Non-delivery/severe delay on a BST transaction

[ALBB]

Interesting, I would never think to contact a local congressman regarding a missing baseball card delv. ??

Whats that old song " Id like to help you son,but your too young to vote " !!

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Interesting, I would never think to contact a local congressman regarding a missing baseball card delv. ??

Whats that old song " Id like to help you son,but your too young to vote " !!

Yes, the USPS is a Federal Agency (Quasi), so Congress is in charge of it.

Another old saying "I'm from the government and I am here to help". When you hear that you know you will be bottle-necked in red tape for the next 6 months.

[oldjudge]

I have no dog in this fight, but disagree that in all cases the seller assumes the risk of loss. Each case is different and must be negotiated prior to finishing the transaction. The seller could offer to insure the package only if the buyer pays the insurance cost. If the buyer turns this down then risk of loss must be borne by the buyer. I have dealt with Brian many times in the past and each time we have discussed this very issue and I have paid the insurance. BTW, Brian is a great counterparty and always a pleasure to deal with.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I have no dog in this fight, but disagree that in all cases the seller assumes the risk of loss. Each case is different and must be negotiated prior to finishing the transaction. The seller could offer to insure the package only if the buyer pays the insurance cost. If the buyer turns this down then risk of loss must be borne by the buyer. I have dealt with Brian many times in the past and each time we have discussed this very issue and I have paid the insurance. BTW, Brian is a great counterparty and always a pleasure to deal with.

For me the only way the seller does not assume the loss is if the buyer requests it sent a cheaper way like in a PWE.

Jay I send payment TTM most of the time. If my payment doesn't show up would you still send me the cards even though my payment didn't show up?

I am sure we all agree Brian is a good guy.

[kevinlenane]

For the record - I had no interest in exposing the transaction - I really just wanted both of us to see what people would do in this situation and how long to wait. I have zero suspicion that this is in any way Brian's fault - just wanted to make that clear. I want to do what is right and fair in this situation - the verdict is basically that I'm going to wait a while longer. Thank you all for your input...

[Tyruscobb]

[QUOTE=bnorth;1947447]For me the only way the seller does not assume the loss is if the buyer requests it sent a cheaper way like in a PWE.

Jay I send payment TTM most of the time. If my payment doesn't show up would you still send me the cards even though my payment didn't show up?

I am sure we all agree Brian is a good guy.[/QUOTE

I completely disagree that the seller assumes the loss and must provide a refund. Take a look at the Uniform Commercial Code.

UCC 2-509, entitled “Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach” provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but

(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

The Official Commentary confirms that the scope of this section is expressly limited to scenarios where there has been no breach by the seller. In the alternative, if the delivery fails to comply with the contract specifications, UCC 2-509 does not apply and the situation is governed by the provisions on effect of breach on risk of loss. Accordingly, the analysis offered herein is limited to those situations where no breach has occurred.

A cursory reading of the provision confirms that if the seller is required to ship the goods by carrier, but not required to deliver the goods at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller duly tenders them to the carrier. § 2-509(1)(a). To the contrary, when the seller is required to deliver the goods to a particular destination, the seller bears the risk of loss until tender of delivery at the destination. § 2-509(1)(b).

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I have no dog in this fight, but disagree that in all cases the seller assumes the risk of loss. Each case is different and must be negotiated prior to finishing the transaction. The seller could offer to insure the package only if the buyer pays the insurance cost. If the buyer turns this down then risk of loss must be borne by the buyer. I have dealt with Brian many times in the past and each time we have discussed this very issue and I have paid the insurance. BTW, Brian is a great counterparty and always a pleasure to deal with.

Insurance protects the seller.

If the buyer does decline insurance then they should bear responsibility but PayPal does not see it that way. PayPal (If paid by G&S) will refund the buyer if package was lost.

No one is questioning Brian's integrity.