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

[unamuzd1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dude, the guy just had brain surgery. It's hardly appropriate to be cross-examining him about his posting activity. Maybe he spent a little time here as a diversion from the physical and emotional stress he was under, and your refund wasn't his highest priority. Let it go for now. Show some grace.

I'm not the type to reply with something like "+1," but I will write an entire sentence that includes a "+1" or two to indicate agreement.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dude, the guy just had brain surgery. It's hardly appropriate to be cross-examining him about his posting activity. Maybe he spent a little time here as a diversion from the physical and emotional stress he was under, and your refund wasn't his highest priority. Let it go for now. Show some grace.

Sorry Peter, I disagree. While I do have sympathy for the seller, if he can post here, he can take 10 seconds to reply to a PM. If someone sells an item and it was potentially lost or stolen, it should be higher up on the priority list.

A short response explaining his situation and this whole thing could have been avoided.

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

dude, the guy just had brain surgery. It's hardly appropriate to be cross-examining him about his posting activity. Maybe he spent a little time here as a diversion from the physical and emotional stress he was under, and your refund wasn't his highest priority. Let it go for now. Show some grace.

+ 100

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Sorry Peter, I disagree. While I do have sympathy for the seller, if he can post here, he can take 10 seconds to reply to a PM. If someone sells an item and it was potentially lost or stolen, it should be higher up on the priority list.

A short response explaining his situation and this whole thing could have been avoided.

We see it differently. I understand that it's not necessarily the best look, but I am going to be very loath to come down on a man who's just been through brain surgery about a baseball card transaction.

[Brian Van Horn]

https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfi...%2C&tABt=false

One other thing to note is that when I spoke with Audra

Phone: 845-268-8742 on Saturday December 19 who indicated the shipping containing the package was NOT stolen and that they were checking USPS departments for the shipping which included more shipments than one packaging. The phone number is for the post office that handles deliveries to Larry's address.

[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.

[jbsports33]

USPS is delayed so much this year, try and work it out - so you can get some sleep. If the package was not tracked then you have a problem, I am sure there is some tracking with your order. I do see this is a good discussion and we need to keep decent communication, just remember the tough year we all had. Good luck! and Happy Collecting to All!

Jimmy

[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?

[RCMcKenzie]

Best of luck on your recovery, Brian.

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We see it differently. I understand that it's not necessarily the best look, but I am going to be very loath to come down on a man who's just been through brain surgery about a baseball card transaction.

But he is continuing to post for sale after Sx is he not? I wish the man well and hope everything turns out fine for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[buymycards]

I have this package coming that contains 2 items that were won from an auction house.

Date Time Location Status
December 12, 2020 IN TRANSIT, ARRIVING LATE
December 8, 2020 16:16 LEHIGHTON,PA,18235 DEPARTED POST OFFICE
December 8, 2020 09:39 LEHIGHTON,PA,18235 USPS PICKED UP ITEM
December 8, 2020 05:22 NESQUEHONING,PA,18240 SHIPPING LABEL CREATED, USPS AWAITING ITEM

No movement since December 8th. The PO is inundated with packages and they currently have 19,000 employees who aren't working because of COVID. I think the OP needs to chill and give this a little more time.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Best of luck on your recovery, Brian.

Thank you, Rob.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is going to Boston lol. Now it will be stuck in Jersey City.

December 26, 2020, 10:56 am
Arrived at USPS Regional Origin Facility
JERSEY CITY NJ NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
Your item arrived at our JERSEY CITY NJ NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER origin facility on December 26, 2020 at 10:56 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination.

December 12, 2020
In Transit to Next Facility

December 8, 2020, 4:15 pm
Departed Post Office
FERRISBURGH, VT 05456
December 8, 2020, 2:22 pm
USPS in possession of item
FERRISBURGH, VT 05456

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I have this package coming that contains 2 items that were won from an auction house.

Date Time Location Status
December 12, 2020 IN TRANSIT, ARRIVING LATE
December 8, 2020 16:16 LEHIGHTON,PA,18235 DEPARTED POST OFFICE
December 8, 2020 09:39 LEHIGHTON,PA,18235 USPS PICKED UP ITEM
December 8, 2020 05:22 NESQUEHONING,PA,18240 SHIPPING LABEL CREATED, USPS AWAITING ITEM

No movement since December 8th. The PO is inundated with packages and they currently have 19,000 employees who aren't working because of COVID. I think the OP needs to chill and give this a little more time.

Thanks for your patience Rick. I have someone who has filed a Paypal claim against me who's on the same timeline as you.

[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.

[jayshum]

I have shipped several packages lately that have taken around 2 weeks for delivery, but so far, there haven't been any that have not been updated in more than a week which at least gave hope that they would eventually be delivered (a few are still out there so hopefully they will be as well). I appreciate the patience of the buyers with whom I have been in contact several times to let them know what the tracking is showing.

For the OP, there has been no update in a month now, and he was told by someone at the post office that the package was likely stolen along with some others. Of course, the seller was told it wasn't stolen so with everything going on with USPS right now, who knows what really happened.

As many others have said, this is what insurance is for. It protects the seller in case something happens in transit. You can get into semantics about if the the seller is responsible just for shipping or for actual delivery, but if I buy something from any company and my purchase is being shipped through the mail, if I never receive it, I will be calling them and expecting a refund as I'm sure everyone on this board would do. I don't see why the expectation would be any different when buying from a private individual unless it was specifically discussed as part of the purchase. If insurance was offered but turned down and the buyer was told they should then not expect a refund if something happened in shipping, that would clearly be different, but it doesn't sound like that is the case here.

[RL]

shipping is slow....priority package sent 120 miles away

December 26, 2020, 12:25 pm
Delivered, Front Door/Porch
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
Your item was delivered at the front door or porch at 12:25 pm on December 26, 2020 in FRANKLIN, MI 48025.
December 26, 2020, 6:41 am
Out for Delivery
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
December 26, 2020, 6:30 am
Arrived at Post Office
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48037
December 26, 2020, 4:47 am
Departed USPS Regional Facility
DETROIT MI NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
December 25, 2020, 7:23 pm
Arrived at USPS Regional Facility
DETROIT MI NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
December 3, 2020
In Transit to Next Facility
November 29, 2020, 1:28 am
Arrived at USPS Regional Origin Facility
GRAND RAPIDS MI DISTRIBUTION CENTER ANNEX
November 28, 2020, 11:00 am
USPS picked up item
WEIDMAN, MI 48893
November 28, 2020, 12:50 am
Shipping Label Created, USPS Awaiting Item
WEIDMAN, MI 48893

[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.

[Jcfowler6]

FYI. I just received a package that was shipped in Nov 2. These things are happening a lot. I have two other packages outstanding that have been be route for a few weeks.

I’d continue to be patient. And I would also give grace the same as I’d like to receive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[Kaneen]

My Dad had many wise pieces of advice he said to me all the time...when faced with a tough decision, he would always say to me,

"Son, always try to do the right thing...and if you get burnt, then just sit on the blister."
~ Clarence Thomas (1928-2013)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jcfowler6]

Two points to consider Well here is “Goods and services” vs “friends and family”.

Why is there such a thing as goods and services via PayPal? The buyer can pay for protection. The buyer chose not to pay the extra fee.

The other side of this - did the seller imply that he takes all risk by offering “friends and family”.? To me That’s the question

With these both in mind. Caveat emptor - the risk falls on the buyer. Protect yourself. When you don’t you should not cry foul in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by Leon

If nothing was mentioned, imo, it is the seller's responsibility to get the card/item to the buyer. It is the buyer's responsibility to pay for it. If the card doesn't get there it is on the seller for a refund. That is if nothing is agreed to beforehand concerning shipping.

I believe all 1st class now comes with tracking and $50 insurance. Again, on the seller to go get it if he wants it.

Here is a 1949 Vis Ed card of Doby....because threads need cards.

+1 on Leon's explanation and I have a Feller in that weird issue Leon.

[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.

[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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Jcfowler6

Two points to consider Well here is “Goods and services” vs “friends and family”.

Why is there such a thing as goods and services via PayPal? The buyer can pay for protection. The buyer chose not to pay the extra fee.

The other side of this - did the seller imply that he takes all risk by offering “friends and family”.? To me That’s the question

With these both in mind. Caveat emptor - the risk falls on the buyer. Protect yourself. When you don’t you should not cry foul in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Friends and Family was never intended to be used to buy stuff. It was meant for sending money to friends and family.

In this sale the seller asked for F&F and didn't give an option that includes buyer protection. I think some people don't understand paying by F&F means giving up any protection that PayPal offers. This isn't the sellers fault, buyers should educate themselves.