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

[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.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Sounds like you may have 20 years on me. I got an A+ in my UCC and secured transactions class by the way. Ha.

[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.