 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Florida &, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 11288 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
KenC wrote:jsb806f wrote:Why do you assume the fault is with the seller? If UPS has a tracking number then the watched wasshipped by the seller. If it is "lost" or "stolen" after that why is it the seller's fault? Did you ask that the watch be insured? I'm not sure that PayPal will reimburse under these circumstances since it doesn't look like this is the seller's fault. I'd be going after UPS.
I think you may have misread YARGH's comment...I see nothing that even implies that he is blaming the seller. He even stated that he verified the shipment with UPS and they admitted that they had possession of it and now could not locate it.
Unless otherwise stated in the sale, it is the seller's responsibility to place insurance on the item being sold to protect against loss until it reaches the buyer. Delivery to a transit point does not constitute delivery to the purchaser.
That said, only the seller can go after UPS as the contract is with the shipper and not the consignee...I just went thru that with FedEx
I read nothing in my original comment to suggest that I implied that Yargh was blaming the seller. I wrote that it sounded like UPS lost the watch not the seller and that I didn't think that PayPal would reimburse for that. I am not criticizing Yargh.
The seller is responsible for insuring the item unless otherwise stated? Interesting. I would think the reverse is true. Unless otherwise stated in the ad the watch is not sent insured by the seller. Why should the seller automatically assume the cost of insuring an item? I have insured items that I have sold when asked to do so by the buyer. I don't think it is reasonable or wise for buyers to simply assume that sellers insure the item. That seems a little like assuming that unless otherwise stated in the ad that the seller will ship the watch overnight. Wouldn't it be safer for buyers to assume if it isn't in the ad it isn't being done? I know this is an awful situation for Yargh and I can sympathize with him. I hope everything works out to his advantage. The situation raises an interesting question about the responsibility of the seller once a watch has been shipped.
Okay...maybe it was this line that threw me off when you asked him, "Why do you assume the fault is with the seller?".
I, personally, assume it is the sellers responsibility to get the item you have purchased from him safely delivered to the purchaser. I know that if I shipped something and it did not get to the destination, I would feel responsible and make good. Obviously, my opinion and assumption is different than yours, but I think your analogy is way off...I automatically assume that the goods will be shipped the least expensive way possible unless otherwise stated. But none of this is worth arguing over, and I apologize if I misread your sentence!