Shipper is responsible for insurance:Discussion


Over on AA in the vinyl section, we had a lively discussion of who is responsible for insurance, and why. My (RANT) take on this,(backed up by the laws about this) is that the shipper is soley responsible.
The buyer has a right to expect the goods delivered exactly as advertised, or, he has a right to reject them. If the goods are broken in shipment, the SELLER must be the claimant, as HE paid for the insurance, and did the packing.
Why so many sellers try to weasle out of responsibility is curious to me. Laziness? Because they can get away with it?
My stance is that (even if the seller includes the cost of the insurance in the selling/shipping/handling cost) the shipper is soley responsible for the goods arriving in the condition claimed in the advertisement.
Many folks feel that by issuing a disclaimer as seller, they are no longer responsible. I say they ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE, and should act accordingly.
No more "it ins't my (seller's) fault blah blah blah, it IS the sellers responsibility!!! and if the stuff is trashed, it belongs to the seller, and a refund is promptly due the buyer, as the seller failed to deliver what he promised.
If this issue could be clarified, I think it would benefit all the buyers and sellers.
Any comments?
elizabeth
jaxz -

Relax. The header of this post is "DISCUSSION" which is just what I am doing, discussing, using my views and opinions. The insurance part is JUST A COMMENT, which I think is of value IN GENERAL.

I am not saying the seller is out scott-free once shipped.
Obviously the buyer and seller have to work together to resolve the situation accordingly. I simply disagree with above comments that the buyer should have the 'right' to decide if he or she wants to pursue insurance or receive a complete refund from the buyer. I feel BOTH parties need to work it out, and make the decision TOGETHER. I am not opposed to providing refunds to make the new owner whole, just don't feel it is their decision exclusively!

Hope this makes sense.....

Dan
SEAN!

Thanks for the clarity! Indeed I have the wrong buyer/seller mixed up, and it is pretty obvious once I read it again!

That is what happens when you only sleep 2 hours because you are so excited to get up and read AGON posts!! Sleep Dan, sleep!

Thanks, and sorry for the confusion!!
As I said Dan, your post was a bit confusing and I reacted on face value. Thanks for clearing up the mixing up of buyer and seller in your statements as that was where much of my confusion came from. Rest assured that I am quite relaxed though. I too am discussing the same subject and offering my points of view as well. I just happen to state them with a bit more emphatic emphasis, and they just don't happen to allign with yours, or what I interpretted as yours from the words you chose. I still don't understand what you were trying to point out by citing the fact that there are dishonest people in the world who conduct themselves immorally. It seems entirely beside the point to me.

Hifirush- your pointing out the black-letter chain of responsibility is all well and good, but the fact remains that actually getting the insurance companies to make good on their coverage is a major inconvenience, and a tremendous effort. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a ground-shipping insurance claim would likely attest to this. There certainly are exceptions, but they are few and far between these days. So the question remains, who should bear the burden and headache of making the claim. Though black-letter law may state that once the cash exchanged hands the item is the property of the buyer, I would strongly disagree that it should be the buyers burden to pursue a third-party insurance claim with a shipper. I believe that part of the contract that is implied, and I have no idea whether law actually supports this (and, per my previous post clearly don't give a rat's-a*& as far as my own opinion is concerned), is that the seller agrees to deliver to the buyer the item the buyer paid for in exactly the condition it is described. The seller should be responsible for third-party insurance claims, not the buyer. Yes, clearly it is the shipper who may be at fault and who ultimately is responsible(assuming the item is properly packed - and each shipper has pretty clear guidelines which specifically indicate what proper packing is to them), but it still will be an issue between seller and buyer as to who pursues the claim, and who has to wait for the money. Again, given the same damage-in-shipping scenario with a merchant selling an item to you I don't think any of us would hesitate a second to expect the merchant to make good on the purchase, even though, by your recitation of black-letter law, the actual item is the property of the buyer already in the exchange of funds. If we are acting as a seller, whether it is a one-time transaction, or 1000 transactions a year, we are still doing business selling goods by mail, and thus acting in the same capacity as the merchant. Why should we be held to different standards?

Marco
jax2 -
Understandable, and surely no hard feelings taken or given.

My bottom line is:

Pack EXTREMELY well, understand BOTH parties are equally responsible, IF properly packaged, in pursuing insurance.
I do not think the SOLE responsibility is on the seller/shipper.

I have had/have a few claims and each/everytime, the recipient has been happy with working through the carrier, as opposed to demanding a refund and leaving it up to me.

My only disagreement is allowing the buyer the right of refusal to reject mediation with the carrier, leaving all of the burden on the shipper.

MHO.

Dan