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
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
