I received the following reply to my June 28 post (cc to the offending store) from the
store concerning Albano's shipment. He believes that Alberta, Canada law relieves him
of
his responsibility ends when he puts the shipment in the hands of the carrier. Tell me
it
isn't so. Why would I buy anything from Canada if this is true?
Regards,
Bob...
-------------------------------
"In the carboniferous epoch
we were promised perpetual peace.
They swore if we gave up our weapons
that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed they sold us,
and delivered us, bound, to our foe.
And the gods of the copybook headings said,
'Stick to the devil you know.' "
--Rudyard Kipling
----- Original Message -----
From: "jd colour service" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: eBay rip-off -- follow-up
> Bob,
> I have been informed by another of the letter writers in this campaign that
> the Law in Alberta considers the item delivered to the customer at the
> moment it is placed in the care of the shipping company. Further I have
> received such grief from members of this Pentax mailing list as well as Bad
> feedback from Mr. Garcia so I consider the affair ended. His feedback was
> his recourse. My patience is ended. I will no longer sell items world
> wide. Because of him south America is off limits.
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: eBay rip-off -- follow-up
>
>
> > 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 .
