Non-delivery/severe delay on a BST transaction

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by kevinlenane

Hi all - I'm the original poster here - we've sadly reached the end of a productive conversation so I'll provide a quick update here since I'm not sure what else to do and could use some advice. Here are the highlights:

-A month has gone by and I've not heard a word from the seller
-I got one update the morning after I posted this about a phone call into a post office - after that nothing
-other than the above communication I've not gotten a single proactive message about the issue (always at my request)
-the seller chose to not use insurance but rather used certified mail - I've seen a tracking number that proves something was sent somewhere and is sitting somewhere.
-the seller looked up an address of a property I own and has asked multiple times why the cards weren't sent to an address of a house I own that my mother in law lives in
- presumably this address was looked up on White Pages via my name
- I asked for a refund today finally after over two months and in return got another question about this address he looked up.
-finally he told me that he's researching whether he needs to refund me since he has proof he sent something in a piece of mail

I'm super discouraged by this experience - I would have preferred to not have the seller identified but he's named himself here on this thread. I feel like I've been super patient here but the lack of communication and the strange questions about this other property have totally dead-ended the conversation. Happy to have the seller correct/amend anything I've said here.

Seller can't control the mail but they sure should issue a refund after this much time has passed.

The address thing is very weird. Hopefully they quit researching and refund.

[oldjudge]

First, insurance works if it is a recent transaction. If a card sold for $200 is insured for $200 and lost, all the insurer has to do is show proof of the transaction and the PO will pay. Second, unless insurance was discussed prior to completing the transaction the buyer has no basis to assume that the seller bears the cost of the insurance. If the buyer wanted the card insured he should have requested it and worked out who would pay for it then. Since no one brought up insurance I think the best solution is for Brian to refund half the card's cost and leave this as a learning lesson for both parties.

[Tyruscobb]

To the seller: Do not issue a refund unless the shipping terms were negotiated and the parties agreed that the seller incurred the risk until successfully delivered. Absent those terms, the seller satisfied his requirements under the contract when he delivered the card to the third-party shipper.

The seller has provided proof this occurred. The buyer had the shipping risk once the seller handed the card to the Postal Service. I’m optimistic this is the correct legal outcome. The parties certainly had the right to negotiate and change these terms and outline who bore the shipping risk. Apparently, this did not occur.

Why should a seller now eat the cost, if the contract did not include the shipping method, type, insurance, etc. Absent those terms negotiated and agreed upon, the seller satisfied the contract when the Postal Service took possession and the seller has provided proof he shipped the item.

This was not an eBay transaction or a regular PayPal one (Friends and Family I’m assuming). This was a transaction between two private individuals. It’s a tough lesson, but the correct outcome. The seller wins this dispute.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

To the seller: Do not issue a refund unless the shipping terms were negotiated and the parties agreed that the seller incurred the risk until successfully delivered. Absent those terms, the seller satisfied his requirements under the contract when he delivered the card to the third-party shipper.

The seller has provided proof this occurred. The buyer had the shipping risk once the seller handed the card to the Postal Service. I’m optimistic this is the correct legal outcome. The parties certainly had the right to negotiate and change these terms and outline who bore the shipping risk. Apparently, this did not occur.

Why should a seller now eat the cost, if the contract did not include the shipping method, type, insurance, etc. Absent those terms negotiated and agreed upon, the seller satisfied the contract when the Postal Service took possession and the seller has provided proof he shipped the item.

This was not an eBay transaction or a regular PayPal one (Friends and Family I’m assuming). This was a transaction between two private individuals. It’s a tough lesson, but the correct outcome. The seller wins this dispute.

I completely disagree.

[Scott L.]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I completely disagree.

Amen

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I completely disagree.

anyone with an ounce of common sense disagrees (I am agreeing with you)

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

To the seller: Do not issue a refund unless the shipping terms were negotiated and the parties agreed that the seller incurred the risk until successfully delivered. Absent those terms, the seller satisfied his requirements under the contract when he delivered the card to the third-party shipper.

The seller has provided proof this occurred. The buyer had the shipping risk once the seller handed the card to the Postal Service. I’m optimistic this is the correct legal outcome. The parties certainly had the right to negotiate and change these terms and outline who bore the shipping risk. Apparently, this did not occur.

Why should a seller now eat the cost, if the contract did not include the shipping method, type, insurance, etc. Absent those terms negotiated and agreed upon, the seller satisfied the contract when the Postal Service took possession and the seller has provided proof he shipped the item.

This was not an eBay transaction or a regular PayPal one (Friends and Family I’m assuming). This was a transaction between two private individuals. It’s a tough lesson, but the correct outcome. The seller wins this dispute.

Yikes.

As a seller myself, I feel I'm responsible for the item getting delivered. I've had multiple instances where an item has not reached the destination and I've had to eat the cost - it sucks, but I accept that as part of running an online/shipping based business.

The only examples I can really think of when I do not accept responsibility for delivery are when a buyer asks for items to be shipped without tracking to save on shipping costs, the buyer is in a country with poor logistics infrastructure and I clearly state I will not be held responsible if they want it shipped there, and/or when an item has been marked as delivered by a postal service but the buyer says they did not receive it (at that point I will try to help, but I feel it now becomes the buyer's responsibility assuming I have put in all of the correct details).