<< <i>If an item isn't terribly expensive...say under $50, there is rarely a need to insure it. In fact, I've had buyers complain when I made insurance mandatory on those items. They didn't want to pay such high shipping cost relative to the value of the item. I now make it optional on lower value items and have never had a problem. On items north of $100, then yes, insurance is always mandatory. >>
Paid by the seller of course. for items over $100 seller should pay for insurance to protect himself. For items under $100, the seller can opt to self insure. here's the bottom line on who is responsible. It is the guy who physically goes to the post office and enters into a contract for delivery of an item with the post office. if the item doesn't get delivered, I can assure you that it isn't the buyerof the item that files a claim with the post office, it is the guy who contracted the delivery.
<< <i>If a seller wants to "pass-through" the cost of insurance, include it in the cost of shipping and handling. Quite simple. And yes, I would neg 'em if they (the seller) claimed that since I did not "opt" for insurance they in turn would not make me whole. Totally justifiable in my book. >>
If insurance is optional, and you don't opt for it, then you have no ETHICAL grounds for a complaint. The seller gave you the decision, and YOU made it. Live with the consequences. >>
The seller has an ethical responsibility to ensure that the sold item or its fair value if lost gets to the buyer. It is unethical for a seller to shirk this responsibility and try to put it on the buyer with "optional " insurance.
<< <i>OneCent, my eBay handle is -doh- Please feel free to avoid my auctions, that'd be great, thank you.
You don't sound like you sell too much on eBay. I'm not sure how you see leaving a negative as justifiable since the buyer was the one who passed on the insurance. See if that works on car insurance...or homeowner's insurance. "But but but, I didn't make it rain, why do I have to pay for the flood damage?" Because you opted not to have flood insurance. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves. >>
Apples and oranges. Last time i checked, I didn't pay for rain. If I bought paid for a coin from you, I would expect you to ensure that it got to me. If it didn't, I would expect for you to make me whole on the transaction. If you felt the risk was high enough, then you should buy insurance to protect yourself.
Actualy its "INSURE" and you have the OPTION of having it or not. Case closed! BTW how would you fell if Ebay made it MANDITORY as in a BUYER fee? And where is this Ethic's code you are refering to? >>
And this guy has the balls to criticize my grammatical usage?
He should check his spelling
Actualy, Manditory, refering....
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage. ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>Legally, the seller's responsibility ends when he delivers the item to the carrier, be it the postal service, Fedex, UPS, etc. At that point it is the BUYER'S responsibility to insure HIS property. Only the credit card industry (and Paypal) forces the seller to guarantee delivery, even if the buyer refuses insurance. Since Paypal or CCs are manditory on ebay, and unethical people refuse to pay for insurance and STILL file chargebacks against the seller for lost merchandise, optional insurance is not an option. Try buying a house, not buying insurance, then if it burns down, get the seller, or bank or Realtor to buy you a replacement. >>
I agree, in any other kind of business, ownership of the merchandise transfer over from the seller to the buyer once the merchandise is with the carrier, but the carrier is insuring the merchandise at that point. If lost , damaged, etc.. The buyer has to file the claim with the carrier's insurance company. Insurance is cover by the fee for the freight, it is not optional, so insurance should never be optional, the buyer has to pay it as part of the transportation cost. >>
Who physically took the coin to the post office and physically paid for the postage, thus entering into a contract with the USPS. It certainly isn't the buyer. It is the seller. It is the seller who physically purchased the postage that must file the loss claim with the USPS. (Well , only if he covered himslef by purchasing postal insurance for the Postage he purchased)
Frank, remind me never to purchase anything from you. I would be worried about delivery.
<< <i>The problem with that logic is that, in fact, it is not the buyer's item unless it is received... >>
In fact, as it's been pointed out I believe, that's not legally accurate. This is the way it is as I see it: if a seller offers free shipping or shipping with insurance then the seller dang well better make sure the item gets to the buyer. If the seller offers insurance and the buyer declines, then the buyer is putting faith in the USPS that they (the USPS) will get the buyer's item to them. It's just that simple. Now, I don't know how those fellas at Paypal feel...from what I've read in this thread they seem to disagree with that logic, but the law, and common sense really, says if all you pay for is shipping, that's all you get. No insurance of anything. That's just how it works in the big boy world. >>
show me the law big boy. you and frank are talking out of your asp. Ante up the law you are citing. Make sure you understand who is entering into a contract with the USPS. Its the guy physically buying the postage.
perhaps when you sold it, you may have been trying to recover some of your costs by charging the buyer a fee. But you are the one entering into a legal contract with the USPS when you physically purchase the postage
A seller's ethical obligation is to do what he says he will in his terms of sale. That a buyer would take advantage of a seller who tries to save him money by not charging for insurance when the buyer says he is willing to accept the risk of loss says a lot about that sort of buyer.
edited to add... what's "legal" and what's "ethical" are two entirely different things.
<< <i>A seller's ethical obligation is to do what he says he will in his terms of sale. That a buyer would take advantage of a seller who tries to save him money by not charging for insurance when the buyer says he is willing to accept the risk of loss says a lot about that sort of buyer.
edited to add... what's "legal" and what's "ethical" are two entirely different things. >>
And what is ethical is that the seller gets the coin to the buyer. That is the contractual obligation plain and simple.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage. ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>That is the contractual obligation plain and simple. >>
The contractual obligation is whatever the buyer and seller agree it to be. Where is it written that the buyer and seller are not allowed to agree that the buyer assumes responsibility for loss at the point of shipment?
<< <i>As a buyer, I would never pay for insurance. insurance is for seller protection only. It is amazing that as of your post, only 3 people that have posted in this thread fully understand that concept. >>
Looks like 3 people need to study the Uniform Commercial Code, or talk to the post office and ask someone about "free insurance" and "free shipping."
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>That is the contractual obligation plain and simple. >>
The contractual obligation is whatever the buyer and seller agree it to be. Where is it written that the buyer and seller are not allowed to agree that the buyer assumes responsibility for loss at the point of shipment? >>
Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), it is the sellers responsibility. So if I were a full time e-bay seller I would bake the insurance cost into my shipping and handling OR be ready to assume the risk.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage. ANA Member R-3147111
"...Its so simple that i don't understand why it is even a point of contention. As a buyer, I would never pay for insurance. insurance is for seller protection only. ..."
It seems like that is certainly true, except in the PayPal world.
Thus, if a seller refuses to pick up the insurance tab, it can, when really bad luck strikes, be in the interest of the buyer to do so.
PayPal will always decide in favor of the SELLER, if the seller has either delivery confirmation OR signature confirmation.
But, neither of those services obviates a USPS insurance claim.
The PO knows that carriers make mistakes - scan the DC and put the item in the wrong box. Even sig-con can be signed for by an unintended recipient, through carrier negligence or third-party fraud. In such instances, the BUYER benefits by making certain that the item was insured.
As a seller, I insure everything. As a buyer, I make sure everything is insured; even if the seller requires that I pay for the insurance.
//////
In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier. >>
A key statement. If you use eBay/Paypal, you play by their rules. Period.
"...Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), ...."
/////////////////////////////////////////
In the real world - away from EBAY and PayPal and credit-cards - that is pretty much how things work.
The sundry UCC provisions can be googled by those interested in learning the facts.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier. >>
A key statement. If you use eBay/Paypal, you play by their rules. Period. >>
////////////////////////////////
Yup.
It is a foolish seller who lets anything expensive go out without insurance, in a PayPal transaction.
But, the BUYER will lose an INR claim at PayPal if the DC shows the item was delivered; even if it was delivered to the wrong place. Under this circumstance, the BUYER becomes the party that benefits from making sure items are insured.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>"...Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), ...."
/////////////////////////////////////////
In the real world - away from EBAY and PayPal and credit-cards - that is pretty much how things work.
The sundry UCC provisions can be googled by those interested in learning the facts. >>
I am of the opinion of the following:
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent.
Let's take some examples.
(1) The seller delivers the items to the USPS. The USPS is the only method of shipment. The USPS here is an agent of the seller, and not of the buyer, and thus responsibility still remains with the seller that the item is shipped to the buyer or his/her agent.
(2) The seller delivers the items via (well known carrier specified by the buyer). Not sure of the legal ramifications here.
(3) The seller delivers the items to an agent of the buyer (e.g. a friend). Obligation of the seller ends here.
<< <i>Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), it is the sellers responsibility. >>
If you don't know the buyer and seller or the details of the transaction, there's no way to know whether or not it's reasonable for a buyer to assume the risk of loss. More times than I can remember, I have opted to have stuff I've bought through the mail sent to me uninsured at my risk in exchange for a discount on the shipping total. I've probably saved a couple hundred dollars in shipping with just the loss of one $8 package by doing so. Doesn't sound idiotic to me.
Holy Crap guys, why is this so complicated? I was under the assumption this was an Ebay/PP transfer. And if so, it is the seller's obligation, lost or not, to make sure the buyer has possession of the item purchased.
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent."
///////////////////////////////////////
EBAY could not really work as a venue, if that was not the case.
In "real world" business, it just does not work like that.
.....
I ship a few palletized items a month. Once they leave my dock, my hands are free and clear of liability. The vendee assumes the subsequent risks, and pays for the insurance to cover those risks.
.....
See: Uniform Commercial Code.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent."
///////////////////////////////////////
EBAY could not really work as a venue, if that was not the case.
In "real world" business, it just does not work like that.
.....
I ship a few palletized items a month. Once they leave my dock, my hands are free and clear of liability. The vendee assumes the subsequent risks, and pays for the insurance to cover those risks.
.....
See: Uniform Commercial Code. >>
Why don't you point us to the element of the UCC that mentions this?
<< <i>Holy Crap guys, why is this so complicated? I was under the assumption this was an Ebay/PP transfer. And if so, it is the seller's obligation, lost or not, to make sure the buyer has possession of the item purchased. >>
///////////////////////////////
The "complication" ONLY arises when - as noted on page one - the seller has a DC or SC that shows the buyer received the item, when in fact the item was misdelivered.
The BUYER will lose the "Item Not Received" claim at PayPal. Under that circumstance, it would have been beneficial if the BUYER had gone ahead and picked-up the insurance fee for the cheapskate seller.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i> Frank, remind me never to purchase anything from you. I would be worried about delivery. >>
When are you people going to understand that buying or not buying insurance has NOTHING to do with whether or not you will receive your coin!!!!???? In the event that you do not receive it, the question is whether an insurance claim can be filed against the party who is responsible for losing it (that would be USPS, NOT THE SELLER). Since credit card companies (and hence PayPal) allow the buyer to file chargebacks on non-delivered items, it makes sense for sellers to COVER THEIR A** on items of any significant value by insisting that the shipment be insured. On items of lesser value, if the buyer is willing to assume the risk, and the seller can trust said buyer, then paying for insurance is a WASTE OF MONEY. Now all of you whining buyers who claim that if USPS loses your item that it's the seller's fault because s/he paid the postage are just the type of people that would probably not fall under the category of people "the seller can trust".
<< <i>I have not read UCC, but I bet PP and UCC contradict one another. >>
//////////////////////////
Indeed they do.
On the one hand, EBAY tells buyers they are agreeing to a "contract;" the terms of which the seller has drafted. The "contract," when payment-satisfied with a non-PayPal/non-credit card method, can rely on its UCC-relevant terms.
(ie: "Insurance is the buyers responsibility and the seller assumes no liability for items that are lost or damaged, unless the buyer elects to pay for insurance."
BUT, once PayPal is in the mix, NONE of that lingo flys. The escape hatch for the seller, however, is a DC or SC "issued in error to show delivery." This is the circumstance in which the buyer is at risk, and the seller is home-free. Aside from such circumstance, there is no other in which the buyer in a PayPal transaction benefits from buying insurance.
A buyer paying with a paper-payment - on a contract disclaiming a seller's liability - would not prevail in court under the contract terms outlined above. PayPal and credit-cards are the safeguard for the BUYER and, essentially, "void" the contract's disclaiming-terms when the SELLER accepts the terms of PayPal's UA.
PayPal changes the FOB concept into one of "delivered into the buyer's hands."
But, remember, PayPal ONLY requires the seller to "prove" delivery with a DC or SC that may or may not be a valid record.
.......................
Starting at about page 467 of the link below, the concepts of "risk of loss" that are covered by UCC are discussed.
The various states have incorporated/modified the general UCC notions into statutes and regulations.
TONS of case law is recorded on the subject, and can be read on the internet.
Most or all state legislatures have websites that include the statutes. All are well indexed and easy to navigate. UCC is well codified within each.
////////////////////////////
Many EBAY-sellers fail to grasp the "trap" they enter when PayPal comes into the picture. They honestly believe that their TOS have weight. That weight is ALL lost when cash/check/money-order is NOT the payment method.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
It is important to realize that the merchant has the right under the law to try to collect from the buyer directly or take him to court, even if his card issuer grants the chargeback.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>It is important to realize that the merchant has the right under the law to try to collect from the buyer directly or take him to court, even if his card issuer grants the chargeback. >>
////////////////////////////
Very true.
The defense used by the scamming buyers will often prevail, however. NOT always, but often
The defaulting buyer will claim that the seller "waived" the disputed terms in the contract when the seller agreed to accept payment via PayPal/Credit-Card, and that the PP/CC UAs were allowed to modify the seller's TOS by voluntary action of the seller.
Since "as is" and "no returns" are not in sync with PayPal, a seller who accepts payment via PP can be argued to have abandoned his right to rely on the terms of his contract with the buyer.
Checks, cash, and money orders are really the only safe ways for honest - and dishonest - sellers to do biznez.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
There is some confusion in this thread about liability. It is perfectly natural for sellers to offer optional insurance, in order to keep down postage and handling costs, because they get dinged on this on feedback. It is a Catch-22. If they require insurance (include it in the S&H), some customers will get upset, depending on the cost of the item.
As a seller, if a customer says that they never received an item, and I did not insure or otherwise get documented proof of delivery, well, I am hosed. Does that mean that the customer lied about non-delivery? Of course not, unless there is a track record for that kind of misconduct (theft).
Commerce, in the practical sense, is a two-way street. You have to examine when title to the item passes. Just because a consumer orders and pays for something does not mean that the seller doesn't have any responsibility thereafter.
Another simple example is from the VCoins Dealer Code of Ethics:
They are fine, but even they, in part, conflict with PayPal's UA.
"I will allow returns within a period not less than fourteen (14) days from the recorded date of shipping or ten (10) days following attempted delivery or receipt by the purchaser, whichever is the earlier date. This return policy does not apply to group lots, items advertised and sold "as-is", items altered after receipt, or other items as specifically agreed upon beforehand with the customer. Mail bid or auction sales may have shorter limits."
.........
There really is no such thing as "as is" in the EBAY/PayPal playbook. ALL SNADs are routinely bot-approved, regardless of the "contract" between the buyer/seller.
/////////////
"...Commerce, in the practical sense, is a two-way street. You have to examine when title to the item passes. Just because a consumer orders and pays for something does not mean that the seller doesn't have any responsibility thereafter..."
...
Thousands of times each day, EBAY buyers enter "contracts" with sellers that explicitly disclaim that concept. Such buyers rely on PayPal's generosity with sellers' money to remedy the shoppers' foibles.
The UCC asks the buyer and seller to determine when title passes. PayPal does not fully allow for that historically sound practice.
The seller's obligation - under the TOS in most EBAY listings - is to convey the goods to the shipper. "Proof of delivery" is a good thing, but it is a PayPal/CC thing, NOT a UCC thing; unless specifically agreed to in the "contract."
BUT, as I repeatedly note, EBAY would not work if UCC was all there was to govern/police the transactions. The PayPal constructed hybrid is just to easy for fraud-minded buyers to game.
//////////
The whole controversy largely revolves around bottom-feeding buyers and greedy-cheapskate sellers at war on the EBAY/PayPal battlefield.
It is interesting to experience how DIFFERENT other online venues are to play on. The "war" simply does not exist on other venues. Buyers are pleasant, and most sellers do exactly what they say they will do.
AND, shocker: PayPal is a GREAT payment-processor on the other venues. No bot-decisions in favor of SCAMMING buyers. NO holds/grabs of sellers' funds. NO ridiculous and FAKE "protection" schemes. Just the good old UCC concepts that allow honest sellers and buyers to make - and abide by - the terms of the agreements they both willingly accept.
///////////////////
The FTC recitations on failure-to-deliver issues - and the Acts that govern them - are all present in the sundry elements of the UCC. All good.
The perversions of a flawed CC-chargeback system by PayPal is the cause of MOST of the conflict.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Moral of the story. There are a lot of cheap and unethical buyers on this forum, who refuse take responsibiliy for their action of not opting for insurance.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
<< <i>Moral of the story. There are a lot of cheap and unethical buyers on this forum, who refuse take responsibiliy for their action of not opting for insurance. >>
<< <i>"...if the buyer is willing to assume the risk, and the seller can trust said buyer,..."
//////////////////////////////
I suspect you could count on one hand the number of EBAY buyers who would "honor" their promise to "assume the risk."
They simply rely on PayPal to get them off the hook.
.....
The easy solution for sellers is to simply INCLUDE the cost of all services in the shipping fee.
"Insured Priority Mailing with Delivery Confirmation Is $X.XX." >>
That is indeed the "easy solution". However, I, as a seller, am unwilling to penalize that handful of honorable and reasonable people because of the attitudes of the unwashed masses, many of whom apparently decided to post to this thread. Granted I assume some risk by doing this, but I understand that USPS loses a parcel once in a blue moon, and I would consider the loss of an uninsured LOW VALUE item that the buyer (who declined my optional insurance) holds me responsible for simply a cost of doing business MY WAY. That buyer would, of course, lose the privilege of doing any business with me in the future.
<< <i>As a buyer, I would never pay for insurance. insurance is for seller protection only. It is amazing that as of your post, only 3 people that have posted in this thread fully understand that concept. >>
Looks like 3 people need to study the Uniform Commercial Code, or talk to the post office and ask someone about "free insurance" and "free shipping." >>
Frank, I don't know the law. I don't need to know the law. It is just good business practice for the seller to take responsiblility for delivery. I make the insurance decision on every package I send. It comes down to: do I want to pay the USPS for insurance (only cost effective on registered and express mail), use a 3rd party insurer (usually cheaper if you have a policy), or accept the responsibility myself. I use barcoded printed labels and haven't lost an item in the last 3000 shipments. Clearly the last option becomes the right answer on low value items. but if a buyer wants insurance, I offer it since that makes them happy. --jerry
<< <i>Moral of the story. There are a lot of cheap and unethical buyers on this forum, who refuse take responsibiliy for their action of not opting for insurance. >>
This pretty much says it!.. AND I do have the BALLS to back it up ONECENT..BTW I dont come here for my typing or grammar skills... Just my TWO CENTS!
Please foward your user ID so I can BLOCK YOU too.
It is the seller who needs to get insurance, as a buyer when I purchase a product I either agree with the S&H or I do not buy, however it is the seller who needs to arrange shipping and if needed make sure he knnows when the package arrives thru delivery or sig confirmation.when given a choice I do not pay for it as a buyer and as a seller I always provide it. AL
I'd let Onecent buy from me. I read his initial post (and subsequent ones) and if you actually read what he wrote, without just letting your blood pressure soar, he is saying that: If the item doesn't make it to him and the seller tries to push and say "well, YOU didn't insure it", then he would file the claim/neg. He said nothing, like some have written, to say that he would immediately file a neg if the item didn't arrive.
If I were selling and got stupid and didn't insure something, and buyer emailed saying it hadn't arrived, I sure wouldn't say "well, YOU didn't purchase insurance now, did you?". Not only is that not a good business move, but it is just rude.
So, those that jump on onecent likely have other problems
<< <i>I make insurance optional, and then if the buyer does not buy it, I buy it anyway. Roughly 50% of the time, the buy will buy the insurance. >>
>>
Yes, nothing worse than having to deal with a difficult seller when things go wrong.
So far most of the banter has been directed to eBay transactions. How do folks here feel about deals done on the BS&T board? Do you expect a seller here to to "take care of your interests" or if you refuse insurance accept that you could be SOL if the USPS loses your package? Or do the UCC regs even apply to casual transactions?
<< <i>If I were selling and got stupid and didn't insure something, and buyer emailed saying it hadn't arrived, I sure wouldn't say "well, YOU didn't purchase insurance now, did you?". Not only is that not a good business move, but it is just rude.
So, those that jump on onecent likely have other problems >>
If your auction terms state "Insurance is OPTIONAL. Seller assumes no risk for uninsured parcels", then why is it rude or bad business for the seller to not cover the buyer's loss? I don't want to deal with buyers who either can't read or refuse to understand that insurance is not FREE.
If it's "stupid" to not pay USPS $1.70 to insure a $10-20 coin, then I guess I'm stupid.
I ship everything with insurance and charge for it....if you don't want to pay $3 to get your $50 or under coin buy it from someone else and spare me the headache. Is it just me or is it always guys like the op who seem to be itching for a problem that always end up having one? By the by it's very interesting how Paypal chose to live & die by delivery confirmation instead of a signature form of delivery when the post office itself does NOT consider delivery confirmation to be 'proof of delivery'
buying Rhode Island Nationals please email, PM or call 401-295-3000
"......but if I win multiple listings, then I want a discount on the shipping even if it is already free..."
//////////////////////////////
Yikes!!!!!!!!
But, there is, oddly enough, sometimes a very tiny bit of merit to that demand.
The only problem I have with such a "discount" is that I do BINs with Immediate Payment Required. With EBAY/PayPal, in order for the seller to be covered by PP's "seller protection" in such transactions, each item must be shipped seperately as it is listed on the PP transaction-details sheet.
OFTEN, buyers contact me and want to know, "How do I buy more than one item?" I make special listings by combining the items they wish to buy into ONE listing; I then discount the total a little.
(Buy.com also uses IPR, but they have a "shopping cart" that allows buyers to combine payments. AND, of course, they give NO discounts. That kind of API is scheduled to be integrated with the EBAY platform, in 2009; as the site moves deeper into a "mostly BIN" venue.)
Many buyers are simply too cheap to deal with on EBAY, and many sellers too greedy.
As I noted earlier, buyers on other venues simply do NOT act like EBAYers do. They are much easier to deal with, less concerned about pennies, just want a reasonable deal and to get their stuff delivered in a reasonable time.
LOTS of EBAY buyers are too concerned with how much the seller makes. And, they want a GREAT deal that precludes the seller from making ANY money at all. In fact, the lowest of the bottom-feeders seem to like for sellers to lose money.
Soon, very soon, most of the small sellers will be GONE from EBAY. Then, the pennywise buyers can fight it out with the BIG sellers. That will be a fun fight to watch..... from other venues.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Comments
<< <i>If an item isn't terribly expensive...say under $50, there is rarely a need to insure it. In fact, I've had buyers complain when I made insurance mandatory on those items. They didn't want to pay such high shipping cost relative to the value of the item. I now make it optional on lower value items and have never had a problem. On items north of $100, then yes, insurance is always mandatory. >>
Paid by the seller of course. for items over $100 seller should pay for insurance to protect himself. For items under $100, the seller can opt to self insure. here's the bottom line on who is responsible. It is the guy who physically goes to the post office and enters into a contract for delivery of an item with the post office. if the item doesn't get delivered, I can assure you that it isn't the buyerof the item that files a claim with the post office, it is the guy who contracted the delivery.
that would be the seller. end of story.
<< <i>
<< <i>If a seller wants to "pass-through" the cost of insurance, include it in the cost of shipping and handling. Quite simple.
And yes, I would neg 'em if they (the seller) claimed that since I did not "opt" for insurance they in turn would not make me whole. Totally
justifiable in my book. >>
If insurance is optional, and you don't opt for it, then you have no ETHICAL grounds
for a complaint. The seller gave you the decision, and YOU made it. Live with the
consequences. >>
The seller has an ethical responsibility to ensure that the sold item or its fair value if lost gets to the buyer. It is unethical for a seller to shirk this responsibility and try to put it on the buyer with "optional " insurance.
<< <i>OneCent, my eBay handle is -doh- Please feel free to avoid my auctions, that'd be great, thank you.
You don't sound like you sell too much on eBay. I'm not sure how you see leaving a negative as justifiable since the buyer was the one who passed on the insurance. See if that works on car insurance...or homeowner's insurance. "But but but, I didn't make it rain, why do I have to pay for the flood damage?" Because you opted not to have flood insurance. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves. >>
Apples and oranges. Last time i checked, I didn't pay for rain. If I bought paid for a coin from you, I would expect you to ensure that it got to me. If it didn't, I would expect for you to make me whole on the transaction. If you felt the risk was high enough, then you should buy insurance to protect yourself.
<< <i>H]ensure[/H]
Actualy its "INSURE" and you have the OPTION of having it or not. Case closed! BTW how would you fell if Ebay made it MANDITORY as in a BUYER fee? And where is this Ethic's code you are refering to? >>
And this guy has the balls to criticize my grammatical usage?
He should check his spelling
Actualy, Manditory, refering....
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>
<< <i>Legally, the seller's responsibility ends when he delivers the item to the carrier, be it the postal service, Fedex, UPS, etc. At that point it is the BUYER'S responsibility to insure HIS property. Only the credit card industry (and Paypal) forces the seller to guarantee delivery, even if the buyer refuses insurance. Since Paypal or CCs are manditory on ebay, and unethical people refuse to pay for insurance and STILL file chargebacks against the seller for lost merchandise, optional insurance is not an option. Try buying a house, not buying insurance, then if it burns down, get the seller, or bank or Realtor to buy you a replacement. >>
I agree, in any other kind of business, ownership of the merchandise transfer over from the seller to the buyer once the merchandise is with the carrier, but the carrier is insuring the merchandise at that point. If lost , damaged, etc.. The buyer has to file the claim with the carrier's insurance company. Insurance is cover by the fee for the freight, it is not optional, so insurance should never be optional, the buyer has to pay it as part of the transportation cost. >>
Who physically took the coin to the post office and physically paid for the postage, thus entering into a contract with the USPS. It certainly isn't the buyer. It is the seller. It is the seller who physically purchased the postage that must file the loss claim with the USPS. (Well , only if he covered himslef by purchasing postal insurance for the Postage he purchased)
Frank, remind me never to purchase anything from you. I would be worried about delivery.
<< <i>
<< <i>The problem with that logic is that, in fact, it is not the buyer's item unless it is received... >>
In fact, as it's been pointed out I believe, that's not legally accurate. This is the way it is as I see it: if a seller offers free shipping or shipping with insurance then the seller dang well better make sure the item gets to the buyer. If the seller offers insurance and the buyer declines, then the buyer is putting faith in the USPS that they (the USPS) will get the buyer's item to them. It's just that simple. Now, I don't know how those fellas at Paypal feel...from what I've read in this thread they seem to disagree with that logic, but the law, and common sense really, says if all you pay for is shipping, that's all you get. No insurance of anything. That's just how it works in the big boy world. >>
show me the law big boy. you and frank are talking out of your asp. Ante up the law you are citing. Make sure you understand who is entering into a contract with the USPS. Its the guy physically buying the postage.
perhaps when you sold it, you may have been trying to recover some of your costs by charging the buyer a fee. But you are the one entering into a legal contract with the USPS when you physically purchase the postage
edited to add... what's "legal" and what's "ethical" are two entirely different things.
<< <i>A seller's ethical obligation is to do what he says he will in his terms of sale. That a buyer would take advantage of a seller who tries to save him money by not charging for insurance when the buyer says he is willing to accept the risk of loss says a lot about that sort of buyer.
edited to add... what's "legal" and what's "ethical" are two entirely different things. >>
And what is ethical is that the seller gets the coin to the buyer. That is the contractual obligation plain and simple.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>That is the contractual obligation plain and simple. >>
The contractual obligation is whatever the buyer and seller agree it to be. Where is it written that the buyer and seller are not allowed to agree that the buyer assumes responsibility for loss at the point of shipment?
<< <i>As a buyer, I would never pay for insurance. insurance is for seller protection only. It is amazing that as of your post, only 3 people that have posted in this thread fully understand that concept. >>
Looks like 3 people need to study the Uniform Commercial Code, or talk to the post office and ask someone about "free insurance" and "free shipping."
<< <i>
<< <i>That is the contractual obligation plain and simple. >>
The contractual obligation is whatever the buyer and seller agree it to be. Where is it written that the buyer and seller are not allowed to agree that the buyer assumes responsibility for loss at the point of shipment? >>
Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), it is the sellers responsibility. So if I were a full time e-bay seller I would bake the insurance cost into my shipping and handling OR be ready to assume the risk.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>
Frank, remind me never to purchase anything from you. I would be worried about delivery. >>
Better yet, send me your ebay name so I can block you.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
It seems like that is certainly true, except in the PayPal world.
Thus, if a seller refuses to pick up the insurance tab, it can, when
really bad luck strikes, be in the interest of the buyer to do so.
PayPal will always decide in favor of the SELLER, if the seller
has either delivery confirmation OR signature confirmation.
But, neither of those services obviates a USPS insurance claim.
The PO knows that carriers make mistakes - scan the DC and
put the item in the wrong box. Even sig-con can be signed for
by an unintended recipient, through carrier negligence or
third-party fraud. In such instances, the BUYER benefits by
making certain that the item was insured.
As a seller, I insure everything. As a buyer, I make sure everything
is insured; even if the seller requires that I pay for the insurance.
//////
In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different
protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's
obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier.
<< <i>In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different
protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's
obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier. >>
A key statement. If you use eBay/Paypal, you play by their rules. Period.
/////////////////////////////////////////
In the real world - away from EBAY and PayPal and credit-cards - that is pretty much
how things work.
The sundry UCC provisions can be googled by those interested in learning the facts.
<< <i>
<< <i>In the real world - away from PayPal and credit cards - different
protocols apply and the UCC generally prescribes that the seller's
obligations/liabilities are limited, once he hands-off to the carrier. >>
A key statement. If you use eBay/Paypal, you play by their rules. Period. >>
////////////////////////////////
Yup.
It is a foolish seller who lets anything expensive go out without insurance,
in a PayPal transaction.
But, the BUYER will lose an INR claim at PayPal if the DC shows the item was
delivered; even if it was delivered to the wrong place. Under this circumstance,
the BUYER becomes the party that benefits from making sure items are insured.
<< <i>"...Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), ...."
/////////////////////////////////////////
In the real world - away from EBAY and PayPal and credit-cards - that is pretty much
how things work.
The sundry UCC provisions can be googled by those interested in learning the facts. >>
I am of the opinion of the following:
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent.
Let's take some examples.
(1) The seller delivers the items to the USPS. The USPS is the only method of shipment. The USPS here is an agent of the seller, and not of the buyer, and thus responsibility still remains with the seller that the item is shipped to the buyer or his/her agent.
(2) The seller delivers the items via (well known carrier specified by the buyer). Not sure of the legal ramifications here.
(3) The seller delivers the items to an agent of the buyer (e.g. a friend). Obligation of the seller ends here.
<< <i>Unless there is a written agreement between the buyer and seller that the buyer assumes all responsibility for delivery ( any buyer would be an idiot to agree to those terms), it is the sellers responsibility. >>
If you don't know the buyer and seller or the details of the transaction, there's no way to know whether or not it's reasonable for a buyer to assume the risk of loss. More times than I can remember, I have opted to have stuff I've bought through the mail sent to me uninsured at my risk in exchange for a discount on the shipping total. I've probably saved a couple hundred dollars in shipping with just the loss of one $8 package by doing so. Doesn't sound idiotic to me.
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent."
///////////////////////////////////////
EBAY could not really work as a venue, if that was not the case.
In "real world" business, it just does not work like that.
.....
I ship a few palletized items a month. Once they leave my dock,
my hands are free and clear of liability. The vendee assumes
the subsequent risks, and pays for the insurance to cover those
risks.
.....
See: Uniform Commercial Code.
<< <i>"I am of the opinion of the following:
It is the responsibility of the seller to get the item to the buyer or the buyer's agent."
///////////////////////////////////////
EBAY could not really work as a venue, if that was not the case.
In "real world" business, it just does not work like that.
.....
I ship a few palletized items a month. Once they leave my dock,
my hands are free and clear of liability. The vendee assumes
the subsequent risks, and pays for the insurance to cover those
risks.
.....
See: Uniform Commercial Code. >>
Why don't you point us to the element of the UCC that mentions this?
<< <i>Holy Crap guys, why is this so complicated? I was under the assumption this was an Ebay/PP transfer. And if so, it is the seller's obligation, lost or not, to make sure the buyer has possession of the item purchased. >>
///////////////////////////////
The "complication" ONLY arises when - as noted on page one - the seller
has a DC or SC that shows the buyer received the item, when in fact the
item was misdelivered.
The BUYER will lose the "Item Not Received" claim at PayPal. Under that
circumstance, it would have been beneficial if the BUYER had gone ahead
and picked-up the insurance fee for the cheapskate seller.
<< <i> Frank, remind me never to purchase anything from you. I would be worried about delivery. >>
When are you people going to understand that buying or not buying insurance has NOTHING to
do with whether or not you will receive your coin!!!!???? In the event that you do not receive
it, the question is whether an insurance claim can be filed against the party who is responsible
for losing it (that would be USPS, NOT THE SELLER). Since credit card companies (and hence
PayPal) allow the buyer to file chargebacks on non-delivered items, it makes sense for sellers
to COVER THEIR A** on items of any significant value by insisting that the shipment be insured.
On items of lesser value, if the buyer is willing to assume the risk, and the seller can trust said
buyer, then paying for insurance is a WASTE OF MONEY. Now all of you whining buyers who
claim that if USPS loses your item that it's the seller's fault because s/he paid the postage are just
the type of people that would probably not fall under the category of people "the seller can
trust".
End of rant.
<< <i>I have not read UCC, but I bet PP and UCC contradict one another. >>
//////////////////////////
Indeed they do.
On the one hand, EBAY tells buyers they are agreeing to a "contract;" the
terms of which the seller has drafted. The "contract," when payment-satisfied
with a non-PayPal/non-credit card method, can rely on its UCC-relevant terms.
(ie: "Insurance is the buyers responsibility and the seller assumes no liability
for items that are lost or damaged, unless the buyer elects to pay for insurance."
BUT, once PayPal is in the mix, NONE of that lingo flys. The escape hatch for the
seller, however, is a DC or SC "issued in error to show delivery." This is the
circumstance in which the buyer is at risk, and the seller is home-free.
Aside from such circumstance, there is no other in which the buyer in a PayPal
transaction benefits from buying insurance.
A buyer paying with a paper-payment - on a contract disclaiming a seller's liability -
would not prevail in court under the contract terms outlined above. PayPal and
credit-cards are the safeguard for the BUYER and, essentially, "void" the contract's
disclaiming-terms when the SELLER accepts the terms of PayPal's UA.
PayPal changes the FOB concept into one of "delivered into the buyer's hands."
But, remember, PayPal ONLY requires the seller to "prove" delivery with a DC
or SC that may or may not be a valid record.
.......................
Starting at about page 467 of the link below, the concepts of "risk of loss" that are covered by UCC are discussed.
UCC: Risk Of Loss Concepts
The various states have incorporated/modified the general UCC notions
into statutes and regulations.
TONS of case law is recorded on the subject, and can be read on the internet.
Most or all state legislatures have websites that include the statutes. All are
well indexed and easy to navigate. UCC is well codified within each.
////////////////////////////
Many EBAY-sellers fail to grasp the "trap" they enter when PayPal comes into
the picture. They honestly believe that their TOS have weight. That weight
is ALL lost when cash/check/money-order is NOT the payment method.
//////////////////////////////
I suspect you could count on one hand the number of EBAY buyers
who would "honor" their promise to "assume the risk."
They simply rely on PayPal to get them off the hook.
.....
The easy solution for sellers is to simply INCLUDE the cost of all
services in the shipping fee.
"Insured Priority Mailing with Delivery Confirmation Is $X.XX."
<< <i>It is important to realize that the merchant has the right under the law to try to collect from the buyer directly or take him to court, even if his card issuer grants the chargeback. >>
////////////////////////////
Very true.
The defense used by the scamming buyers will often prevail, however.
NOT always, but often
The defaulting buyer will claim that the seller "waived" the disputed
terms in the contract when the seller agreed to accept payment via
PayPal/Credit-Card, and that the PP/CC UAs were allowed to modify
the seller's TOS by voluntary action of the seller.
Since "as is" and "no returns" are not in sync with PayPal, a seller
who accepts payment via PP can be argued to have abandoned
his right to rely on the terms of his contract with the buyer.
Checks, cash, and money orders are really the only safe ways for
honest - and dishonest - sellers to do biznez.
You should take a look at how the Federal Trade Commission views sticking it to the consumer for non-delivery of goods:
FTC Link
There is some confusion in this thread about liability. It is perfectly natural for sellers to offer optional insurance, in order
to keep down postage and handling costs, because they get dinged on this on feedback. It is a Catch-22. If they require
insurance (include it in the S&H), some customers will get upset, depending on the cost of the item.
As a seller, if a customer says that they never received an item, and I did not insure or otherwise get documented proof
of delivery, well, I am hosed. Does that mean that the customer lied about non-delivery? Of course not, unless there is
a track record for that kind of misconduct (theft).
Commerce, in the practical sense, is a two-way street. You have to examine when title to the item passes. Just because a
consumer orders and pays for something does not mean that the seller doesn't have any responsibility thereafter.
Another simple example is from the VCoins Dealer Code of Ethics:
VCoins Dealer Code Of Ethics
I don't know what deliver means in your neck of the woods, but I know what it means to me...
Just some more to chew on. Moral of the story is, sellers protect yourself with insurance on valuable items and be sure
to follow the venue's rules!
John
SFC, US Army (Ret.) 1974-1994
They are fine, but even they, in part, conflict with PayPal's UA.
"I will allow returns within a period not less than fourteen (14) days from the recorded date of shipping or ten (10) days following attempted delivery or receipt by the purchaser, whichever is the earlier date. This return policy does not apply to group lots, items advertised and sold "as-is", items altered after receipt, or other items as specifically agreed upon beforehand with the customer. Mail bid or auction sales may have shorter limits."
.........
There really is no such thing as "as is" in the EBAY/PayPal playbook.
ALL SNADs are routinely bot-approved, regardless of the "contract"
between the buyer/seller.
/////////////
"...Commerce, in the practical sense, is a two-way street. You have to examine when title to the item passes. Just because a
consumer orders and pays for something does not mean that the seller doesn't have any responsibility thereafter..."
...
Thousands of times each day, EBAY buyers enter "contracts" with sellers
that explicitly disclaim that concept. Such buyers rely on PayPal's generosity
with sellers' money to remedy the shoppers' foibles.
The UCC asks the buyer and seller to determine when title passes. PayPal
does not fully allow for that historically sound practice.
The seller's obligation - under the TOS in most EBAY listings - is to convey the
goods to the shipper. "Proof of delivery" is a good thing, but it is a PayPal/CC
thing, NOT a UCC thing; unless specifically agreed to in the "contract."
BUT, as I repeatedly note, EBAY would not work if UCC was all there was
to govern/police the transactions. The PayPal constructed hybrid is just to easy
for fraud-minded buyers to game.
//////////
The whole controversy largely revolves around bottom-feeding buyers
and greedy-cheapskate sellers at war on the EBAY/PayPal battlefield.
It is interesting to experience how DIFFERENT other online venues are
to play on. The "war" simply does not exist on other venues. Buyers
are pleasant, and most sellers do exactly what they say they will do.
AND, shocker: PayPal is a GREAT payment-processor on the other venues.
No bot-decisions in favor of SCAMMING buyers. NO holds/grabs of sellers'
funds. NO ridiculous and FAKE "protection" schemes. Just the good old
UCC concepts that allow honest sellers and buyers to make - and abide
by - the terms of the agreements they both willingly accept.
///////////////////
The FTC recitations on failure-to-deliver issues - and the Acts that govern
them - are all present in the sundry elements of the UCC. All good.
The perversions of a flawed CC-chargeback system by PayPal is the
cause of MOST of the conflict.
to follow the venue's rules!"
//////////////////////////////////////
That really is the bottom line.
<< <i>Moral of the story. There are a lot of cheap and unethical buyers on this forum, who refuse take responsibiliy for their action of not opting for insurance. >>
<< <i>Post it here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
Ken, you are such a smartypants!
TC
<< <i>
<< <i>Post it here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
Ken, you are such a smartypants!
TC >>
<< <i>"...if the buyer is willing to assume the risk, and the seller can trust said buyer,..."
//////////////////////////////
I suspect you could count on one hand the number of EBAY buyers
who would "honor" their promise to "assume the risk."
They simply rely on PayPal to get them off the hook.
.....
The easy solution for sellers is to simply INCLUDE the cost of all
services in the shipping fee.
"Insured Priority Mailing with Delivery Confirmation Is $X.XX." >>
That is indeed the "easy solution". However, I, as a seller, am unwilling to penalize that handful
of honorable and reasonable people because of the attitudes of the unwashed masses, many of
whom apparently decided to post to this thread. Granted I assume some risk by doing this, but
I understand that USPS loses a parcel once in a blue moon, and I would consider the loss of
an uninsured LOW VALUE item that the buyer (who declined my optional insurance) holds me
responsible for simply a cost of doing business MY WAY. That buyer would, of course, lose the
privilege of doing any business with me in the future.
<< <i>
<< <i>As a buyer, I would never pay for insurance. insurance is for seller protection only. It is amazing that as of your post, only 3 people that have posted in this thread fully understand that concept. >>
Looks like 3 people need to study the Uniform Commercial Code, or talk to the post office and ask someone about "free insurance" and "free shipping." >>
Frank,
I don't know the law. I don't need to know the law. It is just good business practice for the seller to take responsiblility for delivery. I make the insurance decision on every package I send. It comes down to: do I want to pay the USPS for insurance (only cost effective on registered and express mail), use a 3rd party insurer (usually cheaper if you have a policy), or accept the responsibility myself. I use barcoded printed labels and haven't lost an item in the last 3000 shipments. Clearly the last option becomes the right answer on low value items. but if a buyer wants insurance, I offer it since that makes them happy. --jerry
<< <i>Moral of the story. There are a lot of cheap and unethical buyers on this forum, who refuse take responsibiliy for their action of not opting for insurance. >>
This pretty much says it!.. AND I do have the BALLS to back it up ONECENT..BTW I dont come here for my typing or grammar skills... Just my TWO CENTS!
Please foward your user ID so I can BLOCK YOU too.
BTW edited for you ONECENT!
AL
Edit: Spelling
<< <i>I make insurance optional, and then if the buyer does not buy it, I buy it anyway. Roughly 50% of the time, the buy will buy the insurance. >>
If the item doesn't make it to him and the seller tries to push and say "well, YOU didn't insure it", then he would file the claim/neg.
He said nothing, like some have written, to say that he would immediately file a neg if the item didn't arrive.
If I were selling and got stupid and didn't insure something, and buyer emailed saying it hadn't arrived, I sure wouldn't say "well, YOU didn't purchase insurance now, did you?".
Not only is that not a good business move, but it is just rude.
So, those that jump on onecent likely have other problems
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>
<< <i>I make insurance optional, and then if the buyer does not buy it, I buy it anyway. Roughly 50% of the time, the buy will buy the insurance. >>
Yes, nothing worse than having to deal with a difficult seller when things go wrong.
So far most of the banter has been directed to eBay transactions. How do folks here feel about deals done on the BS&T board? Do you expect a seller here to to "take care of your interests" or if you refuse insurance accept that you could be SOL if the USPS loses your package? Or do the UCC regs even apply to casual transactions?
<< <i>If I were selling and got stupid and didn't insure something, and buyer emailed saying it hadn't arrived, I sure wouldn't say "well, YOU didn't purchase insurance now, did you?".
Not only is that not a good business move, but it is just rude.
So, those that jump on onecent likely have other problems
If your auction terms state "Insurance is OPTIONAL. Seller assumes no risk for uninsured
parcels", then why is it rude or bad business for the seller to not cover the buyer's loss?
I don't want to deal with buyers who either can't read or refuse to understand that
insurance is not FREE.
If it's "stupid" to not pay USPS $1.70 to insure a $10-20 coin, then I guess I'm stupid.
By the by it's very interesting how Paypal chose to live & die by delivery confirmation instead of a signature form of delivery when the post office itself does NOT consider delivery confirmation to be 'proof of delivery'
//////////////////////////////
Yikes!!!!!!!!
But, there is, oddly enough, sometimes a very tiny bit of merit to that demand.
The only problem I have with such a "discount" is that I do BINs with Immediate Payment Required.
With EBAY/PayPal, in order for the seller to be covered by PP's "seller protection" in such transactions,
each item must be shipped seperately as it is listed on the PP transaction-details sheet.
OFTEN, buyers contact me and want to know, "How do I buy more than one item?" I make special
listings by combining the items they wish to buy into ONE listing; I then discount the total a little.
(Buy.com also uses IPR, but they have a "shopping cart" that allows buyers to combine
payments. AND, of course, they give NO discounts. That kind of API is scheduled to be
integrated with the EBAY platform, in 2009; as the site moves deeper into a "mostly BIN" venue.)
Many buyers are simply too cheap to deal with on EBAY, and many sellers too greedy.
As I noted earlier, buyers on other venues simply do NOT act like EBAYers do. They are much
easier to deal with, less concerned about pennies, just want a reasonable deal and to get
their stuff delivered in a reasonable time.
LOTS of EBAY buyers are too concerned with how much the seller makes. And, they want
a GREAT deal that precludes the seller from making ANY money at all. In fact, the lowest
of the bottom-feeders seem to like for sellers to lose money.
Soon, very soon, most of the small sellers will be GONE from EBAY. Then, the pennywise
buyers can fight it out with the BIG sellers. That will be a fun fight to watch..... from other
venues.