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

[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?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

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?

I don't mean to Jump Someone Else's Train, but this is a good idea. Having a well defined set of rules would be Just Like Heaven. It would reduce stress during those Inbetween Days when the package is in transit.

Let's make the rules crystal clear, so we can all be Lovecats.

[Casey2296]

Or, we could rely on a man's integrity and word, also patience, understanding, etiquette, and sense of fairness. Quite a refreshing concept in a world where too many rules allow a person to escape personal responsibility and "the right thing to do".

Plus, we'll all get together and "Mize" you if you screw a member over.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Or, we could rely on a man's integrity and word, also patience, understanding, etiquette, and sense of fairness. Quite a refreshing concept in a world where too many rules allow a person to escape personal responsibility and "the right thing to do".

Plus, we'll all get together and "Mize" you if you screw a member over.

Where in the world is there in the world a man so extraordinaire? C'est toi?

[notfast]

It’s weird to me that anyone thinks the seller is free of all responsibility after shipping something.

I’ve been selling in this industry for 20+ years and that’s just not how people do business in this market.

Obviously communication is key between both parties but unless the package is stolen after delivery before pickup by buyer, it’s on the seller.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where in the world is there in the world a man so extraordinaire? C'est toi?

My father actually, I just try and hold a candle.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Or, we could rely on a man's integrity and word, also patience, understanding, etiquette, and sense of fairness. Quite a refreshing concept in a world where too many rules allow a person to escape personal responsibility and "the right thing to do".

Plus, we'll all get together and "Mize" you if you screw a member over.

What personal responsibility is a seller exactly escaping? Most b/s/t posts simply state, “1933 John Doe $225.00 shipped F/F.” Let’s examine the parties’ obligations under this clear, plain language contract.

Buyer: The buyer has satisfied his performance under the contract once he has timely sent the payment. The risk of loss is still with the seller at this point.

Seller: The contract only states “shipped.” The seller is only responsible for placing the card into a third-party carrier’s hands, paying the shipping expense, and providing the seller the relevant information (i.e. the carrier’s identity, and tracking number). After this has occurred, both parties have satisfied their obligations under the contract. The contract is satisfied and over. The risk of loss has now transferred to the buyer.

The seller has no obligation to ride on the third-party carrier’s plane, shadow the delivery person, and personally watch the delivery person hand the card to the buyer. The seller, under my above hypothetical, has no obligation to provide a refund if the package is lost.

If a third-party carrier loses an item, why is the alleged “right thing to do” for the seller to incur the lose? What did the seller do wrong? He did everything the contract required!

He has no control over the third-party carrier’s personnel, equipment, security, etc. This is the reason why there is a huge difference between a shipping contract and a destination/delivery contract.

Most members will shout, “but the buyer is also innocent and did nothing wrong.” Although the buyer didn’t cause the package to become lost, he agreed to the shipping contract’s terms. The parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. A deal is a deal.

Ignorance of the law and how the contract’s terms and conditions, which the buyer voluntarily entered into, work is no excuse - especially if the result is the seller taking the loss when he satisfied the contract.

The buyer certainly has the ability to negotiate better terms and conditions. No one made the buyer agree to enter into a shipping contract. The buyer had the ability to negotiate a destination/delivery contract. He also had the ability to negotiate G/S. The buyer could’ve negotiated the seller to buy shipping insurance for him. The buyer did not.

So, who is trying to avoid personal responsibility - the seller who satisfied the term’s of the contract or the buyer who is now adding terms and conditions, and trying to rewrite it once an item is lost?

[Casey2296]

Here's a thought. This whole thread was a shitshow from the start and yes both the buyer and seller share responsibility. Seller clearly could have communicated better and the buyer could have had more patience. Either way it could have gone much better for both without any talk of contractual obligations.

I know of one member here who offered to anonymously pay the $225 to the buyer to make him whole without any recourse from either party. Why? because it was Christmas, the buyer is a nice guy who just lost patience, and the seller has brain cancer.

Sometimes people just do something nice for fellow humans when it seems the right thing to do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If I sell you a card and it doesn't get there, I am going to refund you even if you technically bore the risk of loss under the UCC or whatever set of rules, because it's the right thing to do. Sometimes being ethical requires going beyond the law.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

What personal responsibility is a seller exactly escaping? Most b/s/t posts simply state, “1933 John Doe $225.00 shipped F/F.” Let’s examine the parties’ obligations under this clear, plain language contract.

Buyer: The buyer has satisfied his performance under the contract once he has timely sent the payment. The risk of loss is still with the seller at this point.

Seller: The contract only states “shipped.” The seller is only responsible for placing the card into a third-party carrier’s hands, paying the shipping expense, and providing the seller the relevant information (i.e. the carrier’s identity, and tracking number). After this has occurred, both parties have satisfied their obligations under the contract. The contract is satisfied and over. The risk of loss has now transferred to the buyer.

The seller has no obligation to ride on the third-party carrier’s plane, shadow the delivery person, and personally watch the delivery person hand the card to the buyer. The seller, under my above hypothetical, has no obligation to provide a refund if the package is lost.

If a third-party carrier loses an item, why is the alleged “right thing to do” for the seller to incur the lose? What did the seller do wrong? He did everything the contract required!

He has no control over the third-party carrier’s personnel, equipment, security, etc. This is the reason why there is a huge difference between a shipping contract and a destination/delivery contract.

Most members will shout, “but the buyer is also innocent and did nothing wrong.” Although the buyer didn’t cause the package to become lost, he agreed to the shipping contract’s terms. The parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. A deal is a deal.

Ignorance of the law and how the contract’s terms and conditions, which the buyer voluntarily entered into, work is no excuse - especially if the result is the seller taking the loss when he satisfied the contract.

The buyer certainly has the ability to negotiate better terms and conditions. No one made the buyer agree to enter into a shipping contract. The buyer had the ability to negotiate a destination/delivery contract. He also had the ability to negotiate G/S. The buyer could’ve negotiated the seller to buy shipping insurance for him. The buyer did not.

So, who is trying to avoid personal responsibility - the seller who satisfied the term’s of the contract or the buyer who is now adding terms and conditions, and trying to rewrite it once an item is lost?

When sellers say $225 shipped, I'm sure they mean no extra shipping charges. I've never took that to mean the seller is claiming once shipped, he is free from any responsibility.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

What personal responsibility is a seller exactly escaping? Most b/s/t posts simply state, “1933 John Doe $225.00 shipped F/F.” Let’s examine the parties’ obligations under this clear, plain language contract.

Buyer: The buyer has satisfied his performance under the contract once he has timely sent the payment. The risk of loss is still with the seller at this point.

Seller: The contract only states “shipped.” The seller is only responsible for placing the card into a third-party carrier’s hands, paying the shipping expense, and providing the seller the relevant information (i.e. the carrier’s identity, and tracking number). After this has occurred, both parties have satisfied their obligations under the contract. The contract is satisfied and over. The risk of loss has now transferred to the buyer.

The seller has no obligation to ride on the third-party carrier’s plane, shadow the delivery person, and personally watch the delivery person hand the card to the buyer. The seller, under my above hypothetical, has no obligation to provide a refund if the package is lost.

If a third-party carrier loses an item, why is the alleged “right thing to do” for the seller to incur the lose? What did the seller do wrong? He did everything the contract required!

He has no control over the third-party carrier’s personnel, equipment, security, etc. This is the reason why there is a huge difference between a shipping contract and a destination/delivery contract.

Most members will shout, “but the buyer is also innocent and did nothing wrong.” Although the buyer didn’t cause the package to become lost, he agreed to the shipping contract’s terms. The parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. A deal is a deal.

Ignorance of the law and how the contract’s terms and conditions, which the buyer voluntarily entered into, work is no excuse - especially if the result is the seller taking the loss when he satisfied the contract.

The buyer certainly has the ability to negotiate better terms and conditions. No one made the buyer agree to enter into a shipping contract. The buyer had the ability to negotiate a destination/delivery contract. He also had the ability to negotiate G/S. The buyer could’ve negotiated the seller to buy shipping insurance for him. The buyer did not.

So, who is trying to avoid personal responsibility - the seller who satisfied the term’s of the contract or the buyer who is now adding terms and conditions, and trying to rewrite it once an item is lost?

When I buy something online, there usually is a charge for shipping not delivery. Are you saying that if I never receive the item, a company could tell me they fulfilled their legal requirement by sending out the item and it's not their fault it never arrived? Since you indicated in a later post you practice law, I am interested in the answer to my question because while I am fairly certain any company would issue a refund if an item never arrived, I would like to know if you are saying that legally, they wouldn't have to.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Or, we could rely on a man's integrity and word, also patience, understanding, etiquette, and sense of fairness. Quite a refreshing concept in a world where too many rules allow a person to escape personal responsibility and "the right thing to do".

Precisely. Gambling debts are not enforceable but a gentleman pays his gambling debts regardless. If we have to resort to legalities here then we lose the concept of community. From a community-based standpoint, if you as a seller request PPFF you are telling the buyer that getting the item to him is on you because you are asking him to throw away all of his protections. For that reason I always, always pay via paypal's commercial process for anything expensive, even if I have to add in the 3%, just so I never have to deal with this scenario. If I want a truly unprotected transaction I can send a check or pay via Zelle or PPFF, with the understanding that I may have to eat the loss if the item doesn't arrive through no fault of the seller and if the seller chooses not to be a gentleman about the loss.

Legally speaking, I think we have a situation of in pari delicto here: both sides are culpable and the courts might not grant either relief. They agreed to use an unprotected method to transmit the payment and the item was truly lost in the mail.

[JK]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I don't mean to Jump Someone Else's Train, but this is a good idea. Having a well defined set of rules would be Just Like Heaven. It would reduce stress during those Inbetween Days when the package is in transit.

Let's make the rules crystal clear, so we can all be Lovecats.

A defined set of rules would certainly Cure some of the issues being discussed in this thread (sorry, couldn't resist).

[drcy]

"$225 shipped"

Plain language reading would mean shipped to the destination. If the destination is Toledo, I don't think "shipped to Buenos Aires" or "shipped to my cousin's house" qualifies as shipped under the circumstance. Shipped is short for "shipped to ___.

If shipped doesn't mean "shipped to you," and instead means "shipped to you or anywhere else in the world," then the word has no practical meaning and there would be no need for shipping insurance.

Not to say it isn't a "life is unfair" scenario for the seller you gave the package to the USPS. Sucks for the seller, and, as already said, it can be a financial problem for some people to have to suddenly reimburse the money.

If the seller means/wants something else ("My responsibility is to get it in the mail. If the USPS loses it, that's not my responsibility" or "$225 put it in the mail"), that can be written in the sales description.