[mbriant]

Quote:

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.

That's why it would be good to know who is responsible for dealing with and hopefully recouping compensation from the transporter or insurer, should something go wrong.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Have any of you guys read the title of this thread? "what are my options"?

Claim damages from the postal service...... end of. A couple of phone calls is all it takes... they didn't deliver your package intact GS It's their fault.

 

[immtbiker]

When the package was stamped "Received in Damaged Condition", is that the receiving post office, saying that it was received damaged from the sending post office, or was it the sending post office, saying that it was received damaged by the shipper. Otherwise, it is the post office, blaming the post office...isn't it?
Whether or not, someone I send something to, asks for it or not, I spend the extra $5 to insure the package to cover my own arse. I am not going to quibble about something worth the price of a Heineken in a bar, over a $3000 CD player, or a $300 pair of Audio Technica's.

 

[immtbiker]

Alas, I feel that this is one of those situations, where there is going to be no definitive answer, and someone's going to have to eat it, if the PO doesn't cover their violent mishap.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker Alas, I feel that this is one of those situations, where there is going to be no definitive answer, and someone's going to have to eat it, if the PO doesn't cover their violent mishap.

Unfortunately that's why we have courts...

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiiEf 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

That's why I mentioned the notion of soverign immunity, which essentially protects the USPS from being sued.

BTW, since you're specializing in it, what are some of the statutes, besides the UCC, that effect shipments made by USPS or other shippers in the United States?

 

[Thaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker When the package was stamped "Received in Damaged Condition", is that the receiving post office, saying that it was received damaged from the sending post office, or was it the sending post office, saying that it was received damaged by the shipper. Otherwise, it is the post office, blaming the post office...isn't it?

After talking to the woman at the desk of my post office, she said that she remembered when the package came in. Since she is a friend of my Mom's, she had a feeling that she would be seeing the package again.

It must have been damaged either somewhere in Texas right when it was shipped, or maybe at a sorting station or something along the way.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant I agree. Sorry to come across as confrontational ...

I didn't think you were being confrontational, you were just expressing your opinion.

 

[Genetic]

In our Civil Code culture, the transfer of ownership rights, trying to answer a question in an earlier post, is effective at the exact moment when the deal is closed. He agrees to sell you an objet and you agree on the price. It's all yours from that instant.

Now, the buyer having full ownership of an item often at thousands kilometers away, has the duty toward himself of protecting his investment.

But..... by contract you can change all of this scenario....

Amicalement

P.S. By now we all know who's to blame....Maybe a poll on that last one?

 

[JiiEf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 That's why I mentioned the notion of soverign immunity, which essentially protects the USPS from being sued. BTW, since you're specializing in it, what are some of the statutes, besides the UCC, that effect shipments made by USPS or other shippers in the United States?

Sorry, wrong country, so I won't comment on national law. There are international conventions that apply to practically all forms of transport, excluding those undertaken by national postal services (even when the said postal services can be sued, they are exempt from the liability described in the said conventions).

I'm under the impression that most of these conventions apply to the US in some form (I only know for sure about the recent Montreal air transport convention, since my thesis is on that).

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful,

/JF

 

[stevieo]

As both a seller and purchaser of goods via Priority mail I was very interested in just where the responsibility lays when a package is damaged by accident in transit by the USPS by no fault of their own. The responsibility for damages is clearly with the USPS as my investigation reveals.

Here is the skinny re: responsibility of the unfortunate damaged parcel as per my discussion with the Postmaster General at breakfast this morning. Judge Wapner concurs as does my clergyman.

The parcel was sent by the seller in Priority Mail packaging (this is of importance), the parcel was damaged in transit by the USPS and the purchaser, or contract purchaser as the case may be, received the parcel, albeit in crushed condition.

* The seller fulfilled his obligation to the purchaser and has no further responsibility neither legally nor ethically to refund the purchase price or waive the debt even though the parcel was not insured. It is the purchaser’s responsibility to request the parcel be insured.

* The purchaser is contractually obligated to pay for the merchandise if he has not yet done so and is not entitled to a refund from the seller nor a forgiveness of debt nor should the purchaser expect one.

* The onus is on the purchaser to file a claim with the USPS for damages.

The key here is the fact that the parcel was shipped in Priority Mail packaging and appears to have been properly packaged by the seller and admitedly damaged by USPS. This is valid grounds for the USPS to accept a claim for damages irregardless of whether or not the parcel was insured because the packaging was USPS packaging.

I will now have to give serious consideration to insurance of a valuable package as a purchaser expecting a package by Priority Mail. I have not yet had an unfortunate experience and have to consider the content value and odds rate of possible damage to figure the insurance costs payback point. Damage of this nature with Priority Mail parcels is very low in my estimation and this is the first time I know of this happening.

It remains a bummer for the seller if he has not been paid and a bummer for the purchaser for having to file a claim. At least USPS packaging was used and USPS admitted the damage was due to their handling or handling by one of its agents or sub-contractors.

 

[immtbiker]

Stevieo with the legal-ease!!! You go girl!

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom [size=xx-small]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.[/size]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb [size=xx-small]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.[/size]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant [size=xx-small]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.[/size]

imo these posts sum it all quite well
Clearly exhist the possibility of shipping an item insured, clearly is better to do it if the item has a significant value and also - if it's not the buyer to ask for it - it's better to ask and accord with the the buyer on the sale about getting insurance for a nice value item .

I'd say you can file a claim probably, and hopefully there might eventually be a base insuarance for happenings like this on priority mail - but since insurance is a titled optional of the service, happenings like this are probably expected along with the service, even if they happen rarely, therefore there's the insurance option , and therefore insurance is due to claim refund . I could bet it will finish here

.

 

[boodi]

how it is ending up ?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieo As both a seller and purchaser of goods via Priority mail I was very interested in just where the responsibility lays when a package is damaged by accident in transit by the USPS by no fault of their own. The responsibility for damages is clearly with the USPS as my investigation reveals. Here is the skinny re: responsibility of the unfortunate damaged parcel as per my discussion with the Postmaster General at breakfast this morning. Judge Wapner concurs as does my clergyman. The parcel was sent by the seller in Priority Mail packaging (this is of importance), the parcel was damaged in transit by the USPS and the purchaser, or contract purchaser as the case may be, received the parcel, albeit in crushed condition. * The seller fulfilled his obligation to the purchaser and has no further responsibility neither legally nor ethically to refund the purchase price or waive the debt even though the parcel was not insured. It is the purchaser’s responsibility to request the parcel be insured. * The purchaser is contractually obligated to pay for the merchandise if he has not yet done so and is not entitled to a refund from the seller nor a forgiveness of debt nor should the purchaser expect one. * The onus is on the purchaser to file a claim with the USPS for damages. The key here is the fact that the parcel was shipped in Priority Mail packaging and appears to have been properly packaged by the seller and admitedly damaged by USPS. This is valid grounds for the USPS to accept a claim for damages irregardless of whether or not the parcel was insured because the packaging was USPS packaging. I will now have to give serious consideration to insurance of a valuable package as a purchaser expecting a package by Priority Mail. I have not yet had an unfortunate experience and have to consider the content value and odds rate of possible damage to figure the insurance costs payback point. Damage of this nature with Priority Mail parcels is very low in my estimation and this is the first time I know of this happening. It remains a bummer for the seller if he has not been paid and a bummer for the purchaser for having to file a claim. At least USPS packaging was used and USPS admitted the damage was due to their handling or handling by one of its agents or sub-contractors.

The Federal Trade Commission says otherwise.

The burden falls on the seller for getting the merchandise to the buyer. If the item does not arrive in the condition claimed or is missing, the seller is obligated to give a full refund, including the costs of shipping.

I am finding this one out on the other end. I bought something on eBay, the seller shipped it without insurance, and 2 out of the 3 packages have not arrived. I am working with the seller to file a "lost mail claim" with the USPS to hopefully "find" the packages. If the seller decides it's tough luck for me, I will be filing a complaint with the FTC. I know eBay won't do jack crap for me.

-Ed