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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

To me it became a shitshow when the buyer, having learned the seller just had brain surgery, turned up the pressure on him by pointing out his posting history and complaining that he was not getting priority. Over a baseball card? Seriously? And yes, I get it that others disagree and that's fine.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me it became a shitshow when the buyer, having learned the seller just had brain surgery, turned up the pressure on him by pointing out his posting history and complaining that he was not getting priority. Over a baseball card? Seriously? And yes, I get it that others disagree and that's fine.

I would agree with you Peter, bad form as they say.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by 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.

The seller didn't communicate at all. If he feels the buyer is being impatient, that does not give him the right to ignore a buyer. This whole thing could have been avoided by the seller taking 10 seconds to reply and ease the buyers mind.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The seller didn't communicate at all. If he feels the buyer is being impatient, that does not give him the right to ignore a buyer. This whole thing could have been avoided by the seller taking 10 seconds to reply and ease the buyers mind.

Of course, communication solves most issue. I do find it odd that the seller is posting here without addressing a satisfactory solution to the transaction in question.

[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.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pete, I agree. I’ve constantly stated throughout this thread that the proper etiquette is to reimburse. I only buy and sell $100 to $200 cards on here, as my two local card shops and other connections provide my bigger purchases, so I’m not too concerned with whether I get burned as a buyer or seller. Plus, I wouldn’t mess with the hassle.

However, I can’t blame some sellers if they don’t want to reimburse. You never know another man’s financial condition. Maybe the seller can’t afford to take the hit. I know there are a lot of wealthy people on here. I’m sure there are also collectors on here with limited budgets as well.

I’ve practiced law for the better part of two decades, and am just trying to educate and provide a perspective on both parties’ sides.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Pete, I agree. I’ve constantly stated throughout this thread that the proper etiquette is to reimburse. I only buy and sell $100 to $200 cards on here, as my two local card shops and other connections provide my bigger purchases, so I’m not too concerned with whether I get burned as a buyer or seller. Plus, I wouldn’t mess with the hassle.

However, I can’t blame some sellers if they don’t want to reimburse. You never know another man’s financial condition. Maybe the seller can’t afford to take the hit. I know there are a lot of wealthy people on here. I’m sure there are also collectors on here with limited budgets as well.

I’ve practiced law for the better part of two decades, and am just trying to educate and provide a perspective on both parties’ sides.

A seller can purchase insurance against that contingency, if worried about it.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure but when do you throw in the towel on it "not getting there"? That's not so cut and dry. I think it's important people try to see things from the perspective of the other side. A very simple task but by no means easy. The buyer assumes the card was stolen because he was told it was most likely stolen, so to him the situation is over and he's due a refund. Additionally he's probably anxious about having paid via f&f, and not getting a response from the seller only ratchets up that anxiety. The seller probably sees the USPS dealing with historic delays that they're just now beginning to unwind and assumes it could still be delivered. Both of these viewpoints are reasonable.

As others have stated, communication is key. If I were the seller in a situation like this is like to think I'd refund the buyer with the agreement that the payment will be re-sent if the item ever shows up.

[Tyruscobb]

This thread’s pro-buyer crowd is placing sellers in an untenable position. A seller has no protection and is always at a buyer’s pure mercy/honesty. The issue boils down to proof. Let’s walk it through.

What proof do we have that a seller has ever shipped a card? Well, there is a tracking number. This is hard evidence that the seller upheld his end. Absent hacking, there is no way for a seller to fake a tracking number that then shows up in the third-party carrier’s computer/tracking system. The seller providing a tracking number does not rely on his word, mercy, or honesty. This is objective evidence that the seller did what he said he would do.

What proof do we have that a buyer never receives a card? Checking the tracking number is a good start. However, we have all read stories on this site and others' where buyers have claimed that they never received an item despite the third-party carrier’s system showing that it delivered the item.

Is this possible? Sure - computer glitches occur, and sometimes thieves raid mailboxes and porches. Let’s use this scenario – one where the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item, but the buyer swears he never received it?

Under this scenario, the seller has absolute proof that he shipped the card. He has a tracking number that he provided the buyer two weeks earlier. Moreover, the tracking number shows the card went from the seller’s location to the buyer’s location. This is nice evidence. The seller also has evidence that the carrier delivered the card. The carrier’s tracking number shows it allegedly delivered it.

Now, what proof does the buyer have that he never received the card? His own word - That is it. So, despite all the seller’s objective evidence, the seller is now at the buyer’s pure mercy that he is telling the truth. Sellers have to provide evidence – i.e. shipping receipts, tracking numbers, etc. Buyers do not – we simply have to just take their word?

This is a ridiculous position to place sellers in, and exactly why most states have passed laws determining that the the risk of loss passes from the seller to the buyer once he has placed the item into the third-party carrier’s hands, paid for the shipping expense, and emailed the buyer all the details – carrier identity, tracking number, estimated delivery date, etc. This rule is easy and makes sense.

To the insurance table beating crowd – under my hypothetical scenario, do you think the seller has any chance of collecting the insurance proceeds? Good luck. The third-party carrier will say our system shows we delivered the item. So, under my scenario, buying insurance will do nothing, and the seller wasted his money. You might as well use it as toilet paper. How does a seller protect himself, even if he has insurance, if the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item?

I have a hard time placing a higher standard on a private seller than a private buyer. This isn’t a small buyer dealing with a large, sophisticated, international, multi-billion dollar box store seller, who has the financial means to take the hit and wants to always keep the customer happy; this is private citizen John Doe seller dealing with private citizen James Doe buyer.

As I said before, this thread’s pro-buyer crowd has become accustomed to the policies and rules that large companies and financial institutes implement to protect the buyer. These rules are not laws, and do not apply to private individuals entering into private contracts. These companies have every incentive to protect buyers – they want future business. The customer is always right to them. This is why they have adopted rules that are oftentimes contrary to the actual laws that govern contracts and shipping.

Parties are free to negotiate a deal's terms. if a buyer wants protection then demand and negotiate it during the deal. Just know that the seller is probably not going to internalize this protection's added expense and may increase the deal's total price. Not using these protections benefits both parties. It allows the seller to not provide a refund if the buyer claims the card was never delivered. On the flip side, it allows the buyer to purchase a card for a cheaper price. Again, seller's don't simply internalize the added protection's cost, they pass it along to the seller and adjust the card's final price.

So, what is a nice compromise for a collegial collecting community? I say the two parties split the loss – King Solomon wisdom.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

This thread’s pro-buyer crowd is placing sellers in an untenable position. A seller has no protection and is always at a buyer’s pure mercy/honesty. The issue boils down to proof. Let’s walk it through.

What proof do we have that a seller has ever shipped a card? Well, there is a tracking number. This is hard evidence that the seller upheld his end. Absent hacking, there is no way for a seller to fake a tracking number that then shows up in the third-party carrier’s computer/tracking system. The buyer providing a tracking number does not rely on his word, mercy, or honesty. This is objective evidence that the seller did what he said he would do.

What proof do we have that a seller never receives a card? Checking the tracking number is a good start. However, we have all read stories on this site where individuals have claimed that they never received an item despite the third-party carrier’s system showing that it delivered the item.

Is this possible? Sure - computer glitches occur, and sometimes thieves raid mailboxes and porches. Let’s use this scenario – one where the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item, but the seller swears he never received it?

Under this scenario, the seller has absolute proof that he shipped the card. He has a tracking number that he provided the buyer two weeks earlier. Moreover, the tracking number shows the card went from the seller’s location to the buyer’s location. This is nice evidence. The seller also has evidence that the carrier delivered the card. The carrier’s tracking number shows it delivered it.

Now, what proof does the buyer have that he never received the card? His own word - That is it. So, despite all the seller’s objective evidence, the seller is now at the buyer’s pure mercy that he is telling the truth. Sellers have to provide evidence – i.e. shipping receipts, tracking numbers, etc. Buyers do not – we simply have to just take their word?

This is a ridiculous position to place someone in, and exactly why most states have passed laws determining that the the risk of loss passes from the seller to the buyer once he has placed the item into the third-party carrier’s hands, paid for the shipping expense, and emailed the buyer all the details – carrier identity, tracking number, estimated delivery date, etc. This is the rule makes sense.

To the insurance table beating crowd – under my hypothetical scenario, do you think this seller has any chance of collecting the insurance proceeds? Good luck. The third-party carrier will say our system shows we delivered the item. So, under my scenario, buying insurance did nothing, and the seller wasted his money. You might as well use it as toilet paper. How does a seller protect himself, even if he has insurance, if the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item?

I have a hard time placing a higher standard on the seller than the buyer. This isn’t a small buyer dealing with a large box store seller, who has the financial means to take the hit and wants to always keep the customer happy; this is private John Doe seller dealing with private James Doe buyer.

As I said before, this thread’s pro-buyer crowd has become accustomed to the policies and rules that large companies and financial institutes implement to protect the buyer. These rules are not laws, and do not apply to private individuals entering into private contracts. These companies have every incentive to protect buyers – they want future business. The customer is always right to them. This is why they have adopted rules that are oftentimes contrary to the actual laws that govern contracts and shipping.

So, what is a nice compromise for a collegial collecting community? I say the two parties split the loss – King Solomon wisdom.

Good points and very reasonable. Had the facts played out this way I'd be with you: if the USPS shows an item I sold as delivered any problem after that is a "you" problem not a "me" problem. As I understand the fact pattern, though, the item never reached the buyer: it got swallowed up in the postal black hole. Happens sometimes. I've had a few packages go down the rabbit hole myself. So what to do when neither side is at fault? Well, had they not agreed to cheat the devil by using PPFF, the answer is clear: the buyer gets a refund and the seller is left to whatever insurance (private or USPS) that he has to cover these situations. Since they made the bargain they made, however, they have to allocate the loss somehow, and as between the two of them it is a coin-toss under the circumstances.

[bobbyw8469]

I am just now getting to this and looking at the tracking. Yea, that one is pretty bad. Over a month with no update. To the OP....have you ran a trace on the package yet?? There is a Consumer Affairs number you can call with the Post Office......I would get the ball rolling with that.

[mrmopar]

This comment is not meant to describe or imply anything similar with the transaction in question that started this thread, but I simply wanted to toss this out there in response to your post.

I was scanning a lot of the posts in this thread, so this may have been discussed somewhere along the way and I just missed it. If not though, here is one way that a seller could scam a buyer, but still provide tracking.

The tracking number is provided once you buy the label, at least with the Ebay/USPS system. Clearly the seller has purchased postage in which to send the package. That number is now recorded and trackable.

The package enters the system and we watch it move from A to B. Finally, it arrives, and is scanned in as delivered. The seller has now fully delivered on their end of the deal.

The buyer opens the package, and to help drive my point home, even notices that there seems to be no alteration of the package. It is sealed, no rips, tears, resealing, tape, etc.

Here is where my biggest fear of seller fraud comes into play. The buyer reaches into the package for their prize and the package is EMPTY! There is now proof of tracking and delivery, but the seller has simply sent an empty envelope. I do not believe the buyer has any recourse at all at this point and it is a matter of his word against that of the seller.

We hate to think of it, both as a buyer or a seller and thankfully it seems to happen infrequently enough, but there are people out there that are just looking to screw others, period.

I will now share the largest scam I was party to, since I started buying collectibles online. Thankfully the number of bad transactions is a tiny blip on the overall count, otherwise I probably would have quit online trading/buying a long time ago.

This was on the Beckett boards, I think. It's been a very long time, maybe 25 years, so the details may be a little hazy. I am obviously still sore about this after all these years, as i am sharing the story once more. A collector was looking for Brett Favre cards. He was offering one of those certified Topps Willie Mays autographs that were pack inserted. I should have seen this coming, but I allowed myself to trust the guy and ignore some red flags.

I don't recall any of the negotiations, but ultimately ended up sending him an appropriate amount of Favre cards equalling the BV of the Mays. Red Flag #1, this guy is willing to trade me a Mays auto for a stack of $2-5 Favre cards that add up to the Mays value! Who does that?

He gets my Favre cards and is happy with them. The Mays card arrives to me, as promised, except it is a regular commemorative reprint, not the hand signed one. The card was his 1954 Topps card. Those have facsimile autographs on them to begin with, but an authentic Topps autographed card would have had a 2nd signature, the facsimile and a real signature too. I let him know it was not the autographed version and he claims that he had no clue, that his local shop even confirmed it was the autographed version, red flag #2. Anyone with eyes and a clue would not have mistaken this card for a signed one.

He continues to communicate with me, claiming he'll make it right. In the end, I agree to some vintage FB star cards equal to the value of the Favres, red flag #3 similar to the first flag, who trades vintage star cards for common new inserts?

Needless to say, I never got anymore cards from him. Eventually he just stoped responding, after giving me excuse after excuse as to why he had not sent anything to me yet. Did I mention, he claimed to be in a wheelchair at some point after the trade was made. Perhaps that was true, but it just seemed a little too convenient for the scenario. I traded about $150 worth of Favre inserts for a $4 reprint card. Not the end of the world and glad i can call this my worst, especially at today's values. I'd still take the hit, but the gap in value would have shrunk considerably bewteen the late 90s and now.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

This thread’s pro-buyer crowd is placing sellers in an untenable position. A seller has no protection and is always at a buyer’s pure mercy/honesty. The issue boils down to proof. Let’s walk it through.

What proof do we have that a seller has ever shipped a card? Well, there is a tracking number. This is hard evidence that the seller upheld his end. Absent hacking, there is no way for a seller to fake a tracking number that then shows up in the third-party carrier’s computer/tracking system. The seller providing a tracking number does not rely on his word, mercy, or honesty. This is objective evidence that the seller did what he said he would do.

What proof do we have that a buyer never receives a card? Checking the tracking number is a good start. However, we have all read stories on this site and others' where buyers have claimed that they never received an item despite the third-party carrier’s system showing that it delivered the item.

Is this possible? Sure - computer glitches occur, and sometimes thieves raid mailboxes and porches. Let’s use this scenario – one where the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item, but the buyer swears he never received it?

Under this scenario, the seller has absolute proof that he shipped the card. He has a tracking number that he provided the buyer two weeks earlier. Moreover, the tracking number shows the card went from the seller’s location to the buyer’s location. This is nice evidence. The seller also has evidence that the carrier delivered the card. The carrier’s tracking number shows it allegedly delivered it.

Now, what proof does the buyer have that he never received the card? His own word - That is it. So, despite all the seller’s objective evidence, the seller is now at the buyer’s pure mercy that he is telling the truth. Sellers have to provide evidence – i.e. shipping receipts, tracking numbers, etc. Buyers do not – we simply have to just take their word?

This is a ridiculous position to place sellers in, and exactly why most states have passed laws determining that the the risk of loss passes from the seller to the buyer once he has placed the item into the third-party carrier’s hands, paid for the shipping expense, and emailed the buyer all the details – carrier identity, tracking number, estimated delivery date, etc. This rule is easy and makes sense.

To the insurance table beating crowd – under my hypothetical scenario, do you think the seller has any chance of collecting the insurance proceeds? Good luck. The third-party carrier will say our system shows we delivered the item. So, under my scenario, buying insurance will do nothing, and the seller wasted his money. You might as well use it as toilet paper. How does a seller protect himself, even if he has insurance, if the carrier’s system shows it delivered the item?

I have a hard time placing a higher standard on a private seller than a private buyer. This isn’t a small buyer dealing with a large, sophisticated, international, multi-billion dollar box store seller, who has the financial means to take the hit and wants to always keep the customer happy; this is private citizen John Doe seller dealing with private citizen James Doe buyer.

As I said before, this thread’s pro-buyer crowd has become accustomed to the policies and rules that large companies and financial institutes implement to protect the buyer. These rules are not laws, and do not apply to private individuals entering into private contracts. These companies have every incentive to protect buyers – they want future business. The customer is always right to them. This is why they have adopted rules that are oftentimes contrary to the actual laws that govern contracts and shipping.

Parties are free to negotiate a deal's terms. if a buyer wants protection then demand and negotiate it during the deal. Just know that the seller is probably not going to internalize this protection's added expense and may increase the deal's total price. Not using these protections benefits both parties. It allows the seller to not provide a refund if the buyer claims the card was never delivered. On the flip side, it allows the buyer to purchase a card for a cheaper price. Again, seller's don't simply internalize the added protection's cost, they pass it along to the seller and adjust the card's final price.

So, what is a nice compromise for a collegial collecting community? I say the two parties split the loss – King Solomon wisdom.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

The package enters the system and we watch it move from A to B. Finally, it arrives, and is scanned in as delivered. The seller has now fully delivered on their end of the deal.

The buyer opens the package, and to help drive my point home, even notices that there seems to be no alteration of the package. It is sealed, no rips, tears, resealing, tape, etc.

Here is where my biggest fear of seller fraud comes into play. The buyer reaches into the package for their prize and the package is EMPTY! There is now proof of tracking and delivery, but the seller has simply sent an empty envelope. I do not believe the buyer has any recourse at all at this point and it is a matter of his word against that of the now.

Not a new trick. Happened to me almost 15 years ago on an eBay purchase of a Gretzky rc. Before eBay was pro buyer. I can’t stand a thief!

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with risk of loss.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed. It has nothing to do with risk of loss.

It has everything to do with risk of loss. Even though the card may be 3,000 miles away, you become the legal owner as soon as you pay the buyer. You don’t become the owner when you open the package at your house and physically take possession. You become the owner when payment is made.

However, despite your ownership before the card is even shipped, the question becomes when the risk of loss transfers from the seller (the possessor, but no longer owner) to buyer (the current owner, but not possessor).

“225 shipped F/F” means in exchange for $225, the seller will sell you the card and ship it to you. That’s it. There are no implied or other implicit conditions or terms. You can try to read them in all you want. Shipped does not mean delivered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

It has everything to do with risk of loss. Even though the card may be 3,000 miles away, you become the legal owner as soon as you pay the buyer. You don’t become the owner when you open the package at your house and physically take possession. You become the owner when payment is made.

However, despite your ownership before the card is even shipped, the question becomes when the risk of loss transfers from the seller (the possessor, but no longer owner) to buyer (the current owner, but not possessor).

“225 shipped F/F” means in exchange for $225, the seller will sell you the card and ship it to you. That’s it. There are no implied or other implicit conditions or terms. You can try to read them in all you want. Shipped does not mean delivered.

To the extent you are arguing the use of the word "shipped" suggests both parties understood it to be a "shipping contract" with what that implies for who bears the risk of loss, I disagree. Nobody thinks about it in those terms except maybe you LOL. But as to the legal effect of the contract, I agree with you, I was the first to post the relevant UCC provision if memory serves. But my point is that the ultimate question here is ethical, not legal.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To the extent you are arguing the use of the word "shipped" suggests both parties understood it to be a "shipping contract" with what that implies for who bears the risk of loss, I disagree. Nobody thinks about it in those terms except maybe you LOL. But as to the legal effect of the contract, I agree with you, I was the first to post the relevant UCC provision if memory serves. But my point is that the ultimate question here is ethical, not legal.

You may be right. I’m probably one of the few that thinks about these things. I can’t turn it off. That is what a legal education and career does to you.

Ethically, I think the fair thing to do amongst friends is to split the loss. However, I’m sure this too won’t satisfy some of the folks here. They will want the seller to reimburse the buyer and pay him for his emotional distress.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

You may be right. I’m probably one of the few that thinks about these things. I can’t turn it off. That is what a legal education and career does to you.

Ethically, I think the fair thing to do amongst friends is to split the loss. However, I’m sure this too won’t satisfy some of the folks here. They will want the seller to reimburse the buyer and pay him for his emotional distress.

In my fourth decade practicing and I have long since turned it off … well, sort of lol.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

It has everything to do with risk of loss. Even though the card may be 3,000 miles away, you become the legal owner as soon as you pay the buyer. You don’t become the owner when you open the package at your house and physically take possession. You become the owner when payment is made.

However, despite your ownership before the card is even shipped, the question becomes when the risk of loss transfers from the seller (the possessor, but no longer owner) to buyer (the current owner, but not possessor).

“225 shipped F/F” means in exchange for $225, the seller will sell you the card and ship it to you. That’s it. There are no implied or other implicit conditions or terms. You can try to read them in all you want. Shipped does not mean delivered.

If the seller accepts PayPal, they must abide by PayPal's terms and that means Goods and Services are protected until the product is delivered, not just shipped.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Jim65

If the seller accepts PayPal, they must abide by PayPal's terms and that means Goods and Services are protected until the product is delivered, not just shipped.

I understand that. But, the parties apparently negotiated and agreed to opt out of G/S, and agreed on F/F. The buyer lost all his protections at that point.

People are forgetting (or maybe they honestly do not know) that their experiences and transactions with/through large commercial companies, who have certain policies and rules, do not always apply to private individuals entering into a private contract. These large company transactions have created expectations that are not always the law, and do not always apply to private transactions. People, however, are applying these large companies’ rules and their conditioned consumer expectations to other contracts. This is a mistake. You cannot mix apples and oranges.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

Your understanding is exactly correct. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

[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.