotcha. If the card is ripped by a postal machine because of the seller's poor packaging, it's the seller's fault, but if the card is ripped by the buyer because of the seller's poor packaging, it the buyer's fault.

What is the common denominator in either scenario? The seller's poor packaging.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I gotcha. If the card is ripped by a postal machine because of the seller's poor packaging, it's the seller's fault, but if the card is ripped by the buyer because of the seller's poor packaging, it the buyer's fault.

What is the common denominator in either scenario? The seller's poor packaging.

Hypotheticals work in both directions. I assume you would agree that there are scenarios in which both the seller and the buyer would have some culpability in a transaction that was not completed to everybody's liking. In your view, this is 100% seller and 0% buyer. But, I am sure I could dream up a series of facts about how the buyer received and opened the package, on the one hand, and how the seller wrapped and packaged the card, on the other hand, that could skew you off of the 0% vs. 100% position you've been taking here.

Given the facts we've been presented with (including no pictures or descriptions, etc.), I think it's pretty clear that there are degrees of fault on each side of the table. If I were the buyer, I'd complain to the seller about the shipping, but I'd probably eat the cost. If I were the seller, and a buyer came to me with this complaint, I would offer to refund most or all of the sale price. Even though I don't find the seller 100% at fault, I find it inexcusable to not work to rectify the problem for the buyer.

[frankbmd]

Did I miss anything?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Did I miss anything?

Yep, Pete finally has posted a pic of the package and we all agree it's on the seller
image.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Yep, Pete finally has posted a pic of the package and we all agree it's on the seller
Attachment 235048

LOL change the dog to this one and I have seen that at my house.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Yep, Pete finally has posted a pic of the package and we all agree it's on the seller

Attachment 235048

Dave, that's the best post of this thread!

There are good members on both sides of this issue. Pete, show the card man!