The seller did however agree to send me $170 as a refund, even though I paid
him $220 for the bars. So thankfully I am not out everything, just $50.
What would you do in this case? Who is at fault? Seems like a good way to
make a quick $50.....
AJ
Ebay and credit card companies make the seller responsible. But in
normal deals, the buyer
is responsible once the seller mails it. You could of suffered the
whole loss.
Not so. The seller is responsible for the goods arriving safely.
JAM
---------------------
Online credit card purchases are not considered "normal deals" nowadays?
What are the "normal deals" you referring to? At a minimum, it's first up
to the seller to document that he actually mailed the item in question.
From there, it's my understanding that the seller is legally responsible to
see it is delivered, insured or not.
> Once its dropped in the mail, the risk belongs to the buyer. That's
> why insurance is charged to the buyer.
Absolutely agree. At the very least the buyer should pay the $11 for
USPS Registration, which gives a tracking number to the shipment.
For an additional fee insurance can be added. Though its difficult to
win insurance claims against coins. Insurance is really about items
that are damaged by shipping. Its very unlikely that a gold bar will
be undamaged.
Except on eBay - when paid by Paypal the onus is on the seller to prove
delivery.
however, Registered Mail is overkill in many instances.
Tracking Confirmation costs lest than a buck and is generally accepted as proof
of delivery by Paypal.
> What we have here is a failure to communicate. Buyers beware. The law is
> clear. The Uniform Commercial Code applies to transactions involving
> "goods". That Code has been adopted in most if not all states. Under the
> Uniform Commercial Code the law regarding risk of loss in mail is clear.
> Here it is:
>
> "(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the
> goods by carrier
>
> (a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular
> destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly
> delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation;
> but
>
> (b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and
> the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier,
> the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so
> tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery. "
This language is from UCC Section 2-509. UCC Section 2-102 reads in part
"... nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales
to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers."
Case law on UCC Section 2-509 distinguishes between shipment contracts
and delivery contracts as well. There's also UCC 2-504 to consider,
which requires a showing of proof of a reasonable contract for delivery
and prompt notice of shipment. At least according to the original
poster, no such notice was given.
In summary, I strongly suggest not relying on Random Internet Posters
for legal advice.
You may (and should) assume I'm a Random Internet Poster.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain