<< <i>It may be as Russ said that the buyer is a dick, but dicks are the ones that often stick it to you.
Using the term "Insurance" and then being the insurance provider, may at some point come back and cause the seller great grief.
First each and every state have laws regarding insurance, some of the issues that these laws deal with are ambiuity of terms, express warranty, representation and warranty and financial representation laws. By just merely stating that you providing insurance for additional cost and then being an insurer, the seller better be prepared for much grief if some "dick" decides to complain to some state regulatory body even if they are made whole again by the seller. >>
So have you ever contacted the the office of the insurance commish for your state and gotten an "official" opinion regarding these situations?
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!" The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If I make a promise to you that your item will be delivered, why isn't my guarantee "insurance" ? I think it's ethical. The willingness to refund the LOSS is not unethical, and charging the same price for it(insurance) that UPS, Lloyds of London, or the USPS charges for that matter, has no bearing on the situation. The purchaser spends more money for that guarantee. Rest easy. The risk of not insuring or "self insuring" is a decision and risk probably based on "economics" and not "ethics". If the item is lost or stolen in transit, then the seller will take care of the problem. It seems wise to a degree. No fussy and messy paperwork after the fact.
As for the feedback in your post, that is another story altogether. That's another problem in itself and grounds for an entirely different thread that has nothing to do with coins .
I have posed the following as a general question to the Iowa Insurance Commissioner's office. I'll post the response here.
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">>
"So have you ever contacted the the office of the insurance commish for your state and gotten an "official" opinion regarding these situations?"
In regards to this situation I have had no reason to contact them directly. All complaints must be in writing to get the Commissioner of Commerce for an investigation to be established and a ruling/penalties to be applied.
However, the state does have a quarterly lists of the individuals that have had complaints filed against them that results in fines, suspensions, revocations or other actions. This list always includes individuals "selling" either non-exstiant insurance or selling insurance products without a license. Also the listing provides information on other regulated industries and occupations within in their scope and there are always warranty violations in some of those catagories.
The lowest fine Ive seen in these cases has been $500 with most fines ranaging $5,000-$10,000. Some of the large fraud cases result in jail time as well.
I'll make a phone call tommorrow to this states insurance section. The question you posted may need to be expanded upon either for your state or others in regards to how the word insurance is presented in the listing. Some states have laws where simply the words insurance and free can not be used together in any manner.
<< <i>I have posed the following as a general question to the Iowa Insurance Commissioner's office. I'll post the response here.
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">> >>
Maybe someone from every state should submit your letter.
However, I now have no defense against the recipient if they lied about receiving the package and could very well end up having a two for one eBay sale. >>
You can buy delivery confirmation without buying insurance from the post office.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>I have posed the following as a general question to the Iowa Insurance Commissioner's office. I'll post the response here.
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">> >>
Maybe someone from every state should submit your letter. >>
Commerce and transportation are functions of the Federal government, not the states. The applicable Federal Trade Commission rules have been posted, showing that it is allowed. No state regulations can override Federal law.
Suppose you bought something from a seller who insured through the USPS, the item was lost and the USPS refused (for whatever reason) to pay off on the claim. Would you take the loss, or should the seller reimburse you? >>
The contract was between you and the seller so the fact that the USPS refuses to honor a claim filed by the seller is immateial because as a seller you still owe the buyer a replacement or a refund. >>
So the seller, already having paid for USPS insurance which did not cover the loss, should reimburse the buyer? Isn't that "self insurance"?
"So have you ever contacted the the office of the insurance commish for your state and gotten an "official" opinion regarding these situations?"
It's completely different to sell insurance for another person's property against loss for some reason than it is to guarantee delivery of your own items. I would even argue that it's not insurance (even though we call it that) when you guarantee delivery of your own stuff.
Commerce and transportation are functions of the Federal government, not the states. The applicable Federal Trade Commission rules have been posted, showing that it is allowed. No state regulations can override Federal law.
LINK "
True for some issues but not so regarding "insurance". As the link indicates only when state law is absent are the Sherman Act, Clayton act and Federal Trade Commision Act then the law.
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!" The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer.
When I posed the original question of legality, I didn't state my position. I didn't want to agree or disagree on a subject that is not clear. It is not my intention to address any issue of ethic. Now that a number of members have posted their thoughts, it is clear that there isn't a final answer to the subject, as I thought when I posed the question. I think this is going to become a larger issue. Sooner or later, someone is going to initiate a legal action. It will be interesting to see the different State responses and Federal response. I would think this self-insurance issue by indiviuals/companies/corporations that don't have a separate account that is specifically for insurance losses and can't prove that the funds are not co-mingled, could possibly be at risk. Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer. >>
If you charge for insurance then do not reimburse the buyer for a loss you have defrauded the buyer. >>
Imho, you are both right.
If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods.
<< <i>If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods. >>
In order to not provide it, one would have to not reimburse for a loss. If you reimburse the buyer for a loss, you have provided it. If the item is delivered, it's a moot issue.
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!" The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer. >>
How? Insurance is for the seller not the buyer. How does the buyer really know if you have provided it or not? As long as you make good in the event of loss its moot. It saves a lot of problems if the seller is upfront about how he will deal with it. Its a cost of doing biz that a seller has a right to recover IMO. Saying that ins is optional and buyer assumes risk of loss is BULLCHIT too. It does give a buyer a measure of comfort if the package arrives showing the seller purchased ins from the PO.
<< <i>In my opinion is it not ethical. Nor is it very smart. Trying to make a few bucks with the possibility of shelling out hundreds or thousands plus all the headaches that come along with it...yikes.
Edited to add: It would be fine if the seller did have a 3rd party insurer. If that's the case the seller needs to make that point LOUD AND CLEAR in his packaging or invoices or somewhere obvious where buyers can see it. >>
I agree. Be upfront. Otherwise a dealer's rep can be tarnished in the view of a buyer, as witnessed by this example. Why risk your good name??
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." PBShelley
<< <i>If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods. >>
In order to not provide it, one would have to not reimburse for a loss. If you reimburse the buyer for a loss, you have provided it. If the item is delivered, it's a moot issue.
edited- spelling. >>
Yes? Your point? What I wrote is not disagreeing with you....so, your point?
Self-insuring for a fee is against Ebay policy, and thus forbidden.
From Ebay: "Sellers offering insurance may only charge the actual fee for insurance. No additional amount may be added, such as “self-insurance”. Sellers who do not use a licensed 3rd party insurance company may not require buyers to purchase insurance. This is a violation of state law."
The violation ONLY occurs when the seller charges an ala carte fee for the insurance.
The costs of self-insurance - or of CIA or an equivalent - can be recouped by charging a flat-rate S+H fee. Sellers CANNOT ala carte - or list individually - an insurance charge that is NOT paid to a third-party insurer AT THE TIME that drayage is contracted.
Insurers and their agents are licensed in all 50-states. Charging an ala carte fee for:
1. Self-Insurance;
2. Pro-Rata Recovery of Premiums Previously Paid To Third-Party Carriers (CIA),
is a violation of law and regs in all 50-dtates. And, it violates EBAY policies.
The 4SC model is the correct method to use. (EBAY sports-card seller.)
"Insured Shipping With Delivery Confirmation Is $xx"
Also, "Free S+H" that includes insurance is not a problem.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>Self-insuring for a fee is against Ebay policy, and thus forbidden.
From Ebay: "Sellers offering insurance may only charge the actual fee for insurance. No additional amount may be added, such as “self-insurance”. Sellers who do not use a licensed 3rd party insurance company may not require buyers to purchase insurance. This is a violation of state law." >>
Sounds like some more stuff some 22 year old ebay tech weenie employee pulled off google out of context and it was deemed ebay "policy." So full of holes it's laughable...
Which "state law"? Ebay transactions are betwee the buyer and seller, and the sale occurs at the sellers location. Ebay cites California law a lot, but it controls a transaction as much as putting an ad in Numismatic News binds the seller to Wisconsin state law (unless that is the location of both parties.)
The post office is not a "licensed 3rd party insurance company."
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
In an effort to push another thread about three or four bucks further towards the magical "100", self-insurance is not part of the contract between the buyer and the seller. Any reference to self-insurance is unnecessary and irrelevant. The buyer doesn't need to know where the seller is going to get the money for a refund should the coin disappear in the mail, and the seller doesn't need to tell him.
Of course, when you have millions of amateurs listing a few things in their spare time, it makes sense that some of them won't communicate and run their businesses like sophisticated businessmen. A wide range of latitude should be granted, as long as the seller is being reasonable. And IMHO, charging a few bucks for a guaranty that the item will arrive is perfectly reasonable, regardless of semantics or "The Law".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Buyers are not responsible for buying INS, It si the sellers duty to get the package delivered or replace or refund. If a seller makes INS a mandatory fee as part of the auction and itemizes it, for instance $5.99 for S&H and ins $3.20, then I want to see the reciept where I got what I paid for. Self insuring is a common practice on less expensive coins and I have no problem with it as long as I am not payong for it. Sellers have expenses that are or should be built into the price there willing to take for there coins.
<< <i>Self insuring is a common practice on less expensive coins and I have no problem with it as long as I am not payong for it. Sellers have expenses that are or should be built into the price there willing to take for there coins. >>
I interpret by the question that your position is that the issue is not regulated now. I agree. There are no clear rules, direction and/or procedure. There are assumptions, various self-interpretations and some practices that are questionable, at best. If regulation existed, this Thread would not have the many interesting and various response that have been posted. Peace of mind, while a comfortable emotion, is not equity. Again, please see my earlier comment- I am not referring to any issue of Ethic.There are many laws and regulations that have questionable Ethic. Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>I interpret by the question that your position is that the issue is not regulated now. I agree. There are no clear rules, direction and/or procedure. There are assumptions, various self-interpretations and some practices that are questionable, at best. If regulation existed, this Thread would not have the many interesting and various response that have been posted. Peace of mind, while a comfortable emotion, is not equity. Again, please see my earlier comment- I am not referring to any issue of Ethic.There are many laws and regulations that have questionable Ethic. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
Does not the UCC aka Uniform Commercial Code spell out a seller's obligations to a buyer for mail order situations like this?
Does it? Is it the clear and undisputed rule concerning the subject at hand? Does it address buyers' assurance? Does it regulate? Remember, I don't know the answers and I ask the questions in that 'tone'. If the answer is affirmation, is this regulation posted in clear language on E-BAY? Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>If a seller makes INS a mandatory fee as part of the auction and itemizes it, for instance $5.99 for S&H and ins $3.20, then I want to see the reciept where I got what I paid for. >>
Buyers say such things all the time, but once it's delivered, there is no way to tell from the package that it wasn't insured (a red ink "INSURED" stamp on the package doesn't prove anything). And having been delivered, there will then be no insurance claim to be made, which would be the only way to confirm that insurance was indeed provided- nobody sends itemized receipts for their shipping expenses to their buyers.
<< <i>What I wrote is not disagreeing with you....so, your point? >>
I didn't disagree with you, either.
<< <i>And IMHO, charging a few bucks for a guaranty that the item will arrive is perfectly reasonable, regardless of semantics or "The Law". >>
Nahhh... that's much too reasonable an attitude.
Buyers are always saying that "insurance is for the protection the seller" and that "it's the seller's responsibility to get the item delivered or to refund the buyer's payment". Ok then- I'm on board with that. Now, since it's *my* responsibility to get the item to you, *I'll* decide the best way to accomplish the task. My shipping practices have evolved to where they are through trial and error in determining what's most efficient and effective *for me*. I'm sure other sellers have gone through the same process, and have come up with different systems that work for them. The point here for buyers is that there is *no* one way to ship stuff that's best- if you want sellers to be responsible for getting your package to you, then just let them do it however it works best for them.
Ins is for the protection of the seller, my point was that if the seller itemizes it as a seperate charge to the buyer then it is reasonable to assume the buyer purchased ins with the carrier. If it is not itmeized as a seperate charge then the seller is free to ship and insure or not as they please. As long as they are going to be responsible if the package does not arrive.
I think the asumptions are not reasonable and don't support the conclusion. I also think that as the buyer, I should not have to make such an assumption. It is either fact or it isn't. Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>In most cases state insurance laws will trump Federal Insurance Regs. >>
I would think that only applies if shipping intrastate.
If you are shipping to someone out of your state, I would think this is "interstate commerce" and federal regulations apply. No? >>
No, not in regards to the "insurance" aspect. The crossing state lines issue that often gives Federal law number one position does not apply in matters of insurance. This can be seen in the matter of auto insurance, when your vehicle crosses state lines your auto insurance automatically conforms to that state's minimum if the coverage you carry is below that state's miniumum requirements.
Also this applies as most insurance policies are issued by a carrier that is out of state. Company A is based in Illinois and the policies it issues for property in other states must conform to the requirements of those individual states, not to any Federal standards per say.
Cargo coverage that the shippers themselves may purchase, are beholden to state regulations not Federal.
<< <i>So, you support not having clear regulation, except self-regulation. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
I support people being responsible for their choices. The idea of having "clear regulation" is meaningless if you're dealing with people who are determined to do as they please. Not that this has stopped eBay from trying, BTW, and in the process, continuing to make life increasingly difficult for all the honest buyers and sellers out there.
<< <i>I've never had to make a claim but doesn't the buyer have to file as they are the one's out. >>
If using USPS insurance and it's a lost item claim, no. There is no recipient participation required. If it's a damage claim then, yes, the buyer has to participate.
As for the ethical issue of self-insurance, Andy's last post says it best.
Clearly stated rules that would be enforced. Clear regulation is certainly not "meaningless". Witness the responses to this Thread. Your thoughts, while addressing ethic, don't offer a solution. Again, see my earlier posts. I am not asking the questions from a point of ethic. Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>Your thoughts, while addressing ethic, don't offer a solution. >>
Read the item listing and check the seller's feedback. If you don't trust that the seller will either deliver the item or compensate you for a loss, then don't bid.
But then, that doesn't involve more regulations, so it's probably not practical is it?
For anybody who's interested, here's my approach to this issue.
For cheap stuff this is what appears in my auctions:
Shipping will be $2.95, which includes careful packing and either delivery confirmation or insurance.
If it goes cheap as anticipated, I just use delivery confirmation. If I get surprised and it goes for more than I thought, I add insurance and eat it.
For stuff I know I'm going to insure, it appears like this:
Shipping will be $x.xx, which includes careful packing and insurance.
Because I use a fixed shipping cost when I sell, and estimating final values isn't exactly an exact science, I frequently end up losing my butt. However, that's fine. This is the simple approach and, on eBay, the simple approach goes a long way toward reducing the number of misunderstandings.
<< <i>This is the simple approach and, on eBay, the simple approach goes a long way toward reducing the number of misunderstandings. >>
I'd agree. I do pretty much as you do, along with a note in my "Item Shipped" email noting that although the package isn't marked, insurance is provided through a private insurance company. Once a month or so, I'll still get an email from a buyer who's unhappy because "he paid for insurance and didn't get it".
Some of you seem to be making the false assumption that it is the seller's responsibility to get the package delivered safely. It's not. Once he delivers the item to the post office, he's off the hook, unless another specific arrangement has been made.
Here's a PDF article on the subject at the PNG Website.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
MrEureka, I don't know about that statement. I would not want to try that with a tax return that goes missing. I would think, at the very least, there would have to be some type of proof that it arrived at a USPS facility. If the seller doesn't have a receipt from USPS to prove this happened, I don't understand how "...he's off the hook...". Then again, it may be my fuzzy logic. respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>Some of you seem to be making the false assumption that it is the seller's responsibility to get the package delivered safely. It's not. Once he delivers the item to the post office, he's off the hook, unless another specific arrangement has been made. >>
Here's how it works as 'splained to me by a really knowledgeable mouthpiece:
Since all credit card transactions (think PayPal) are "approval sales" (there is a right to return when accepting credit cards whether you like it or not), it is incumbent upon the seller to assure delivery. For a merchant, it is virtually impossible to claim there was a waiver. There is a gray area as it pertains to casual sales and is left up to the terms of the contract for sale.
<< <i>Some of you seem to be making the false assumption that it is the seller's responsibility to get the package delivered safely. It's not. Once he delivers the item to the post office, he's off the hook, unless another specific arrangement has been made.
Here's a PDF article on the subject at the PNG Website. >>
That was an interesting read, and may be legally true, but paypal and ebay will make the seller eat the loss unless thier specific rules are followed, and sometimes even then.
Comments
<< <i>It may be as Russ said that the buyer is a dick, but dicks are the ones that often stick it to you.
Using the term "Insurance" and then being the insurance provider, may at some point come back and cause the seller great grief.
First each and every state have laws regarding insurance, some of the issues that these laws deal with are ambiuity of terms, express warranty, representation and warranty and financial representation laws. By just merely stating that you providing insurance for additional cost and then being an insurer, the seller better be prepared for much grief if some "dick" decides to complain to some state regulatory body even if they are made whole again by the seller. >>
So have you ever contacted the the office of the insurance commish for your state and gotten an "official" opinion regarding these situations?
<< <i>The buyer is a dick.
Russ, NCNE >>
Goin with Russ on this
1-Dammit Boy Oct 14,2003
International Coins
"A work in progress"
Wayne
eBay registered name:
Hard_ Search (buyer/bidder, a small time seller)
e-mail: wayne.whatley@gmail.com
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!"
The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If I make a promise to you that your item will be delivered, why isn't my guarantee "insurance" ? I think it's ethical. The willingness to refund the LOSS is not unethical, and charging the same price for it(insurance) that UPS, Lloyds of London, or the USPS charges for that matter, has no bearing on the situation. The purchaser spends more money for that guarantee. Rest easy. The risk of not insuring or "self insuring" is a decision and risk probably based on "economics" and not "ethics". If the item is lost or stolen in transit, then the seller will take care of the problem. It seems wise to a degree. No fussy and messy paperwork after the fact.
As for the feedback in your post, that is another story altogether. That's another problem in itself and grounds for an entirely different thread that has nothing to do with coins
Don't mind me, I'm just being a technical dick
Joe
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">>
In regards to this situation I have had no reason to contact them directly. All complaints must be in writing to get the Commissioner of Commerce for an investigation to be established and a ruling/penalties to be applied.
However, the state does have a quarterly lists of the individuals that have had complaints filed against them that results in fines, suspensions, revocations or other actions. This list always includes individuals "selling" either non-exstiant insurance or selling insurance products without a license. Also the listing provides information on other regulated industries and occupations within in their scope and there are always warranty violations in some of those catagories.
The lowest fine Ive seen in these cases has been $500 with most fines ranaging $5,000-$10,000. Some of the large fraud cases result in jail time as well.
I'll make a phone call tommorrow to this states insurance section. The question you posted may need to be expanded upon either for your state or others in regards to how the word insurance is presented in the listing. Some states have laws where simply the words insurance and free can not be used together in any manner.
<< <i>I have posed the following as a general question to the Iowa Insurance Commissioner's office. I'll post the response here.
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">> >>
Maybe someone from every state should submit your letter.
<< <i>
However, I now have no defense against the recipient if they lied about receiving the package and could very well end up having a two for one eBay sale. >>
You can buy delivery confirmation without buying insurance from the post office.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have posed the following as a general question to the Iowa Insurance Commissioner's office. I'll post the response here.
<<"When one sells items on eBay or other like venue and offers insurance [for which a fee is normally charged] either thru the USPS, a private agency/policy or self-insurance is the shipper subject to any state licensing or other requirements? Is there a preferred way to handle/state such a situation in one's listings?">> >>
Maybe someone from every state should submit your letter. >>
Commerce and transportation are functions of the Federal government, not the states. The applicable Federal Trade Commission rules
have been posted, showing that it is allowed. No state regulations can override Federal law.
LINK
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Because the USPS actually insured it. >>
Suppose you bought something from a seller who insured through the USPS, the item was lost and the USPS refused (for whatever reason) to pay off on the claim. Would you take the loss, or should the seller reimburse you? >>
The contract was between you and the seller so the fact that the USPS refuses to honor a claim filed by the seller is immateial because as a seller you still owe the buyer a replacement or a refund. >>
So the seller, already having paid for USPS insurance which did not cover the loss, should reimburse the buyer? Isn't that "self insurance"?
It's completely different to sell insurance for another person's property against loss for some reason than it is to guarantee delivery of your own items. I would even argue that it's not insurance (even though we call it that) when you guarantee delivery of your own stuff.
The seller could add a line to their auctions stating, "Third party insurance coverage provided upon payment", and leave it at that.
Commerce and transportation are functions of the Federal government, not the states. The applicable Federal Trade Commission rules
have been posted, showing that it is allowed. No state regulations can override Federal law.
LINK "
True for some issues but not so regarding "insurance". As the link indicates only when state law is absent are the Sherman Act, Clayton act and Federal Trade Commision Act then the law.
Federal/State Insurance Law
In most cases state insurance laws will trump Federal Insurance Regs.
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!"
The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer.
<< <i>If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer. >>
If you charge for insurance then do not reimburse the buyer for a loss you have defrauded the buyer.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer. >>
If you charge for insurance then do not reimburse the buyer for a loss you have defrauded the buyer. >>
Imho, you are both right.
If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods. >>
In order to not provide it, one would have to not reimburse for a loss. If you reimburse the buyer for a loss, you have provided it. If the item is delivered, it's a moot issue.
edited- spelling.
<< <i>
<< <i>I was approached by a potential buyer on Ebay with an offer, and while reviewing his feed back, I noticed that he had left the following negative feedback for a seller he had bought an item from:
"Charged Insurance,did not insure my shipment,"THE SELF INSURE SCAM"!"
The seller responded that this buyer received the item, but if it had been lost, he would have refunded the buyer's money.
So is it ethical to charge a buyer for insurance, then not buy it from USPS, UPS, etc? Obviously, this buyer had a problem with it. >>
If you charge for insurance than do not provde it you have defrauded the buyer. >>
How? Insurance is for the seller not the buyer. How does the buyer really know if you have provided it or not? As long as you make good in the event of loss its moot. It saves a lot of problems if the seller is upfront about how he will deal with it. Its a cost of doing biz that a seller has a right to recover IMO. Saying that ins is optional and buyer assumes risk of loss is BULLCHIT too. It does give a buyer a measure of comfort if the package arrives showing the seller purchased ins from the PO.
<< <i>In my opinion is it not ethical. Nor is it very smart. Trying to make a few bucks with the possibility of shelling out hundreds or thousands plus all the headaches that come along with it...yikes.
Edited to add: It would be fine if the seller did have a 3rd party insurer. If that's the case the seller needs to make that point LOUD AND CLEAR in his packaging or invoices or somewhere obvious where buyers can see it. >>
I agree. Be upfront. Otherwise a dealer's rep can be tarnished in the view of a buyer, as witnessed by this example. Why risk your good name??
<< <i>
<< <i>If you charge for it and do not provide it, you defraud them. Self-insuring is still providing insurance, as long as you step up if the buyer doesn't get the goods. >>
In order to not provide it, one would have to not reimburse for a loss. If you reimburse the buyer for a loss, you have provided it. If the item is delivered, it's a moot issue.
edited- spelling. >>
Yes? Your point?
What I wrote is not disagreeing with you....so, your point?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
From Ebay: "Sellers offering insurance may only charge the actual fee for insurance. No additional amount may be added, such as “self-insurance”. Sellers who do not use a licensed 3rd party insurance company may not require buyers to purchase insurance. This is a violation of state law."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The violation ONLY occurs when the seller charges an ala carte fee for the insurance.
The costs of self-insurance - or of CIA or an equivalent - can be recouped by charging
a flat-rate S+H fee. Sellers CANNOT ala carte - or list individually - an insurance charge
that is NOT paid to a third-party insurer AT THE TIME that drayage is contracted.
Insurers and their agents are licensed in all 50-states. Charging an ala carte fee for:
1. Self-Insurance;
2. Pro-Rata Recovery of Premiums Previously Paid To Third-Party Carriers (CIA),
is a violation of law and regs in all 50-dtates. And, it violates EBAY policies.
The 4SC model is the correct method to use. (EBAY sports-card seller.)
"Insured Shipping With Delivery Confirmation Is $xx"
Also, "Free S+H" that includes insurance is not a problem.
<< <i>Self-insuring for a fee is against Ebay policy, and thus forbidden.
From Ebay: "Sellers offering insurance may only charge the actual fee for insurance. No additional amount may be added, such as “self-insurance”. Sellers who do not use a licensed 3rd party insurance company may not require buyers to purchase insurance. This is a violation of state law." >>
Sounds like some more stuff some 22 year old ebay tech weenie employee pulled off google out of context and it was deemed ebay "policy." So full of holes it's laughable...
Which "state law"? Ebay transactions are betwee the buyer and seller, and the sale occurs at the sellers location. Ebay cites California law a lot, but it controls
a transaction as much as putting an ad in Numismatic News binds the seller to Wisconsin state law (unless that is the location of both parties.)
The post office is not a "licensed 3rd party insurance company."
Of course, when you have millions of amateurs listing a few things in their spare time, it makes sense that some of them won't communicate and run their businesses like sophisticated businessmen. A wide range of latitude should be granted, as long as the seller is being reasonable. And IMHO, charging a few bucks for a guaranty that the item will arrive is perfectly reasonable, regardless of semantics or "The Law".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>In most cases state insurance laws will trump Federal Insurance Regs. >>
I would think that only applies if shipping intrastate.
If you are shipping to someone out of your state, I would think this is "interstate commerce" and federal regulations apply. No?
AL
<< <i>Self insuring is a common practice on less expensive coins and I have no problem with it as long as I am not payong for it. Sellers have expenses that are or should be built into the price there willing to take for there coins. >>
Yeah, I like getting something for nothing, too.
<< <i>It is that "....as long as you step up...." part that is a huge unregulated hole, I think. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
Why does that need to be regulated? All one needs do is provide the buyer peace of mind that he will be taken care of if a problem arises?
The seller needs insurance; the buyer needs assurance.
<< <i>I interpret by the question that your position is that the issue is not regulated now. I agree. There are no clear rules, direction and/or procedure. There are assumptions, various self-interpretations and some practices that are questionable, at best. If regulation existed, this Thread would not have the many interesting and various response that have been posted. Peace of mind, while a comfortable emotion, is not equity. Again, please see my earlier comment- I am not referring to any issue of Ethic.There are many laws and regulations that have questionable Ethic. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
Does not the UCC aka Uniform Commercial Code spell out a seller's obligations to a buyer for mail order situations like this?
<< <i>Yes? Your point? >>
My point is five posts below yours:
<< <i>If a seller makes INS a mandatory fee as part of the auction and itemizes it, for instance $5.99 for S&H and ins $3.20, then I want to see the reciept where I got what I paid for. >>
Buyers say such things all the time, but once it's delivered, there is no way to tell from the package that it wasn't insured (a red ink "INSURED" stamp on the package doesn't prove anything). And having been delivered, there will then be no insurance claim to be made, which would be the only way to confirm that insurance was indeed provided- nobody sends itemized receipts for their shipping expenses to their buyers.
<< <i>What I wrote is not disagreeing with you....so, your point? >>
I didn't disagree with you, either.
<< <i>And IMHO, charging a few bucks for a guaranty that the item will arrive is perfectly reasonable, regardless of semantics or "The Law". >>
Nahhh... that's much too reasonable an attitude.
Buyers are always saying that "insurance is for the protection the seller" and that "it's the seller's responsibility to get the item delivered or to refund the buyer's payment". Ok then- I'm on board with that. Now, since it's *my* responsibility to get the item to you, *I'll* decide the best way to accomplish the task. My shipping practices have evolved to where they are through trial and error in determining what's most efficient and effective *for me*. I'm sure other sellers have gone through the same process, and have come up with different systems that work for them. The point here for buyers is that there is *no* one way to ship stuff that's best- if you want sellers to be responsible for getting your package to you, then just let them do it however it works best for them.
AL
<< <i>
<< <i>In most cases state insurance laws will trump Federal Insurance Regs. >>
I would think that only applies if shipping intrastate.
If you are shipping to someone out of your state, I would think this is "interstate commerce" and federal regulations apply. No? >>
No, not in regards to the "insurance" aspect. The crossing state lines issue that often gives Federal law number one position does not apply in matters of insurance. This can be seen in the matter of auto insurance, when your vehicle crosses state lines your auto insurance automatically conforms to that state's minimum if the coverage you carry is below that state's miniumum requirements.
Also this applies as most insurance policies are issued by a carrier that is out of state. Company A is based in Illinois and the policies it issues for property in other states must conform to the requirements of those individual states, not to any Federal standards per say.
Cargo coverage that the shippers themselves may purchase, are beholden to state regulations not Federal.
<< <i>So, you support not having clear regulation, except self-regulation. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
I support people being responsible for their choices. The idea of having "clear regulation" is meaningless if you're dealing with people who are determined to do as they please. Not that this has stopped eBay from trying, BTW, and in the process, continuing to make life increasingly difficult for all the honest buyers and sellers out there.
What sort of regulation would *you* propose?
<< <i>I've never had to make a claim but doesn't the buyer have to file as they are the one's out. >>
If using USPS insurance and it's a lost item claim, no. There is no recipient participation required. If it's a damage claim then, yes, the buyer has to participate.
As for the ethical issue of self-insurance, Andy's last post says it best.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Your thoughts, while addressing ethic, don't offer a solution. >>
Read the item listing and check the seller's feedback. If you don't trust that the seller will either deliver the item or compensate you for a loss, then don't bid.
But then, that doesn't involve more regulations, so it's probably not practical is it?
For cheap stuff this is what appears in my auctions:
Shipping will be $2.95, which includes careful packing and either delivery confirmation or insurance.
If it goes cheap as anticipated, I just use delivery confirmation. If I get surprised and it goes for more than I thought, I add insurance and eat it.
For stuff I know I'm going to insure, it appears like this:
Shipping will be $x.xx, which includes careful packing and insurance.
Because I use a fixed shipping cost when I sell, and estimating final values isn't exactly an exact science, I frequently end up losing my butt. However, that's fine. This is the simple approach and, on eBay, the simple approach goes a long way toward reducing the number of misunderstandings.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>It is unfortunate that you misinterpret my thoughts. >>
It sounds to me like you think more regulation is needed- if not, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
<< <i>This is the simple approach and, on eBay, the simple approach goes a long way toward reducing the number of misunderstandings. >>
I'd agree. I do pretty much as you do, along with a note in my "Item Shipped" email noting that although the package isn't marked, insurance is provided through a private insurance company. Once a month or so, I'll still get an email from a buyer who's unhappy because "he paid for insurance and didn't get it".
You can't please everyone.
Here's a PDF article on the subject at the PNG Website.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Some of you seem to be making the false assumption that it is the seller's responsibility to get the package delivered safely. It's not. Once he delivers the item to the post office, he's off the hook, unless another specific arrangement has been made. >>
Here's how it works as 'splained to me by a really knowledgeable mouthpiece:
Since all credit card transactions (think PayPal) are "approval sales" (there is a right to return when accepting credit cards whether you like it or not), it is incumbent upon the seller to assure delivery. For a merchant, it is virtually impossible to claim there was a waiver. There is a gray area as it pertains to casual sales and is left up to the terms of the contract for sale.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Some of you seem to be making the false assumption that it is the seller's responsibility to get the package delivered safely. It's not. Once he delivers the item to the post office, he's off the hook, unless another specific arrangement has been made.
Here's a PDF article on the subject at the PNG Website. >>
That was an interesting read, and may be legally true, but paypal and ebay will make the seller eat the loss unless thier specific rules are followed, and sometimes even then.