Non-delivery/severe delay on a BST transaction

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Insurance protects the seller not the buyer. Refusing to buy insurance doesn't put the buyer on the hook for damage or loss. That's nonsense. It's the job of the seller to get the item to the buyer safely. Period. The buyer doesn't have to pay extra to make that happen. If insurance is purchased, who is still responsible for properly packaging the item since a claim will be rejected for improper packaging? The seller. If there's a problem, who makes the claim? The seller. Who collects if the claim is paid out? The seller. That's why the seller pays for insurance and the buyer has nothing to do with it.

also its the seller that sets the terms...if the seller doesnt say 'delivery confirmation means no refunds' or whatever he really wants..he needs to be specifics....any vagueness the benefit goes to the buyer.....just like writing a contract...whoever writes the contract sets the terms but is also on the hook for any vagueness

[facingthelake1188]

First, I would like to thank the veteran member who sent me this old thread, you know who you are. This old thread lays out the same circumstances that I outlined in my recent post. It appears that my seller has been involved in similar situations with other members of this forum. He outs himself so I no longer have to debate myself on whether or not I should do so. I would like to point out that what he says about sending things out certified was not in my case for whatever reason. It certainly seems like the overwhelming majority of members agree that the seller should be held responsible for refunding a buyer for a non-delivered package. I, as an eBay seller for over ten years, have issued refunds on the only two occasions when this occurred. Yes, it sucks to have to lose money but that’s life. And doing what’s right should always take priority over money.
SO BRIAN, COULD YOU PLEASE NOW RESPOND TO MY REPEATED REQUESTS AND ISSUE ME A REFUND, and go file a claim with the post office. Maybe that will jar this package loose once some pressure is put on and if I ever receive it I would happily pay you for it as agreed.

[Leon]

I hope you aren't under the misconception your full name doesn't need to be out here. Circumventing the rule, in bold letters at the top of each page, by bumping this thread doesn't negate the need to have it here. Thanks

Originally Posted by facingthelake1188

First, I would like to thank the veteran member who sent me this old thread, you know who you are. This old thread lays out the same circumstances that I outlined in my recent post. It appears that my seller has been involved in similar situations with other members of this forum. He outs himself so I no longer have to debate myself on whether or not I should do so. I would like to point out that what he says about sending things out certified was not in my case for whatever reason. It certainly seems like the overwhelming majority of members agree that the seller should be held responsible for refunding a buyer for a non-delivered package. I, as an eBay seller for over ten years, have issued refunds on the only two occasions when this occurred. Yes, it sucks to have to lose money but that’s life. And doing what’s right should always take priority over money.
SO BRIAN, COULD YOU PLEASE NOW RESPOND TO MY REPEATED REQUESTS AND ISSUE ME A REFUND, and go file a claim with the post office. Maybe that will jar this package loose once some pressure is put on and if I ever receive it I would happily pay you for it as agreed.

[Chris-Counts]

I have kicked myself for buying insurance so many times without an incident. But the one time I needed it, I had to file a claim against UPS for destroying a $2,500 item, which they refused to pay because they said I packaged it poorly. I took them to small claims court, and when the UPS rep made the same claim there, I produced a receipt for about $30 worth of packing materials, which I had purchased from UPS the day the package was sent. The judge ordered UPS to pay me, which they did.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by facingthelake1188

First, I would like to thank the veteran member who sent me this old thread, you know who you are. This old thread lays out the same circumstances that I outlined in my recent post. It appears that my seller has been involved in similar situations with other members of this forum. He outs himself so I no longer have to debate myself on whether or not I should do so. I would like to point out that what he says about sending things out certified was not in my case for whatever reason. It certainly seems like the overwhelming majority of members agree that the seller should be held responsible for refunding a buyer for a non-delivered package. I, as an eBay seller for over ten years, have issued refunds on the only two occasions when this occurred. Yes, it sucks to have to lose money but that’s life. And doing what’s right should always take priority over money.
SO BRIAN, COULD YOU PLEASE NOW RESPOND TO MY REPEATED REQUESTS AND ISSUE ME A REFUND, and go file a claim with the post office. Maybe that will jar this package loose once some pressure is put on and if I ever receive it I would happily pay you for it as agreed.

I hope all members read this and learn a valuable lesson to always use PayPal Goods and Services no matter who the seller is.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I hope all members read this and learn a valuable lesson to always use PayPal Goods and Services no matter who the seller is.

What would Paypal G&S do in this situation? I assume they would reimburse the buyer. Would they charge back the seller?

I had this conversation with another member recently. Neither of us is sure whether PayPal provides some insurance benefit or is merely guaranteeing seller's performance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

What would Paypal G&S do in this situation? I assume they would reimburse the buyer. Would they charge back the seller?

I had this conversation with another member recently. Neither of us is sure whether PayPal provides some insurance benefit or is merely guaranteeing seller's performance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Goods and Services offers buyers protection in case the package never delivered or the item is different than the seller descibed. You will receive a refund.

PayPal offers Friends and Family for non-purchase transactions between Friends and Family. A lot of people don't know its against PayPal rules to use F&F to buy stuff because you're cheating them out of their fees and you're account can be suspended.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Goods and Services offers buyers protection in case the package never delivered or the item is different than the seller descibed. You will receive a refund.

PayPal offers Friends and Family for non-purchase transactions between Friends and Family. A lot of people don't know its against PayPal rules to use F&F to buy stuff because you're cheating them out of their fees and you're account can be suspended.

You describe it as a refund, so does that mean PayPal is charging back the seller? Outside of taking the money back from the seller and refunding the customer are they providing any other benefit? I assume they are taking the risk they can't collect from the seller.

I guess what I am asking is in the case of Brian and Kevin, would PayPal G&S function as an insurer? Or would they just act as the Net54 chorus and make Brian refund Kevin?

To ask this another way: right now Brian is out the money and the 4 cards, and Kevin is whole. If Kevin had used G&S would anything change, other than one of the two would be out another 3%?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

You describe it as a refund, so does that mean PayPal is charging back the seller? Outside of taking the money back from the seller and refunding the customer are they providing any other benefit? I assume they are taking the risk they can't collect from the seller.

I guess what I am asking is in the case of Brian and Kevin, would PayPal G&S function as an insurer? Or would they just act as the Net54 chorus and make Brian refund Kevin?

To ask this another way: right now Brian is out the money and the 4 cards, and Kevin is whole. If Kevin had used G&S would anything change, other than one of the two would be out another 3%?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

PayPal refunds the buyer then goes after the seller for the money. If the seller has no money in their account, PayPal puts a hold for that amount and if the sellers sells another item, PayPal will take money to satisfy the hold.

PayPal has been known to use collection agencies to collect from sellers, whose accounts are negative so I assume it affect their credit rating as well but not 100% sure on that.

Sellers assume the risk and take the loss on lost packages, unless they purchase insurance through the carrier or privately.