I don't know the law in Canada, or the province of sale, but in the US, a
business that accepts money for goods or services is responsible for
delivery of those goods or services to the customer. The shipping service is
(becomes) an agent of the seller, and the seller's delivery of the goods to
the seller's agent doesn't relieve the seller of his/her responsibility to
the customer. The buyer's preference of shipping service is irrelevant. If
the customer actually contracts for the shipping with the shipping service,
i.e. signs and pays for it making the shipping service the customer's agent,
then the seller's delivery to the customer's agent constitutes delivery to
the customer. In other words, it's a question of whose agent was the
shipping service. I suppose there may be ways around this if the customer
makes his specific shipping desires formally known, essentially relieving
the seller of responsibility for these services, but it doesn't appear that
this was a part of the contract. Note that if an item shipped by the seller
is lost in shipment with, say UPS, and the item is insured, the buyer cannot
be compensated by UPS! The contract is with the shipper (seller), and only
the shipper (seller) can request compensation. The seller can ship another
identical product (paid for by the insurance) or compensate the customer
(paid from the insurance), as appropriate.
It sounds like the seller is responsible to the customer for the camera or
the price of the camera. The seller's recourse is to the shipping agent he
contracted with. No doubt the shipping agent made his terms clear with his
customer, the seller, as to his liability for goods lost in shipment.
I'm not sure about the buyer's recourse to the seller's refusal to step up
to the plate regarding his responsibility. Normally this would be a small
claims court sort of thing, but what jurisdiction can the buyer file in?
Must he go to the seller's jurisdiction to obtain justice?
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Seth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Peifer, William wrote:
> > I received a reply this afternoon from Kevin Dykstra of JD
> > Colour Service
> > regarding Albano's problems with his recent eBay purchase
> > of a Super Program
> > body.
> > > From: jd colour service [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > I received payment for the item sold. I sent the item sold by a
> > > pre-described and agreed upon method of shipping namely
> > air mail. No
> > > insurance was requested or offered. Now the item is
> > lost. what is my
> > > responsibility?
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
-
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 .
