EBay Got This Absolutely Right (for a change)

There is NO insurance issued by the Post office unless it is purchased separately. UPS has a $100.00 built in insurance on ground shipments, anything over $100 you have to purchase additional insurance.

From the USPS.com site
By adding insurance, the Postal Service can provide the security and peace of mind you need when you’re sending a valuable item through the mail.
You only need to insure your package for the value of its contents, as you’re only covered for the actual value at the time and place of mailing.
If you need to insure a package for more than $500, you will need to visit your local Post Office.

From UPS.com
Every UPS domestic package or international shipment is automatically protected, at no additional charge, against loss or damage up to $100 without the shipper's making a declaration of value.

The seller is SOLELY responsible even now to insure the items in Ebay regardless of the buyer paying for it or not. Even if its an option to purchase insurance and the buyer declines. The seller is responsible for delivery of the item. Until that item has been delivered to the buyer it belongs to the seller.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here’s my problem with this, and eBay. I have a current issue where a buyer is claiming that he did not receive what I sold (he received the package but claims there was less than what I sold). I have irrefutable proof that the contents went into the box and that those contents were in the box at the time I passed possession to the Post Office. Furthermore, I have email from a previous seller who claims that this same buyer pulled the same trick with him. However, if this buyer wants to pursue his claim, I will lose out.

Now, I contacted eBay about this yesterday. And, they admit that there is a problem here; however, had no solution. What I suggested is that a buyer rating system be reintroduced. Because there was some abuse of the feedback system against buyers previously I suggested that eBay allow sellers to report issues to eBay only and that eBay accept responsibility for identifying trends and addressing bad buyers. I know this was a waste of time, but, I still had to put my two cents out there.

As this case unfolded I made the decision that all items will now go out insured. This does drive up my costs, in some cases (no charge for $100 in insurance through FedEx). However, it also will protect me from dishonest people and move their issues to an arena where someone, unlike eBay, is inclined to fight these claims (particularly in the event of repeated claims (assuming they are getting multiple deliveries from FedEx)).

All this being said – I feel eBay’s change in regard to insurance requirements is a moot point until they introduce some method of identifying and addressing malicious buyers.

 

"The seller is SOLELY responsible even now to insure the items in Ebay regardless of the buyer paying for it or not."

Um, No! Especially if as currently exists there is an optional feature enabled by Seller to allow the Buyer to insure their parcel... and not if the Seller disclaims responsibility in the item description and a buyer enters contract by bidding.

"Even if its an option to purchase insurance and the buyer declines."

Um, No again. When there is an option to buy shipping insurance and it is waived by the buyer (esp. when a Seller points out the option and suggests that Buyers purchase shipping insurance), it is not the sellers responsibility to apply additional mailing services to the parcel if these are not requested and paid for by the Buyer.

If the end price of the auction plus these ridiculously low balled prices eBay assesses an item can ship for also includes shipping insurance then what's to stop eBay then from saying every item must be sent registered, signature required, overnight also at the sellers expense for the utmost in "safety"? I'm not trying to confuse the subject or misunderstanding the policy. What I have an issue with is removing a clear indicator that shipping insurance was waived at the Buyers discretion, allowing a Seller to send an item, at the Buyers risk and authorization, uninsured, because that Buyer wanted to save money on and risk incidents that may occur in shipping as opposed to being forced to pay these covers from other online retailers. It is not a Sellers responsibility to eat the shipping insurance cost when it can be applied at the Buyers discretion, and if something happens, then the Seller can reimburse the Buyer 100% and then turn in a claim with the carrier for a loss so that the Seller is refunded. The cost does not have to come at the Sellers expense for selling an item. If every item must be insured then there needs to be a cost added in addition to the items final hammer value and the shipping rate, itemize this for clarity in the shipping details and register it with a claim number.

"The seller is responsible for delivery of the item. Until that item has been delivered to the buyer it belongs to the seller."

Once the Buyer has paid a Seller for an item, that item now belongs to the Buyer and it is a responsible Sellers duty to faithfully get that Buyer's item on it's way, to the Buyer safely by depositing it into the postal or carrier's system, applying the agreed upon shipping services that the Buyer requested and paid for in a timely responsible manner.

There are systems by all the carriers in place for protection between point A and B and when in the hands/care of the carrier. eBay up to this point has always allowed Insurance to be waived at the Buyers discretion and are now neglecting that long held practice which made eBay a more unique place than shopping at any other retailer who offered shipping services but required buyers to pay higher shipping rates which were inclusive of shipping insurance.

 

I appreciate your post here, it's not a waste of time at all. Very illustrative and very good you are taking steps to protect yourself since eBay isn't on your side and only moves to alienate individual sellers.

 

Response self deleted before the moderators have a chance at it.

 

correct jim.

 

LOL.

So I am at a shop. I buy something and pay for it. I have the receipt in hand. The store clerk is putting it in a bag for me and it falls on the floor and breaks.

It is MY loss?

Hilarious

 

hontonai, I appreciate your posting. While differing opinions are being voiced, at the end of the day, it is up to each person to decide what the price is - buying or selling - that we will accept. This is certainly a new spin on eBay and one we should be aware of as we buy or sell there. This will affect that price and you have brought this out for us to consider. I appreciate that!

My post is, to a good degree, off your topic. Nonetheless, I find enough correlation to post my thoughts here and expand on the topic.

As I said earlier, my big objection to this change is not that insurance is required. That change will cause an adjustment in price that will ultimately fall on the buyer (though I see it taking some time to catch up). However, I am opposed to eBay profiting from shipping or insurance fee’s (handling fee’s I believe they (eBay) should be able to charge for as this is profit and is REGUARLY abused both on and off eBay). Since I generally opt for insurance when buying to avoid issues the impact to me is minimal.So again, this change is really a moot point to me. Now, my sole objection to the insurance part of this is that there have been plenty of times when I have declined insurance. If I purchase something for two or three dollars, including shipping, I am not going to waste another $1.75 to insure it. So, in that instance, this change eliminates that segment of the market for me.

My main objection is that as of today eBay is permitting abusive tactics by buyers. While I admit that there is no fool proof way to prevent this, I think eBay is not actively protecting sellers. They are affording adequate protection to buyers. In reality you can reverse most any purchase, when using PayPal. So, to that end, buyers are now being required to pay for insurance that based under their current resolution process is unnecessary. I personally see this as nothing more than a revenue stream for eBay.

IMO this change does nothing more than drive additional costs to buyers under the guise of protecting them.

 

ignore - mis-read a response

 

Thats, commonsense really. Professional business practice !

 

Well said Doug.

 

Wow Doug didn't mean to give you a grabber. Someone was bound to say it and it was me that's all.

Not selling on ebay was my own choice and I know it is a great place for exposure. I'm not selling that much anyway so it's no problem by me.


Perhaps I should clarify a bit here. There are many legitimate sellers on ebay and not all of them have the other means. It's the ones that do have the means that will start to leave.
Our website at work actually does a brisk business. Sure the site costs money but we more than make up for that with better prices and no ebay rules. We have our own rules, we're fair and we get a lot of repeat business from all over the country.
We move a lot of coins to other dealers on dealer networks. Again, we pay for those services but the money is always good. What we save in time alone drops our overall costs.

We recently teamed up with another dealer/customer and just started a classified in one of the coin mags. Yep, we're dumping a lot of wheat cents. Bagged and ready to go. We send a bulk price list along with any order. A great way to move a lot of common stuff that I literally trip over at work. It's not all that expensive and keeps the clutter flowing.

Then, of course, there is the fact that we are a good, old fashioned brick and mortar. We have other dealers stop in from all over. If they're in the area they set up to meet the boss and a lot of coins get sold.
We also have customers that will drive an hour or two having arranged a meeting with the boss and again a lot of coins get sold.

Now granted my boss has been at this for 42 years and owns two shops, pays employees and has the brick and mortar overhead. He has paid his dues but has done it the right way.
Basically he's computer illiterate but does have a few employees that aren't. He's changed with the times.
This is why we do have a website and spend so much time on our computers. We get our share of paper money in as well. We have consigned notes to Lyn Knight on occasion.
Again it costs money but the return tends to be far greater than the amazing ebay.

We still list on ebay but not as much as in the past. We even use it as a "test market" at times. We constantly consult completed auctions to help set prices. Ebay is GREAT in that aspect.

We're also getting to the point though where listing a better coin is not even worthwhile. Perfect example was a week ago. We had an 18/17 D Buffalon nickel that came no where near reserve and reserve was under bid.
One phone call to a regular customer and it was sold. We were busy when he came in to pick it up and the boss always handles the deals with this guy. In the meantime I showed him a lot of lesser coins. He dropped another $250 on other coins as he had his lists with him and we barely even got into his lists.
One list was V nickels so I told him about the 12-S we just sent to NGC. Guess who we're calling when it gets back? It's as good as sold.

So I'm rambling but there is a point here. There ARE other avenues besides ebay even for the smaller sellers. There are smaller sites with extremely low fees or free. I'm directing my boss to some of those as well. Why not? Put up a coin and if it doesn't sell it costs you nothing.

Listen to dealers talk about ebay and it's not a discussion about how wonderful they are. If ebay wants to continue to alienate these people it's their option. You'll see less quality coins offered and more junk. It's already well on it's way there.

 

I think this is going in circles. You are repeating things that I've already expressed are my practice, and we understand and are acting responsibly and are all more or less saying the same things here. We are both respectful towards buyers when selling and doing so according to the law, but we interpret some aspects in a different philosophical view. There is a lot of room in the latest eBay policy for Buyers to feel they have more to expect service-wise from Sellers than ever and less services that they need to be responsible for pay up for themselves. The current balance of responsibility is not equal between Seller and Buyer in these new policies, it's clouded and the Sellers are going to suffer from this if not navigating very carefully, tiptoeing and kowtowing to eBay and potential reputation wrecking retorts in feedback, etc.

I am going to restate these same things despite this going in circles:

GDJMSP, I for one am not "suffering" and have been a successful, respectful and responsible buyer and seller on ebay since 1998. I have very, very few problems either as buyer or seller and when a problem arises I handle it responsibly and in a timely manner to soothe the buyers issue or to be understanding of Sellers' difficulties.

I am not out to screw over a buyer nor take advantage of a seller. I don't take advantage of inflating costs on any aspect of the trade or services and I expect the same when I play the buyer. If as a buyer I do not see the deal rendering this fairness I look to buy elsewhere.

I personally ALWAYS purchase shipping insurance when I am the buyer in the event that something happens, no matter the value of the item. However, as a Seller I urge my Buyers in every auction to purchase shipping insurance. I can say that most do not do so and that is their right to decline it and take the risks. Most are fortunate that there are no issues that arise. Ocassionally there are delays and people understand that. A couple of items in 11 years have been lost and the buyer of the uninsured parcel understood they waived their right to buy shipping insurance. There have been insured items with significant delays and worried buyers, some who panic, but the items are not lost and eventually turn up. Dealing with a customers anxiety is a big time eater but part of the territory. I try to put them at ease by offering all the assurance that insurance brings, though most fore go the option. I do not force it on people, they may choose to ship without insuring for a few bucks saved. So be it, that's why it was optional all along and the risk is theirs. I do not exploit anyone's trust via eBay and my experience has proven solid.

I am of the belief that even though I hold the item to be delivered, that once I am paid for an item it is to be immediately treat as another person's personal property and it is my duty to get it to them safely and in a timely manner. I do this to the letter of the agreement and for which services were paid/promised for the items delivery.

This situation between two individuals trading like this and paying eBay for the service to do so brings the other factor of delivery, there is the carrier to contend with, which is a whole basket of problems that could spill and upset the harmony between the Seller and the Buyer.

It is a buyer who initiates the purchase and decides to take ownership for trade of funds of a material object. That item is now their rightfully paid for property. It is yet in my, the sellers hands, and my duty to get it to them under the terms of the agreement. To date the buyer has needed to purchase or waive shipping insurance for their property (like anything else in life) if they expect it to be covered in the event of a loss. This includes damage or loss due to mishandling of/or during shipping. If a buyer adds shipping insurance and something occurs between A and B, I, the Seller, DO promptly reimburse the Buyer first. They are repaid, at ease and done with the problem. Then, I will go about filing the claim with the carrier and expect repayment from the carrier due to me, for which I am at a loss due to the carriers negligence. Therefore, buyer and seller are both covered. Yes, it IS the Buyer who must pay for the shipping insurance and not the Sellers fee to absorb, but at least Buyers can be fully reimbursed the funds they are out from the Seller in a timely manner and the Seller can go about filing a claim. The Seller may be out both the item and the funds if the carrier declines the claim, that's business and another issue of contention to deal with. If the carrier repays the Seller, then the loss of the item and funds are not a compounded loss for the Seller, just the item is lost and again both Seller and Buyer have their funds returned coming out unscathed.

Of course you may find an unscrupulous Seller who files insurance claims fraudulently or a Buyer who exploits some angle of this trusted system. I AM NOT THESE PEOPLE. I don't mind that eBay makes a profit, it is their business to do so in trade for us to do our business via eBay.

GDJMSP, Do not misunderstand and think that I misunderstand my responsibility and how the system of insurance and reimbursement works.

 

This is even more a reason, that we CT members give serious consideration in building our own "auction" venue. I'm sure Peter will implement a system, that like Heritage and other big names , whereby both the Buyer and seller contribute to maintaining the site. Now it's up to us, to make certain that we as individual members , be responsible, be professional and make this endeavor a mutually beneficial for all.

 

Your "hilarious" scenario is not equal to the system which involves a carrier to deliver the item to the buyer. Your scenario does not take into account all of the factors being discussed here, it is wholly created to sidetrack allegiance to a different situation. Your scenario is off topic and only humors yourself. Thanks for shedding no light nor thought on the subject as you have in other debates I've engaged in with you.

 

The thing is that I think most people here are bound by this resolve to be VERY upstanding and professional business people and enjoy selling/trading what items we all enjoy so much... and that this topic is turning into a dispute preaching between the converted.

I think we are all on-board, save for some of the issues others in another thread that Peter asked about have to be aware of when starting up the services here, and we are greatly in need of auction/selling venue of some kind here due to the imbalance of fair trade on eBay or high costs associated with it elsewhere. It does seem that service and professionalism are more appreciated and provided by the type of members here than you can expect be paid to you on other auction sites.

 

I can't disagree, much :whistle:


I do think eBay can/could be a much better place that it is today if eBay would implement some protection to sellers too. What I suggested to them would by no means stop all unscrupulous buyers, but, it would stop some. And that, to me, is a HUGE improvement.

 

So we need not drag that EBAY "baggage" into our potential membership Auction. I suggested a few , (if I do say so , myself) worthy notes of consideration . I would like to add to them, that it is the sellers responsible act to insure their item, and a requirement of participating. The seller simply needs to add those costs to the anticipated final bid, in the beginning bid price. If this does not make sense, why not?