I know I'm a late comer to this conversation but I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway...
I have sold quite a few items on Ebay. I feel it is my personal responsibility to make sure an item bought has been delivered to the buyer. Maybe that's just me. That said it is up to me to decide how to get it there and to confirm that it did arrive. Delivery confirmation is perfect for that. If I feel it needs insurance that fine but that's MY decision. As soon as I confirm the item arrived at its destination and was delivered I move on.
Another thought.....I did a personal study a while back regarding First Class vs. Priority Mail and found ZERO difference with delivery times. Why pay the money for Priority (under 13 oz.) when you can insure the 1st class package for the same cost as uninsured Priority ??? Tracking is KEY and the bare minimum and if I see the package did not get delivered then the buyer is entitled to a FULL refund or an agreed on substitute replacement item.
I consider it seller integrity and part of doing business.
All insured mail is scanned at the time of delivery. Unfortuantely, insurance is absolutely useless unless there is no delievery scan. If the postman puts the package in someone elses mail box, it is still scanned as delivered, and I know none of us have ever had our mail end up in a neighbors box or theirs in our box. I'm beginning to think that signature confirmation is the best method, as at least there is a recored of someone signing for it.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
<< <i>Well..let me face the firing squad! Guess I missed out last night by watching the Mizzou game instead of reading the boards.........the seller of this item were none other then MYSELF!!! Let me start by saying i have 100% feedback on ebay as "shortstopmezz" and have ZER0 negative run-ins on this forum..other then being scammed out of $850 about a month ago on the BST. So, for any of you on this forum that want to hide behind a computer and call me a scammer or a rip off artist..feel free to PM me and i'll be glad to send you my home address and we can talk about it. Ankur sent me a check for $220 for (5) 1 gram gold bars "shipped". His check took about 10 days to arrive....when it did, i cashed the check, and mailed the bars the NEXT day. It was shipped 10/13 at noon from my local post office USPS Priority Mail. Not Insured( again this might be a screw up on my part, but i never have assumed it i purchase something shipped it will be insured unless it has said so). So, Ankur and i have been in contact EVERYDAY the last week...i haven't dodged his emails or just told him to screw off.. i have emailed or PM'd him everyday asking if the bars have showed up...i emailed him a copy of the reciept showing priority mail delivered to his city and zip. So, fast forward to yesterday...he emailed me and said still nothing.....he wanted a refund because he couldn't have this money tied up so long, and he wanted to know my plans. I told him my plan was to file a "lost mail form" monday with the post office...he said no, go ahead and refund my money thru paypal, and if they show up he would keep them and send the money back. I told him i did not believe it was all my fault or his fault and that neither of us should take the full hit.....i offered to send him back $170. He would be out $50 and i was out the gold.....VERY FAIR in my opinion. Fast forward to now......this is where we stand, he got his paypal refund of the money, and i'm out the gold.......as for anyone that thinks this was a quick way to make $50.....give me a break, i have a real job, a real family, and a real life outside these forums.....if i were going to rip someone off for $50, i'd find a way to do it without being out 5g of gold and $5 worth of shipping. >>
Regardless, you owe him $50. You should have insured the package to protect yourself. Unless you made it clear to the buyer up front, they buyer should not assume the risk of loss by the P.O. -- he paid for a coin, not a gambling contract with the Post Office. Also the buyer should not have to ask the seller for such clarification -- the seller should do so up front, which is what most sellers do on the BST.
Why did the shipper just not use shipping through paypal send 1st class w/del confirmation and insurance and it is still less than priority mail. Unless it was a gift of course.
If/When it arrives, I have told the seller that they will be sent back to him via INSURED MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. As of yesterday, it has not. I have gotten countless other packages though.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
FWIW, I sent a check to a board member on oct 24, 2008 which finally got delivered on july 18, 2009 with the notation that the envelope was found in a supposedly empty bin. Stuff happens.
<< <i>If/When it arrives, I have told the seller that they will be sent back to him via INSURED MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. As of yesterday, it has not. I have gotten countless other packages though. >>
Why would you send it back? I would think you would just give back the $170 refunded to you.
<< <i>If/When it arrives, I have told the seller that they will be sent back to him via INSURED MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. As of yesterday, it has not. I have gotten countless other packages though. >>
Why would you send it back? I would think you would just give back the $170 refunded to you. >>
Option #2.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time.
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time. >>
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it.
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time. >>
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it. >>
I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem.
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time. >>
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it. >>
I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem. >>
Tom, in this case, there probably was no specific agreement as to the terms of shipment vs. delivery. And, while it is open for debate whether the seller fulfilled his responsibility, clearly, it is not as clear (pun intended) as those living in the Ebay-only world seem to believe.
I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer.
<< <i>I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem. >> >>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
The UCC does not directly govern trade between private individuals. The essence of the contract for sale is up to the individuals. Hence, they must agree on terms of cartage and insurance.
Under the UCC, a merchant is at sufferance for delivery in a retail sale. This is the fundamental reason that feebay has the rule placing the burden on sellers to assure delivery. Feepay is treating all sellers as merchants.
Also, under the UCC, businesses may contract between themselves as to terms of delivery the same as private individuals.
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation?
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!!
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!! >>
Tom, I believe that the post of yours which was quoted above could easily be construed to have meant that the buyer was getting screwed on a technicality. If you were talking about situations other than the one at hand, that wasn't clear, at least to two of us.
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!! >>
Tom, I believe that the post of yours which was quoted above could easily be construed to have meant that the buyer was getting screwed on a technicality. If you were talking about situations other than the one at hand, that wasn't clear, at least to two of us. >>
The original post offering them for sale said nothing about terms and I was not privy to what was agreed to; thus it is not possible to determine if a technicality could come into play or not. IMO my comment was fairly general.
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I won't argue whether or not the buyer is getting dinged on a technicality since no one here can definitively parse the UCC, but I will state that the seller's reputation has been harmed. Why has the seller's reputation been harmed? Well, I am of a school of thought that believes you should do the right thing even if that means that you must do more than legally required. In my opinion, the right thing is to make certain the buyer receives the goods and, in the absence of receipt, to make certain the buyer is not out funds. This has nothing to do with ebay, but has everything to do with how I would want to be treated if I had been the buyer instead of the seller. If the seller was not willing to absorb the loss out of pocket then the seller should have insured the merchandise. The cost of insurance is trivial while the hit to a reputation can be staggering. To me, this incident tells me that the seller is careless in his/her planning and that his/her reputation is only worth $50. I would rather not do business with someone who is careless or who values their reputation at such a low level. Therefore, if given the opportunity, I would do business with someone else and this can lead to not only a harm to the seller's reputation, but also to the seller's bottom line.
The thing is you guys are ASSUMING I should take the full hit because something was "ASSUMED" at the time of a purchase...I don't agree. Also, as I said in my previous post..I have a JOB......I have sold probably 6 items on here that I flipped..........period....I don't use this form to make a living or put food on my table. If it hurts my "reputation" as a seller, I'm sorry, but everyone it entitled to their own opinion. Should I run and have the other 7 people on this forum chime in and say they had a positive experience with me...no, anyone that has dealt with me or WILL deal with me know I'm a good person to deal with......unlike some of you think. Again, if my reputation is hurt based off an "assumption"....i guess i will just have to say, I probably didn't need your business anyway.
"When someone tells you nothing is impossible, ask them to dribble a football"
<< <i>The thing is you guys are ASSUMING I should take the full hit because something was "ASSUMED" at the time of a purchase...I don't agree. Also, as I said in my previous post..I have a JOB......I have sold probably 6 items on here that I flipped..........period....I don't use this form to make a living or put food on my table. If it hurts my "reputation" as a seller, I'm sorry, but everyone it entitled to their own opinion. Should I run and have the other 7 people on this forum chime in and say they had a positive experience with me...no, anyone that has dealt with me or WILL deal with me know I'm a good person to deal with......unlike some of you think. Again, if my reputation is hurt based off an "assumption"....i guess i will just have to say, I probably didn't need your business anyway. >>
A post like the above might not help your reputation, either.
maybe not, but to be honest, i'm tired of getting on these forums every night or day and see people still bashing me because I refunded someone $170 of $220 on an item the buyer "ASSUMED" was insured. It would be different if I sent the seller a fake coin, or told him i would provide insurance or DC....but i didn't. I didn't lie about anything or cheat anyone out of anything.....period. Again, as stated above.. if you do really feel I am that bad of a person to deal with.....i'm sorry you feel that way, but pass up on the next 2 items i have listed for sale in the next year!
"When someone tells you nothing is impossible, ask them to dribble a football"
Insurance is to protect the seller who has the responsibility to get the merchandise to the buyer. Hopefully, you will act differently in future transactions.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Insurance is to protect the seller who has the responsibility to get the merchandise to the buyer. Hopefully, you will act differently in future transactions. >>
It is not nearly as unambiguous as you make it sound, in cases such as the one being discussed.
<< <i>maybe not, but to be honest, i'm tired of getting on these forums every night or day and see people still bashing me because I refunded someone $170 of $220 on an item the buyer "ASSUMED" was insured. It would be different if I sent the seller a fake coin, or told him i would provide insurance or DC....but i didn't. I didn't lie about anything or cheat anyone out of anything.....period. Again, as stated above.. if you do really feel I am that bad of a person to deal with.....i'm sorry you feel that way, but pass up on the next 2 items i have listed for sale in the next year! >>
I don't think you're a bad person to deal with. I just think this is a mess and a lot of folks would have played it differently. You're hearing from them.
Sometimes I take risks and don't insure a $50 coin. I've even sent cash to some forum members, another risk. If something goes wrong...the coin or cash is lost...I make it my problem. I don't care what "the law" says or what someone else would do. I want buyers and sellers I deal with to know I am 100% reliable and worthy of their trust.
This situation sucks. If I were the seller I would be pissed at myself and refund the full amount. If I were the buyer I would be pissed in general if I paid for something I didn't get and lost money because of it. Lance.
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!!
How did I infer that? Hmm... I'm not sure...maybe from...this line in the post perhaps... "IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky."
<< <i>I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!!
How did I infer that? Hmm... I'm not sure...maybe from...this line in the post perhaps... "IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky."
Yep, I'm pretty sure that was it. >>
That comment was made in reference to this comment!!
<<"Having an address to ship it to does not equate to a delivery guarantee. Every shipping requires an address. The issue is whether the contract or agreement called for "shipping" or called for "delivery". I very seldom see deals made on BST or ebay that call for "delivery". The facts presented in this instance appear to have called for "shipping". In that event, the seller's obligation is finished when he "ships". Title to the goods passes and they are then the responsibility of the buyer. So don't confuse having an address to "ship" to as guaranteeing delivery.">>
I made no determination as to the facts in the case or what was/was not agreed to by both parties. I said earlier in the thread that many posters to the BST sell coins on a shipped or delivered basis without knowing/realizing that there can be a difference in obligation between the two.
I'm with the school of thought that believes that the prudent seller here will spend the extra couple bucks for insurance/tracking and protect the interests of himself and his customer! As we have seen many times here, it can save a lot of grief for those times when things do go wrong.
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss.
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss. >>
Any reference to a "scam" wasn't "said perfectly" - but rather, was far from it. And, like it/admit it or not, there are indeed ifs, ands and buts.
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss. >>
Any reference to a "scam" wasn't "said perfectly" - but rather, was far from it. And, like it/admit it or not, there are indeed ifs, ands and buts. >>
<< <i>Insurance is to protect the seller who has the responsibility to get the merchandise to the buyer. Hopefully, you will act differently in future transactions. >>
Also, I never insure under 500. I take full responsibility for lost items. It only happened once in which I had to pony up the money. I did it uncontested. Still, I saved money by passing insurance on every shipment.
Like I've always said..."I pay you my money, I get my stuff or I take my money back!" No if, and or buts about that. Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back.
<< <i>Like I've always said..."I pay you my money, I get my stuff or I take my money back!" No if, and or buts about that. Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back. >>
How do you do that (take your money back), if your check has already cleared?
CJ, if you PM me your pay pal address , I will happily gift you the remaining fifty dollars to help defray the costs of your screw up.... and let this be a lesson to you.
First of all, no one on this forum is going to cover $$ for me........thanks for the offers and the thoughtfulness, but i'm not going to accept those offers...i don't need/take handouts.
As for Customroll.......sounds like we have a tough guy on our hands! You already called me a scumbag in your first post on this thread..i said.....if anyone thinks i'm a cheat, scammer, fraud, etc.......shoot me a PM and i'll gladly send you my address and you are more then welcome to come talk about it face to face..........not 1 PM arrived! As for you "taking back" your money and not asking for it.....i'd be interested to know how you would go about that!
"When someone tells you nothing is impossible, ask them to dribble a football"
<< <i>Like I've always said..."I pay you my money, I get my stuff or I take my money back!" No if, and or buts about that. Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back. >>
How do you do that (take your money back), if your check has already cleared? >>
I never pay with a check. Only a credit card for everything; either straight up or through paypal.
I've even sent cash to some forum members, another risk. If something goes wrong.
I just sent cash to a seller just a week or so ago, from the BST. I took the risk and if he didn't get I would have assumed the responsibility of my actions. Worked out fine for me.
<< <i>The thing is you guys are ASSUMING I should take the full hit because something was "ASSUMED" at the time of a purchase...I don't agree. Also, as I said in my previous post..I have a JOB......I have sold probably 6 items on here that I flipped..........period....I don't use this form to make a living or put food on my table. If it hurts my "reputation" as a seller, I'm sorry, but everyone it entitled to their own opinion. Should I run and have the other 7 people on this forum chime in and say they had a positive experience with me...no, anyone that has dealt with me or WILL deal with me know I'm a good person to deal with......unlike some of you think. Again, if my reputation is hurt based off an "assumption"....i guess i will just have to say, I probably didn't need your business anyway. >>
Baloney. You did not specify to the buyer that your responsibility ends with shipment. You failed to deliver the goods, so you owe him the full $220. Anything short of that is just bad business. The buyer purchased a coin, not a gambling contract with the postal service. Also, if you used First Class instead of Priority Mail, you could have sent the item fully insured for about the same cost.
Comments
I have sold quite a few items on Ebay. I feel it is my personal responsibility to make sure an item bought has been delivered to the buyer. Maybe that's just me. That said it is up to me to decide how to get it there and to confirm that it did arrive. Delivery confirmation is perfect for that. If I feel it needs insurance that fine but that's MY decision. As soon as I confirm the item arrived at its destination and was delivered I move on.
Another thought.....I did a personal study a while back regarding First Class vs. Priority Mail and found ZERO difference with delivery times. Why pay the money for Priority (under 13 oz.) when you can insure the 1st class package for the same cost as uninsured Priority ??? Tracking is KEY and the bare minimum and if I see the package did not get delivered then the buyer is entitled to a FULL refund or an agreed on substitute replacement item.
I consider it seller integrity and part of doing business.
how was it packaged?
don't you think you could get it in next few days?
gold + mail - insurance = trouble
<< <i>Well..let me face the firing squad! Guess I missed out last night by watching the Mizzou game instead of reading the boards.........the seller of this item were none other then MYSELF!!!
Let me start by saying i have 100% feedback on ebay as "shortstopmezz" and have ZER0 negative run-ins on this forum..other then being scammed out of $850 about a month ago on the BST. So, for any of you on this forum that want to hide behind a computer and call me a scammer or a rip off artist..feel free to PM me and i'll be glad to send you my home address and we can talk about it.
Ankur sent me a check for $220 for (5) 1 gram gold bars "shipped". His check took about 10 days to arrive....when it did, i cashed the check, and mailed the bars the NEXT day. It was shipped 10/13 at noon from my local post office USPS Priority Mail. Not Insured( again this might be a screw up on my part, but i never have assumed it i purchase something shipped it will be insured unless it has said so).
So, Ankur and i have been in contact EVERYDAY the last week...i haven't dodged his emails or just told him to screw off.. i have emailed or PM'd him everyday asking if the bars have showed up...i emailed him a copy of the reciept showing priority mail delivered to his city and zip.
So, fast forward to yesterday...he emailed me and said still nothing.....he wanted a refund because he couldn't have this money tied up so long, and he wanted to know my plans. I told him my plan was to file a "lost mail form" monday with the post office...he said no, go ahead and refund my money thru paypal, and if they show up he would keep them and send the money back. I told him i did not believe it was all my fault or his fault and that neither of us should take the full hit.....i offered to send him back $170. He would be out $50 and i was out the gold.....VERY FAIR in my opinion.
Fast forward to now......this is where we stand, he got his paypal refund of the money, and i'm out the gold.......as for anyone that thinks this was a quick way to make $50.....give me a break, i have a real job, a real family, and a real life outside these forums.....if i were going to rip someone off for $50, i'd find a way to do it without being out 5g of gold and $5 worth of shipping. >>
Regardless, you owe him $50. You should have insured the package to protect yourself. Unless you made it clear to the buyer up front, they buyer should not assume the risk of loss by the P.O. -- he paid for a coin, not a gambling contract with the Post Office. Also the buyer should not have to ask the seller for such clarification -- the seller should do so up front, which is what most sellers do on the BST.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>If/When it arrives, I have told the seller that they will be sent back to him via INSURED MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. As of yesterday, it has not. I have gotten countless other packages though. >>
Why would you send it back? I would think you would just give back the $170 refunded to you.
<< <i>
<< <i>If/When it arrives, I have told the seller that they will be sent back to him via INSURED MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. As of yesterday, it has not. I have gotten countless other packages though. >>
Why would you send it back? I would think you would just give back the $170 refunded to you. >>
Option #2.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
If it's the buyers responsibility to get payment to the seller, then it's the sellers responsibility to get the goods to the buyer.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>If it's the buyers responsibility to get payment to the seller, then it's the sellers responsibility to get the goods to the buyer. >>
...and that's exactly the way a judge would look at it if went to court.
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time.
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time.
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it. >>
I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me preface my remarks by saying that we ship everything, ebay or not, insured with either DC or more often with signature confirmation, and higher value items go Registered. As a seller I want to make sure my buyers get their items and that I am covered if they don't.
HOWEVER...That said...in the case of non ebay deals I do that by CHOICE- in the interest of customer service and because IMO it's just common sense. But it's not because I "have to"...because on non-ebay transactions the simple fact is I don't have to. The BST board (and the rest of the selling world for that matter) isn't ebay, where there's always someone there to hold the buyer's hand. In the real world the buyer bears some responsibility as well; on non-ebay deals (as Frank and a couple others have pointed out), the seller's legal responsibility ends when the item is handed to the post office teller.
My point...the seller here, though foolish to ship gold untracked and uninsured imo, wasn't obligated to eat the insurance and tracking cost merely because someone thinks he should... and imo was more than equitable by eating all but $50 of the deal (which may well still show up, I might add). I think both parties showed poor judgement here- the buyer, for assuming this was no different than an ebay deal, and the seller, for not at least suggesting insurance and/or tracking.
I think this is an example of how ebay's mainly buyer-centric policies have led to an unwarranted sense of entitlement regarding things like shipping, insurance, etc. that leads to the assumption that this policy carries over to non-ebay transactions as well.
Just my 2 cents. I'll likely catch heat for my opinion but, oh well. Won't be the first time.
You'll get no flaming from me on that. Many people have completely lost sight of the realities of the non-Ebay world with respect to shipping and the responsibilities that go (or don't go) along with it. >>
I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem. >>
Tom, in this case, there probably was no specific agreement as to the terms of shipment vs. delivery. And, while it is open for debate whether the seller fulfilled his responsibility, clearly, it is not as clear (pun intended) as those living in the Ebay-only world seem to believe.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer.
<< <i>I'm not a trained business person, nor am I trained in the law, but the article that Frank linked previously does not state that delivery to the carrier ends the seller's responsibility. Rather, the central thesis of the article is that the UCC is not as clear as to who is responsible for loss in a non-breach situation. This is consistent with a review of the UCC itself. If the agreement was for "shipment" of the gold (as in "$XXX shipped...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller has responsibility for loss and this ends with delivery to the carrier, but if the agreement was for "delivery" of the gold (as in "deliver to...") then the UCC would seem to declare the seller retains responsibility until the buyer accepts delivery. It is not as clear as the majority of folks who are writing would make it seem. >>
>>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
The UCC does not directly govern trade between private individuals. The essence of the contract for sale is up to the individuals. Hence, they must agree on terms of cartage and insurance.
Under the UCC, a merchant is at sufferance for delivery in a retail sale. This is the fundamental reason that feebay has the rule placing the burden on sellers to assure delivery. Feepay is treating all sellers as merchants.
Also, under the UCC, businesses may contract between themselves as to terms of delivery the same as private individuals.
<< <i>This thread is still alive?
If this question was asked 10 years ago, before the eBay rules influenced people, there would be fights breaking out.
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!! >>
Tom, I believe that the post of yours which was quoted above could easily be construed to have meant that the buyer was getting screwed on a technicality. If you were talking about situations other than the one at hand, that wasn't clear, at least to two of us.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!! >>
Tom, I believe that the post of yours which was quoted above could easily be construed to have meant that the buyer was getting screwed on a technicality. If you were talking about situations other than the one at hand, that wasn't clear, at least to two of us. >>
The original post offering them for sale said nothing about terms and I was not privy to what was agreed to; thus it is not possible to determine if a technicality could come into play or not. IMO my comment was fairly general.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would ask if the UCC even applies to nonbusiness personal transactions such as those that appear frequently here on the board.
Also many here [myself included] have probably used the wording shipped and delivered in various postings on the BST over the years without realizing that there might be different levels of obligation for each. IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky. In the small close knit atmosphere as might be found here, it doesn't take much to put a hurt on someone's reputation.
FWIW about a year or so ago I asked the traffic manager [who was an eBay seller himself]at my former employer about a shipper's legal responsibilities under the UCC in casual sale and even he couldn't give me a definitive answer. >>
Someone show me how exactly the buyer's getting screwed on a technicality here... the truth's a technicality? And how is eating all but $50 of the cost (when it's been determined that they didn't need to eat ANY of it) damaging to someone's reputation? >>
I won't argue whether or not the buyer is getting dinged on a technicality since no one here can definitively parse the UCC, but I will state that the seller's reputation has been harmed. Why has the seller's reputation been harmed? Well, I am of a school of thought that believes you should do the right thing even if that means that you must do more than legally required. In my opinion, the right thing is to make certain the buyer receives the goods and, in the absence of receipt, to make certain the buyer is not out funds. This has nothing to do with ebay, but has everything to do with how I would want to be treated if I had been the buyer instead of the seller. If the seller was not willing to absorb the loss out of pocket then the seller should have insured the merchandise. The cost of insurance is trivial while the hit to a reputation can be staggering. To me, this incident tells me that the seller is careless in his/her planning and that his/her reputation is only worth $50. I would rather not do business with someone who is careless or who values their reputation at such a low level. Therefore, if given the opportunity, I would do business with someone else and this can lead to not only a harm to the seller's reputation, but also to the seller's bottom line.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
MANY positive BST Transactions
<< <i>The thing is you guys are ASSUMING I should take the full hit because something was "ASSUMED" at the time of a purchase...I don't agree. Also, as I said in my previous post..I have a JOB......I have sold probably 6 items on here that I flipped..........period....I don't use this form to make a living or put food on my table. If it hurts my "reputation" as a seller, I'm sorry, but everyone it entitled to their own opinion. Should I run and have the other 7 people on this forum chime in and say they had a positive experience with me...no, anyone that has dealt with me or WILL deal with me know I'm a good person to deal with......unlike some of you think. Again, if my reputation is hurt based off an "assumption"....i guess i will just have to say, I probably didn't need your business anyway. >>
A post like the above might not help your reputation, either.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
MANY positive BST Transactions
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Insurance is to protect the seller who has the responsibility to get the merchandise to the buyer. Hopefully, you will act differently in future transactions. >>
It is not nearly as unambiguous as you make it sound, in cases such as the one being discussed.
<< <i>maybe not, but to be honest, i'm tired of getting on these forums every night or day and see people still bashing me because I refunded someone $170 of $220 on an item the buyer "ASSUMED" was insured. It would be different if I sent the seller a fake coin, or told him i would provide insurance or DC....but i didn't. I didn't lie about anything or cheat anyone out of anything.....period. Again, as stated above.. if you do really feel I am that bad of a person to deal with.....i'm sorry you feel that way, but pass up on the next 2 items i have listed for sale in the next year! >>
I don't think you're a bad person to deal with. I just think this is a mess and a lot of folks would have played it differently. You're hearing from them.
Sometimes I take risks and don't insure a $50 coin. I've even sent cash to some forum members, another risk. If something goes wrong...the coin or cash is lost...I make it my problem. I don't care what "the law" says or what someone else would do. I want buyers and sellers I deal with to know I am 100% reliable and worthy of their trust.
This situation sucks. If I were the seller I would be pissed at myself and refund the full amount. If I were the buyer I would be pissed in general if I paid for something I didn't get and lost money because of it.
Lance.
How did I infer that? Hmm... I'm not sure...maybe from...this line in the post perhaps... "IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky."
Yep, I'm pretty sure that was it.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>I don't believe that anyone said that the buyer is getting screwed on a technicality. Not sure how you inferred that. I was just giving my opinion on the difference between shipping and delivery!!
How did I infer that? Hmm... I'm not sure...maybe from...this line in the post perhaps... "IMO to use a technicality to screw someone in a casual sale is pretty tacky."
Yep, I'm pretty sure that was it.
That comment was made in reference to this comment!!
<<"Having an address to ship it to does not equate to a delivery guarantee. Every shipping requires an address. The issue is whether the contract or agreement called for "shipping" or called for "delivery". I very seldom see deals made on BST or ebay that call for "delivery". The facts presented in this instance appear to have called for "shipping". In that event, the seller's obligation is finished when he "ships". Title to the goods passes and they are then the responsibility of the buyer. So don't confuse having an address to "ship" to as guaranteeing delivery.">>
I made no determination as to the facts in the case or what was/was not agreed to by both parties. I said earlier in the thread that many posters to the BST sell coins on a shipped or delivered basis without knowing/realizing that there can be a difference in obligation between the two.
I'm with the school of thought that believes that the prudent seller here will spend the extra couple bucks for insurance/tracking and protect the interests of himself and his customer! As we have seen many times here, it can save a lot of grief for those times when things do go wrong.
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss.
<< <i>
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss. >>
Any reference to a "scam" wasn't "said perfectly" - but rather, was far from it. And, like it/admit it or not, there are indeed ifs, ands and buts.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>seller is responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts. Smells like a scam. >>
Said perfectly.
It is his (or her) responsibility to get you your item. Many people believe insurance protects the buyer. Incorrect. Insurance is bought to protect the seller, so if it gets lost, the seller doesnt have to take a total loss. >>
Any reference to a "scam" wasn't "said perfectly" - but rather, was far from it. And, like it/admit it or not, there are indeed ifs, ands and buts. >>
Right. Omit scam. Everything else stands.
<< <i>Insurance is to protect the seller who has the responsibility to get the merchandise to the buyer. Hopefully, you will act differently in future transactions. >>
That partial refund is B.S
Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back.
<< <i>Like I've always said..."I pay you my money, I get my stuff or I take my money back!" No if, and or buts about that.
Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back. >>
How do you do that (take your money back), if your check has already cleared?
jp
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As for Customroll.......sounds like we have a tough guy on our hands! You already called me a scumbag in your first post on this thread..i said.....if anyone thinks i'm a cheat, scammer, fraud, etc.......shoot me a PM and i'll gladly send you my address and you are more then welcome to come talk about it face to face..........not 1 PM arrived! As for you "taking back" your money and not asking for it.....i'd be interested to know how you would go about that!
MANY positive BST Transactions
<< <i>
<< <i>Like I've always said..."I pay you my money, I get my stuff or I take my money back!" No if, and or buts about that.
Notice I said take my money back, not ask for my money back. >>
How do you do that (take your money back), if your check has already cleared? >>
I never pay with a check. Only a credit card for everything; either straight up or through paypal.
I just sent cash to a seller just a week or so ago, from the BST. I took the risk and if he didn't get I would have assumed the responsibility of my actions. Worked out fine for me.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
<< <i>The thing is you guys are ASSUMING I should take the full hit because something was "ASSUMED" at the time of a purchase...I don't agree. Also, as I said in my previous post..I have a JOB......I have sold probably 6 items on here that I flipped..........period....I don't use this form to make a living or put food on my table. If it hurts my "reputation" as a seller, I'm sorry, but everyone it entitled to their own opinion. Should I run and have the other 7 people on this forum chime in and say they had a positive experience with me...no, anyone that has dealt with me or WILL deal with me know I'm a good person to deal with......unlike some of you think. Again, if my reputation is hurt based off an "assumption"....i guess i will just have to say, I probably didn't need your business anyway. >>
Baloney. You did not specify to the buyer that your responsibility ends with shipment. You failed to deliver the goods, so you owe him the full $220. Anything short of that is just bad business. The buyer purchased a coin, not a gambling contract with the postal service. Also, if you used First Class instead of Priority Mail, you could have sent the item fully insured for about the same cost.