Albano is going to post to the list the response I got from them today.
However, this was the letter I sent to the store, apprising them of Alberta
law regarding loss of such shipments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kevin,
The e-mail quoted below was forwarded to me by the person to whom you sent
it, since, as a Canadian, I am in a more convenient position to speak with
you about the whole situation.
My name is Michael Bromm. I live in Vancouver, and know Albano Garcia from
his participation in a Pentax mailing list of which I am member. He has
asked that I contact you regarding the recent eBay transaction involving a
Pentax SuperProgram body, since he is not comfortable with spoken English,
and also because the price of phone calls from Argentina would quickly
outstrip the price of the camera body.
First of all, let me say that I do not believe that there has been any
dishonest conduct on the part of you or your establishment. I can see by
your eBay feedback rating that you have an excellent record. I also must
say that Albano has participated in many exchanges of equipment with fellow
list members, and his reputation is equally impeccable. It seems that what
has really happened here must be described as an unfortunate failure of some
post office or other (perhaps theft in transit, which is not unheard of).
I further wish to add that on the Pentax mailing list, there is a general
feeling that the non-delivery of the camera body is "just one of those
things" that happens in a world where transactions are conducted over great
distances. No one has suggested dishonesty on your part, instead adopting a
"wait-and-see-what-happens" attitude. There has been no damage to your
reputation in that forum.
As your email suggests, the most pressing question in the matter is this:
at whose risk is an item shipped by airmail? He's paid, you've shipped,
both, I believe, in good faith. He has no camera, again, I believe, in good
faith. Who bears the loss in such a situation?
In order to be fair, I looked up the Alberta Sale of Goods Act, a piece of
legislation that governs the conduct of parties involved in consumer
transactions originating in Alberta. The relevant provision in that statute
is as follows:
"Delivery to carrier
33(1) When in pursuance of a contract of sale the seller is authorized or
required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to the
carrier, whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission
to the buyer shall prima facie be deemed to be a delivery of the goods to
the buyer.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by the buyer, the seller shall make a
contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer that is reasonable having
regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case
and if the seller omits to do so and the goods are lost or damaged in
course of transit the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the
carrier as a delivery to himself or may hold the seller responsible in
damages."
Essentially, section 33(1) says that normally, you as a seller are
considered to have provided the camera to Mr. Garcia at the moment you
placed it in the care of the Post Office, having paid the appropriate
postage. Section 33(2), though, says that unless the buyer has expressly
given permission otherwise, the seller must ensure that the contract made
with the carrier offers reasonable protection against loss or destruction in
transit. Given that a camera body is a precision instrument (ie. is subject
to damage in transit) and is easily resellable (ie. is a target for theft in
transit), and given the low cost of insurance for such an item, insuring the
camera would be reasonable under the circumstances, unless Mr. Garcia had
specifically instructed you not to do so. If such an uninsured item is lost
or damaged, the seller, according to the Sale of Goods Act, bears the loss.
This is the legislative authority that governs the transaction. Mr. Garcia,
being in Argentina, is unlikely to be able to force you to abide by it. As
a seller of merchandise over the internet, I have only once shipped an item
to a buyer and had him claim that he'd not received it. I felt that, in the
situation, I had no choice but to replace the goods, since the method by
which I had shipped the item left me with no way to verify whether the item
had been received. I understand that in this case the loss you would bear
would not be trivial, should you choose to abide by the Act.
Can we speak further about the situation and see if we can come to an
amicable resolution to the situation? You can reach me either by email or by
phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX (during normal business hours).
-
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 .
