On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Seth wrote:
> There is a lesson in here, regardless of how it turns out. Any seller
> willing to ship relatively expensive stuff without insurance
> (especially across international borders) is either a crook or an
> idiot asking for trouble. It would seem to me that the seller is
> responsible for delivery of the goods to the buyer and not just to
> drop them off at some 3rd party. Had this been a credit card
> transaction, the seller would have been charged back unless he had
> been able to produce proof of delivery to the buyer (not some 3rd
> party like Argentinean mail service).
I agree about the lesson here that should be taken to heart, but I don't
see the value in laying exclusive blame. It's as much the buyer's
responsiblity as the seller's to verify that an item will be insured,
since it does cost extra to insure expensive items. At the risk of
offending Albano, whom I respect greatly from what I've seen here, I'd say
that both the buyer and the seller were foolish not to make sure that
there was insurance. That being said, I think the seller, being a retail
store, is definitely the greater fool. They should have known better. As
an eBay seller, I recommend insurance explicitly to every customer who
does not request it, and I make it quite clear to those who refuse it that
the risk is entirely at their end.
Anyway, regardless of who's at fault, I sympathize with Albano, though I
can understand the store's position. From the store's perspective, no
insurance was mentioned in the auction or requested by the buyer. The
store shipped it via regular air mail (as requested), and since Canada
Post has little to no influence over an item once it's left the country,
the seller's done everything they realistically can to trace the item. As
a seller, I can understand the store's position, though they were stupid
to ship without insurance or a similar safeguard. At the same time, I
really feel for Albano. Sending cash internationally suggests a large
degree of trust, and I hate to see that trust abused. I can see how a
buyer would just assume that a seller would provide insurance for
shipping, and I would much rather see the seller eat the loss than the
buyer, especially since the seller is a store and the buyer is
Albano. While I don't see this as a case where either the buyer or the
seller is clearly at fault, I side with Albano.
Question: have you confirmed that the store addressed it to the correct
address? That might be part of the problem.
> Mr. Dykstra should have requested insurance and proof of delivery (and
> passed the costs on to his customers). Since he did not, he should do
> the right thing, learn a lesson, and be thankful that this was only a
> Super Program, and not some really expensive gear.
True, but we can make the same argument for the buyer. After all, I'm
sure the seller has written documentation showing that they shipped the
item, while Albano has no definite proof that he didn't receive it. In
other words, both sides should have acted differently in retrospect. The
fact that the seller is a store makes the situation easier, at least... I
would expect them to reimburse Albano, since they can easily eat the loss.
If it was a private seller, it would be a lot more complicated.
Good luck, Albano! I'm with you on this, even though I've tried to point
out the store's side.
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
