[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 As between the buyer and seller that didn't make any specific arrangements, and assuming two non-merchants, I think the UCC section I cited above would apply, making the seller responsibile until the buyer receives the item.

I believe UCC 2-504 and 2-509 would apply and once the seller gives the goods to the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer. As I said earlier, I have not done extensive research on the matter but these 2 provisions seem to apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanadu777 This rings a bell, actually more like a gong... Unless the seller states to the buyer that seller won't be held responsible for lost or damaged goods before the sale, the seller remains the responsible party. If the buyer waives their rights by agreeing to those terms (says no insurance neccesary for example), then responsibility transfers to the buyer. Besides the UCC, I believe the FTC comes into play also, if the item was advertised on the net.

It's really very simple, if I made this transaction with Thaddy, and he paid me, didn't ask for insurance to protect his goods, then I have my money and he is SOL. That is not to say that I wouldn't try to work something out because the transaction was on headfi, but I would feel no legal reason to do so.

 

[mbriant]

I wonder when change of ownership officially occurs in a situation like this? Is it when the deal is made, or when the seller accepts and receives the money or is it when the buyer accepts and receives the item? And even if the buyer winds up owning the item before he/she takes possession of it, surely the seller must still have a responsibility to safe-guard the item

Or could it depend on who's behalf the post office was delivering the parcel...the seller's or the buyer's?

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

if I made this transaction with Thaddy, and he paid me, didn't ask for insurance to protect his goods, then I have my money and he is SOL.

Let's assume I purchased a TV from a brick and morter store and was charged $1,000 ... delivery included. If the delivery truck showed up at my house with a crushed TV, no matter whether it was delivered in the store's own truck, or by a carrier, hired and paid for by the store out of the $1,000 delivery included price, the store would be responsible and still required to give me a new TV.

Had I purchased the TV without delivery included and therefore picked it up myself, or hired a carrier to pick it up and deliver it for me ( or had the store call and pay for a carrier of my choice,), and it was damaged in shipment, then I'd be responsible because the carrier was now acting on my behalf.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant Let's assume I purchased a TV from a brick and morter store and was charged $1,000 ... delivery included. If the delivery truck showed up at my house with a crushed TV, no matter whether it was delivered in the store's own truck, or by a carrier, hired and paid for by the store out of the $1,000 delivery included price, the store would be responsible and still required to give me a new TV. Had I purchased the TV without delivery included and therefore picked it up myself, or hired a carrier to pick it up and deliver it for me ( or had the store call and pay for a carrier on my behalf to deliver it), and it was damaged in shipment, then I'd be responsible, because the carrier was now acting on my behalf. Just my opinion of course.

In your first scenerio, the store would have protected itself and you would have a 30 day or some warranty on the goods. I don't think you can compare a commercial transaction with a personal as this is. The seller can only provide the goods to the carrier, after that it is out of the seller's hands and he has no control. Money in sellers pocket, buyer wants his goods in the shape they were represented to be in, buyer protects self and makes sure there is insurance.

 

[cosmopragma]

Head-fi isn't about a few ******** dealing with each other, looking for their advantage and nothing else.
Please deal via ebay if you want to rely on the fine print of legal intricacies.

gsferrari seems to be an honest head-fier, and there's simply no point at discussing potential refusion of responsability.

 

[acs236]

I think, generally speaking, when a purchase in made on these forums, delivery of the item is part of the deal. That's why we say "shipping included" or "plus shipping", etc. But at any rate, I think it's debatable, and really side issue to this thread.

 

[elrod-tom]

I've sold an awful lot of stuff on eBay and otherwise that required shipping. If it's a CD where it's not worth hassling, I've more often than not just said "if you want insurance, better get it...I'm not responsible if it's lost or damaged". It's never been a problem.

I wouldn't even consider shipping anything of any significant value without insurance and delivery confirmation. It's an invitation to disaster, as this unfortunate series of events makes clear. The insurance cost is minimal, even for something this pricey...why not just buy insurance? Is the $5.00 that it MIGHT have cost so important to the buyer OR seller, now that things have turned ugly?? I suspect not.

In this instance, I'm sorry gs, but your "policy" of not buying insurance unless it's requested doesn't seem like such a good one to me. Instead of arguing about the nuances of law and who is responsible, the seller would be done with this...save for working with the buyer to get his money back.

Let this be a cautionary tale to anyone shipping anything of value: insist on having the item insured!! If the buyer is of a mind that it's not necessary, insist on it anyway. If it's ambiguous, insist on it anyway.

 

[john_jcb]

I am not sure what the point of this thread was anyway.

If it is to point out that one should take responsibility for something if it is important and not blame a secretary; it has been a success.

If it is to buy insurance no matter what the buyer says; another success.

I learned long ago that when bad luck seems to follow someone there is often a reason. Poor outcomes seem to go hand in hand with inattention to detail and the reliance on others that have no vested interest in the outcome.

 

[BlindTiger]

funny, I was about to post what stevieo wrote.
Did you tip your mail person? I'm kidding about that but it could be something deeper. (yes, I'm paranoid but that comes with age)
This is one reason why I use a generic sounding name when sending stuff out. (think wonder bread)
I've had some things gone missing and it was always with usps, never with ups.
I'm not saying ups is better but you would think it's odd that a pr. of headphones that weigh what? 3lbs tops with packing would be so mangled. I've had it happen with heavy floorstanding speakers but never on headphones.
I've packed a pr of grados in a reg. tyvek usps priority mail envelope and it arrived ok. I've used bubble wrap in a reg paper usps priority envelope and then the tyvek one for water resistance.
What about the usps's new all you can fit in a box rates? they have 2 size boxes available, shouldn't they be strong enough? I'm not talking lead batteries or ammo but books, cd's should be fine.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

The seller can only provide the goods to the carrier, after that it is out of the seller's hands and he has no control.

That's exactly the same scenerio any commercial brick and mortor or Internet retailer falls into whether they are selling new or used or whether the carrier is USPS, UPS, Fed-Ex, or Bob's Cartage.

Quote:

In your first scenerio, the store would have protected itself and you would have a 30 day or some warranty on the goods.

An internet seller, private or commercial, can protect themself by making sure insurance is purchased or by having the buyer decline to pay for insurance.

And warranties don't cover abuse.

 

[PinkFloyd]

The postal service has a duty of care toward your package. You have paid for them to transport your package from A to B......... irrespective of whether the package was insured or not the postal service have not exercised due care and attention and have, as such, not fulfilled their contract to deliver your package "intact"

Whatever they say, you do have rights... you've paid for a service and they have not provided you with the service you expected. The package was damaged whilst in their care so they are obliged to compensate you fully... I notice from the photos that the post office stamped the package as "received in damaged condition" This damage occurred whilst in their care so they have, in effect, not fullfilled their contract.

I don't know what the law is in the US but in the UK as soon as you start mentioning TORT, duty of care, not exercising reasonable care, breach of contract etc. they pay up damned fast.

To blame the sender or the recipient in this matter is futile.... the postal service are to blame and they are accountable and must make reparations for their **** up.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Head-fi isn't about a few ******** dealing with each other, looking for their advantage and nothing else.

Ideally, yes. In this case, because it involves two long standing members, I hope so. With 26,000 members and a large number of lurkers, the possibility of "un-Head-fi-like" transactions occurring are real, and we should be aware of that. It certainly won't hurt the rest of us to discuss and learn from this unfortunate situation, not for our "advantage and nothing else", but to help us avoid winding up in a similar uncomfortable situation in the future.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant An internet seller, private or commercial, can protect themself by making sure insurance is purchased or by having the buyer decline to pay for insurance. And warranties don't cover abuse.

Sorry, but in the end, on most circumstances it is the buyer that will be the one in need of insurance not the seller. The seller has his money, in most transaction. The buyer can just as easily insist on insurance. The buyer has more to lose than the seller. I should note that in every situation where I ship goods I make sure there is coverage. However, the buyer is the one that has most to lose if he has sent the money.

The point of this thread was to find a solution to the problem. The lessen to be learned as john_jcp points out is make sure there is insurance. The point of my posts is to explain that this shouldn't be only gsferrari's problem. That maybe someone else should step up and assist (someone in particular). Since it really isn't my problem and I have said as much as I can and probably more than I should have, I will leave this thread to others.

 

[JiiEf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I still think that package would be have been destroyed even if it was packed "better." If you had shipped it via Fed-Ex or UPS -- not government corporation -- I would have advised going to small claims court in a second. A shipping company is not allowed to be negligent in the handling of packages, whether they are insured or not. As a legal matter, the USPS benefits from sovereign immunity -- we're the gov't so you can't sue us.

I'm specializing in transport law. While I don't want to get into this, mostly for geographical reasons, I just wanted to point out that national postal services are protected by law to a much greater extent than private transportation companies. Also, when transport law is involved, all basic ideas of fairness can be ignored: in some cases the transporter is not liable for damage done on purpose, never mind by negligence.

(Sorry for opening up, I'm working on my thesis and this stuff is really revolving in my head)

/JF

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

The point of this thread was to find a solution to the problem. The lessen to be learned as john_jcp points out is make sure there is insurance. The point of my posts is to explain that this shouldn't be only gsferrari's problem. That maybe someone else should step up and assist (someone in particular).

I agree. Sorry to come across as confrontational ... just playing devil's advocate because it would be good to know legally where the buck stops. Not necessarily for this particular transaction where hopefully some compromise can be reached...but for future transactions by everyone.

And yes, making sure expensive items are insured should be a priority for both parties. Plus once insurance is purchased, the shipper has an additional obligation to pack the item properly so that it absolutely meets the carrier's insurance standards.