Proper action for a stolen package from a Buy/Sell/Trade transaction

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

The seller has an obligation to get the card to the buyer.

Maybe. Did the contract’s terms and conditions state shipped or delivered? These are two different things. If just shipped, the seller satisfied his “obligation” once he paid for shipping and the third-party shipper took possession.

If the contract’s terms stated delivered, the seller bears the risk of loss until the item is delivered. Thus, his obligation doesn’t end until the third-party carrier delivers the item.

The same rules that auction websites and credit card companies may have does not always apply across the board to transactions between two individuals with a non-secured or guaranteed payment method. People, however, forget this aspect.

The etiquette is to refund and move on.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Maybe. Did the contract’s terms and conditions state shipped or delivered? These are two different things. If just shipped, the seller satisfied his “obligation” once he paid for shipping and the third-party shipper took possession.

If the contract’s terms stated delivered, the seller bears the risk of loss until the item is delivered. Thus, his obligation doesn’t end until the third-party carrier delivers the item.

The same rules that auction websites and credit card companies may have does not always apply across the board to transactions between two individuals with a non-secured or guaranteed payment method. People, however, forget this aspect.

The etiquette is to refund and move on.

I politely disagree on shipped vs delivered. To me they mean the same thing. I don't play the semantics games.

.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely disagree on shipped vs delivered. To me they mean the same thing. I don't play the semantics games.

I’m just trying to help educate and explain how some states’ laws address this exact issue. It’s not semantics. There is a legal difference between a shipping contract and a delivery one.

Your the site’s ultimate arbiter. So, if you say the site’s rule is for the seller to reimburse the buyer then that is the rule. I’ve always personally followed this rule selling on here anyways (although thankfully all my items arrived), because it’s not worth the hassle and reputation damage fighting a buyer.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I’m just trying to help educate and explain how some states’ laws address this exact issue. It’s not semantics. There is a legal difference between a shipping contract and a delivery one.

Your the site’s ultimate arbiter. So, if you say the site’s rule is for the seller to reimburse the buyer then that is the rule. I’ve always personally followed this rule selling on here anyways (although thankfully all my items arrived), because it’s not worth the hassle and reputation damage fighting a buyer.

What happens when the item turns up after a refund has been issued?? Is there a rule for that scenario as well?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

What happens when the item turns up after a refund has been issued?? Is there a rule for that scenario as well?

Obviously the buyer then must pay.

That actually happened to me after I had received a refund through ebay. The card showed up after three months lol.

[facingthelake1188]

Obviously, (or maybe not) I would reissue payment. As I told the seller in a recent pm:

“If it arrives, even if several months from now, I would certainly contact you and resubmit payment. At my age, almost 60, retired and collecting a pension, money is not an issue. Honesty and integrity mean too much to me to ever compromise myself over cash. I hope to continue being a productive member of the collecting community for years to come. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and completing successful transactions with a bunch of members in my short time here. Please read the overwhelming opinions of members regarding the proper etiquette re: seller responsibilities. Then ask yourself, wouldn’t you expect the same if the situation were reversed? Thanks for listening and happy holidays!”

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Obviously the buyer then must pay.

That actually happened to me after I had received a refund through ebay. The card showed up after three months lol.

[Shoeless Moe]

No brainer at this point.

Seller must issue Refund ASAP. Today.

Seller need to go to the PO and make their claim.

Case closed.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I’m just trying to help educate and explain how some states’ laws address this exact issue. It’s not semantics. There is a legal difference between a shipping contract and a delivery one.

Your the site’s ultimate arbiter. So, if you say the site’s rule is for the seller to reimburse the buyer then that is the rule. I’ve always personally followed this rule selling on here anyways (although thankfully all my items arrived), because it’s not worth the hassle and reputation damage fighting a buyer.

I’m pretty sure it has been proven in the courts that a “basic” online sale is a destination contract by definition.

Either way, if you pull that card, legal or not....you’re not someone I want to deal with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by notfast

I’m pretty sure it has been proven in the courts that a “basic” online sale is a destination contract by definition.

Either way, if you pull that card, legal or not....you’re not someone I want to deal with.

Actually and we have discussed this several years ago,
Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=carrier

But that said, who cares, people should do what's right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually and we have discussed this several years ago,
Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=carrier

But that said, who cares, people should do what's right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebay sure doesn't go by that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Ebay sure doesn't go by that.

Correct. The Code only applies in a default situation. Parties can write their own contract.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually and we have discussed this several years ago,
Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-509. Unless there is a specific provision requiring the seller to deliver at a particular location (a so-called "destination contract"), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers to the common carrier.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=carrier

But that said, who cares, people should do what's right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does UCC apply to average Joe selling online? I thought it only applied to commercial businesses...

[Seven]

Originally Posted by notfast

Does UCC apply to average Joe selling online? I thought it only applied to commercial businesses...

Could it be argued that if you sell through Goods and Services that you qualify for UCC?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by notfast

Does UCC apply to average Joe selling online? I thought it only applied to commercial businesses...

I haven't thought about it in a long while but I believe that generally speaking, and of course individual states could modify it, it applies to all sales of goods. To be sure there are certain rules applicable to merchants.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by notfast

I’m pretty sure it has been proven in the courts that a “basic” online sale is a destination contract by definition.

Either way, if you pull that card, legal or not....you’re not someone I want to deal with.

This is inaccurate. The majority rule is courts generally find a shipping contract absent express language to the contrary. Thus, the default/presumption is for a shipping only contract - not a delivery one.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

This is inaccurate. The majority rule is courts generally find a shipping contract absent express language to the contrary. Thus, the default/presumption is for a shipping only contract - not a delivery one.

It could easily be argued that the default presumption on this forum is to guarantee safe delivery when otherwise not mentioned.

.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Leon

It could easily be argued that the default presumption on this forum is to guarantee safe delivery when otherwise not mentioned.

.

I don't agree with that. But that's just my interpretation/view.

Though you said "easily be argued that the default presumption," which is setting a commandment from Moses.

You are technically the boss and final word about board rules on this site, and I find your judgments to be fair and well-reasoned. And no rule will please everyone.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Leon

It could easily be argued that the default presumption on this forum is to guarantee safe delivery when otherwise not mentioned.

.

I certainly hope this is true. Any card I've ever shipped has either been insured or sent with the presumption that if it doesn't arrive it would be on me. I expect the same when I purchase one, although next time I will make sure to discuss and reach an agreement beforehand.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Leon

It could easily be argued that the default presumption on this forum is to guarantee safe delivery when otherwise not mentioned.

.

I agree with this. Would it make sense to post a few rules, with this included, in the BST forums so that everyone is on the same page?