While I don't take the thoughts as originating with MrEureka, nor do I question Mr. Vartians' experience, his article has interpretations that are subject to different interpretations. But, that is the beauty of Attorneys and the written word and one of the few professions where fuzzy logic receives a fair hearing. Respectfully, John Curlis
<< <i>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.
Russ, NCNE >>
Ah, thoughts of logical reason. I don't think we need more regulation, we need common sense. It's not a question of ethics. It's simple economics in my opinion. I personally use USPS insurance, and/ or use signature confirmation , and often times both. I want my customer happy. I usually print the cost of shipping on the label so they can see who's clock is getting cleaned in shipping. Speaking of ethics, I've never had ONE buyer send me the differnce in my pay pal account. They know it costs me more than they are paying. What's up with that ?
"Does not the UCC aka Uniform Commercial Code spell out a seller's obligations to a buyer for mail order situations like this?'
///////////////////////////////////////////
Yup.
BUT, if you take PayPal - or accept credit cards - delivery elements of the Code are out the window.
If you sell on your own website - even on EBAY, up to a point - and ONLY accept paper-payments, you can invoke UCC in a dispute/claim and prevail. (Using the concept on EBAY too often would result in NARU status.)
On EBAY, sellers need to simply accept that the scheme calls for the seller to be responsible for "safe delivery as advertised." That is not an opinion; it is a fact.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
The original question was whether it was ethical to charge for insurance and not buy it. It has meandered off into other areas. I will repeat what I said earlier if you advertise that you are selling insurance which you are given this scenario then it is natural for the buyer to expect you to provide it, i.e. purchase it with their funds. Its seem forgotten in all this that it is the buyers funds the seller is using and to me if you just pocket them you are not doing what you advertised. You can cutely continue to argue legalities, that you are a fine upstanding seller and would stand behind it, continue to denigrate USPS insurance or provide other arguments ad nauseum, but it doesn't change the fact that most buyers are expecting a third party guarantee called insurance when its mandatory and included in the total cost.
The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. Chit happens, that's why we buy insurance.
"...The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. .."
////////////////////////////////
Pretty much right, BUT all moot.
EBAY policy prohibits charging ala carte fees for "self insurance."
NOBODY has to like it. If anybody does not abide by it, they can be NARUd.
There is no "ethics" question. It is a about either following the rules or breaking the rules.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>"...The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. .."
////////////////////////////////
Pretty much right, BUT all moot.
EBAY policy prohibits charging ala carte fees for "self insurance."
NOBODY has to like it. If anybody does not abide by it, they can be NARUd.
There is no "ethics" question. It is a about either following the rules or breaking the rules. >>
<< <i>The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. >>
No, that's not the only logical reason. If it's my responsibility to get your package to you, it's my decision how I choose to accomplish the task. Which includes the type of insurance I use to protect you from a loss. I use different methods depending on the situation, and there's no way to be sure until the time of shipping which of those methods is the most practical. I don't inform buyers who I purchase my shipping supplies from, and I see no reason why the company I purchase my insurance from is any different.
I would respectfully suggest to any buyer who is so controlling that they insist on having their package sent *exactly* as they expect that it would be a good idea to contact a seller before attempting a purchase to explain your requirements. That way, you can maybe avoid getting yourself too worked up when a seller inadvertently does something which doesn't meet with your approval.
<< <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. >>
Honestly, does it really matter? Unless you consistently drive at the posted speed limit, arrive to work on time and leave on time, don't take long lunches, don't make personal phone calls or surf the web at work ...
Ethical or not, for the most part, who really cares? Will most people get upset if you overcharge them by a few dollars on shipping? Probably not.
Speaking of which, a better solution would just to increase the shipping costs ...
IrishMike, while I understand your thoughts, you are addressing the legalities. The comments so far on this subject can't avoid discussing legalities, regulation, enforcement, etc. Your position supports this approach and to an extent argues for not trusting solely on a basis of ethic. The argument you support as logical(and the basis of your ethic position, I assume), is an example of not leaving the situation to be resolved thru ethic alone. Consider that you state that they stand behind is not relevant because if he/she trusted that much then they would not expect to buy insurance. So, your position meandered with the rest of the thoughts posted. It is impossible not to. If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no, without any further discussion. Respectfully, John Curlis
As you grow older, you'll find the only things you regret are the things you didn't do. ~Zachary Scott <> Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is? ~Frank Scully
another thread where the "self insurers" come out. I actually like them as it points out the folks I would never buy anything from. Another "don't ask, don't tell" in the world of Numismatics. Irishmike nailed it as far as I'm concerned.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
<< <i>If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no >>
And all else in this thread is tangential. If a seller is squirrelly enough to pull the additional funds crap for insurance, then the seller better buy insurance commensurate to additional funds, or at least disclose in advance his intention to self insure.
"If a seller is squirrelly enough to pull the additional funds crap for insurance, then the seller better buy insurance commensurate to additional funds, or at least disclose in advance his intention to self insure. "
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>"If a seller is squirrelly enough to pull the additional funds crap for insurance, then the seller better buy insurance commensurate to additional funds, or at least disclose in advance his intention to self insure. "
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. But that was not the original scenario which is what I was responding to.
<< <i>IrishMike, while I understand your thoughts, you are addressing the legalities. The comments so far on this subject can't avoid discussing legalities, regulation, enforcement, etc. Your position supports this approach and to an extent argues for not trusting solely on a basis of ethic. The argument you support as logical(and the basis of your ethic position, I assume), is an example of not leaving the situation to be resolved thru ethic alone. Consider that you state that they stand behind is not relevant because if he/she trusted that much then they would not expect to buy insurance. So, your position meandered with the rest of the thoughts posted. It is impossible not to. If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no, without any further discussion. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
<< <i>IrishMike, while I understand your thoughts, you are addressing the legalities. The comments so far on this subject can't avoid discussing legalities, regulation, enforcement, etc. Your position supports this approach and to an extent argues for not trusting solely on a basis of ethic. The argument you support as logical(and the basis of your ethic position, I assume), is an example of not leaving the situation to be resolved thru ethic alone. Consider that you state that they stand behind is not relevant because if he/she trusted that much then they would not expect to buy insurance. So, your position meandered with the rest of the thoughts posted. It is impossible not to. If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no, without any further discussion. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
I have no idea what you just said. >>
If you pay pal me twenty bucks I'll translate it best I can. That would be the ethical thing to do for a coin brother. And because you are a fellow board member, I'm willing to offer a ten percent discount. Just don't taze me , bro.
As the Author, I would expect Royalty for your services to IrishMike, since you would be altering the original work without permission. I might even sue the both of you.Respectfully, John CURLIS
I have a third party insure all of my non gold and platinum mailings. It depends on the value but over a certain amount the package needs signature confirmation and or registered mail, priority mail. The specific conditions change with the value and how it is delivered. My insurance doesn't like UPS. I don't think it is unethical since I have to pay for it, why shouldn't the customer share in the cost.
What's the difference between a seller "pocketing the cash" and the post office "pocketing the cash" as long as both pay upon loss as promised. A self insurer will provide better and faster service than a situation requring the buyer to wait 30 days, fill out paperwork at the post office, provide copies on invoices, etc. The cooperation of the seller is STILL required to make a claim, so if you don't trust the seller thinking they will not honor self insurance, perhaps you should not deal with that seller at all.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Comments
<< <i>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.
Russ, NCNE >>
Ah, thoughts of logical reason.
I don't think we need more regulation, we need common sense.
It's not a question of ethics. It's simple economics in my opinion.
I personally use USPS insurance, and/ or use signature confirmation , and often times both. I want my customer happy. I usually print the cost of shipping on the label so they can see who's clock is getting cleaned in shipping.
Speaking of ethics, I've never had ONE buyer send me the differnce in my pay pal account. They know it costs me more than they are paying. What's up with that ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
///////////////////////////////////////////
Yup.
BUT, if you take PayPal - or accept credit cards - delivery elements of the Code are out the window.
If you sell on your own website - even on EBAY, up to a point - and ONLY
accept paper-payments, you can invoke UCC in a dispute/claim and prevail.
(Using the concept on EBAY too often would result in NARU status.)
On EBAY, sellers need to simply accept that the scheme calls for the seller
to be responsible for "safe delivery as advertised." That is not an opinion;
it is a fact.
It illustrates how different the EBAY scheme is from that of "the real world."
Lawsuit/Appeal
JACQ WILSON et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
BRAWN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A105461, A106368
(San Francisco County
Super. Ct. No. 404454)
The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. Chit happens, that's why we buy insurance.
The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have
to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. .."
////////////////////////////////
Pretty much right, BUT all moot.
EBAY policy prohibits charging ala carte fees for "self insurance."
NOBODY has to like it. If anybody does not abide by it, they can be NARUd.
There is no "ethics" question. It is a about either following the rules or breaking the rules.
<< <i>"...The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit.
The argument that they stand behind is not relevant to the buyer because if he or she trusted you that much then they would not expect to have
to pay any fee for your honesty and integrity. .."
////////////////////////////////
Pretty much right, BUT all moot.
EBAY policy prohibits charging ala carte fees for "self insurance."
NOBODY has to like it. If anybody does not abide by it, they can be NARUd.
There is no "ethics" question. It is a about either following the rules or breaking the rules. >>
That's why I don't sell on eBay any more.
<< <i>The only logical reason for one not to say in their ad that they are self-insuring is to mislead the buyer and pocket the money as extra profit. >>
No, that's not the only logical reason. If it's my responsibility to get your package to you, it's my decision how I choose to accomplish the task. Which includes the type of insurance I use to protect you from a loss. I use different methods depending on the situation, and there's no way to be sure until the time of shipping which of those methods is the most practical. I don't inform buyers who I purchase my shipping supplies from, and I see no reason why the company I purchase my insurance from is any different.
I would respectfully suggest to any buyer who is so controlling that they insist on having their package sent *exactly* as they expect that it would be a good idea to contact a seller before attempting a purchase to explain your requirements. That way, you can maybe avoid getting yourself too worked up when a seller inadvertently does something which doesn't meet with your approval.
<< <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. >>
Honestly, does it really matter? Unless you consistently drive at the posted speed limit, arrive to work on time and leave on time, don't take long lunches, don't make personal phone calls or surf the web at work ...
Ethical or not, for the most part, who really cares? Will most people get upset if you overcharge them by a few dollars on shipping? Probably not.
Speaking of which, a better solution would just to increase the shipping costs ...
<< <i>The buyer is a dick. >>
Russ for President!
Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is? ~Frank Scully
in the world of Numismatics. Irishmike nailed it as far as I'm concerned.
<< <i>If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no >>
And all else in this thread is tangential. If a seller is squirrelly enough to pull the additional funds crap for insurance, then the seller better buy insurance commensurate to additional funds, or at least disclose in advance his intention to self insure.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number.
<< <i>"If a seller is squirrelly enough to pull the additional funds crap for insurance, then the seller better buy insurance commensurate to additional funds, or at least disclose in advance his intention to self insure. "
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. But that was not the original scenario which is what I was responding to.
<< <i>Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number. >>
And then pocket the cash? OK, got it. LMAO
<< <i>
<< <i>Such a "disclosure" - involving the collection of an ala carte fee - would cause the listing to be cancelled, if it was reported/discovered.
The simple solution - tried and true for many years - is to include the insurance fee in the gross S+H number. >>
And then pocket the cash? OK, got it. LMAO >>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is, for good/bad, the system that EBAY has sanctioned.
<< <i>IrishMike, while I understand your thoughts, you are addressing the legalities. The comments so far on this subject can't avoid discussing legalities, regulation, enforcement, etc. Your position supports this approach and to an extent argues for not trusting solely on a basis of ethic. The argument you support as logical(and the basis of your ethic position, I assume), is an example of not leaving the situation to be resolved thru ethic alone. Consider that you state that they stand behind is not relevant because if he/she trusted that much then they would not expect to buy insurance. So, your position meandered with the rest of the thoughts posted. It is impossible not to. If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no, without any further discussion. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
I have no idea what you just said.
<< <i>
<< <i>IrishMike, while I understand your thoughts, you are addressing the legalities. The comments so far on this subject can't avoid discussing legalities, regulation, enforcement, etc. Your position supports this approach and to an extent argues for not trusting solely on a basis of ethic. The argument you support as logical(and the basis of your ethic position, I assume), is an example of not leaving the situation to be resolved thru ethic alone. Consider that you state that they stand behind is not relevant because if he/she trusted that much then they would not expect to buy insurance. So, your position meandered with the rest of the thoughts posted. It is impossible not to. If the answer could have been simply a matter of Ethic, then the only answer is no, without any further discussion. Respectfully, John Curlis >>
I have no idea what you just said.
If you pay pal me twenty bucks I'll translate it best I can. That would be the ethical thing to do for a coin brother. And because you are a fellow board member, I'm willing to offer a ten percent discount.
Just don't taze me , bro.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
you can always cover yourself with
reinsurance through General Re
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
<< <i>
And then pocket the cash? OK, got it. LMAO >>
What's the difference between a seller "pocketing the cash" and the post office "pocketing the cash" as long as both pay upon loss as promised. A
self insurer will provide better and faster service than a situation requring the buyer to wait 30 days, fill out paperwork at the post office, provide copies
on invoices, etc. The cooperation of the seller is STILL required to make a claim, so if you don't trust the seller thinking they will not honor self insurance,
perhaps you should not deal with that seller at all.