Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gam3rBlake, post: 7980445, member: 115909&quot;]I&#039;m not changing the parameters of the discussion at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>The red &amp; blue things were two different parts of the same conversation.</p><p><br /></p><p>RED = Me explaining why FedEx would have difficulty proving that the LOST shipment contained coins. They can&#039;t prove it if it wasn&#039;t told to them. Afterall if the package is LOST it&#039;s not like they could search it.</p><p><br /></p><p>BLUE = Me explaining why despite FedEx&#039;s policies stating they don&#039;t cover coins they would have a difficult time winning if someone took them to small claims court because they would have to explain to a judge why they accepted payment for something they don&#039;t cover.</p><p><br /></p><p>You seem to expect me to stick with one argument and not deviate from it in any way whatsoever but in order to explain why they would have difficulty in a LEGAL sense (which you keep ignoring and focusing on FedEx company &quot;policy&quot;) prevailing in court where company policy doesn&#039;t mean squat.</p><p><br /></p><p>Just ask Facebook. Facebook company policy was to work with Cambridge Analytics to gather customer data. If you had tried to tell Facebook to stop doing that they would have said &quot;that&#039;s just company policy.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>However when it was taken to court that policy was shot down and Facebook was forced to stop without the consent of the people whose data was being gathered.</p><p><br /></p><p>The FACT of the matter is this: If a judge says &quot;You are court ordered to reimburse the customer because you accepted the payment for insurance&quot; it <b>DOESN&#039;T MATTER WHAT THE FEDEX INSURANCE POLICY SAYS</b>.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m sure there is also a policy not to let customers pay for services that can&#039;t be provided.</p><p><br /></p><p>Court rulings &gt; Company policy.</p><p><br /></p><p>But if I said that from the start I am sure you would&#039;ve said something like &quot;But a court wouldn&#039;t say that&quot; which is why I stopped talking about RED and started talking about BLUE which is an explanation of why the court would in fact probably say that.</p><p><br /></p><p>Any judge or jury with common sense would ask FedEx:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Mr. FedEx lawyer please explain to me why you took the customer&#039;s money if you did not cover the item the customer was shipping and had no intention of reimbursing them if it was lost or damaged?&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&amp; Mr. FedEx lawyer would only be able to say: &quot;Good point your honor. I have no idea. We shouldn&#039;t have accepted the customer&#039;s money for a service we had no intention of providing.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&amp; the Judge would say something like: &quot;In that case I am judging in favor of the plantiff. I don&#039;t care what your company policy is. It was deceptive and you took the customer&#039;s money which made you responsible for providing insurance.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>That is not &quot;changing parameters&quot;. It&#039;s making multiple points in the same argument.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in