EBay Got This Absolutely Right (for a change)

No, it's opinion. But we'll get to your questions.

You are trying to over simplify things here, so I'll answer yes or no and refer to a relevant USPS DMM clause or other reference for you to look up. Since you want simple yes or no, I will not enlighten you on the contractual reasons for the answer and reference. I'll assume USPS insurance is being discussed when answering except for the first question, as there are other options to the buyer for insurance.

(For USPS Insurance only, yes...but) No:
Private Shipping Insurance

No:
USPS DMM 609.1.3(a) and (b), 609.2.2, 609.3.1(b), 609.3.2,

No:
USPS DMM 609.1.3(a) and (b)

No:
USPS DMM 609.5.5

that states: "We reverse, concluding that Brawn (the seller) did not bear the risk of loss of goods in transit under the applicable Commercial Code sections discussed below."

And what was it the appellate court was reversing???

This:

De ja vu. That seems to be the whole argument that has been pitted against the UCC cited in all of my posts so far.

The above is what the appellate court reversed! The concept that the risk of loss of goods rested upon the seller. It is explicit (whether you agree with it or not) within the UCC that the risk, in the form of contracts we have discussed here, belongs to the buyer.

Read the opinion at leisure with the above stated fact in mind. Everything I have posted has been a synopsis of the ruling in Brawn. There are things in the UCC that you may not necessarily understand on its face because of specific terms used. But, the opinion for Brawn is well written and informative, explaining in detail what the UCC means. (for instance "at destination" as opposed "to destination", and what a shipping contract and destination contract are.)

I really hoped that Hontonai would have interjected (under disclaimer if he felt the need to) some opinion on this matter, as you have said he is extensively qualified to make an educated opinion on this matter if any of us here are.

Yet, I am still taken back at the fact that codified and common law citations are so quickly dismissed. We should spread knowledge and information that is backed by truthful and factual statements.

Opinions are opinions, and we all have one and should express them as such. But, even the plaintiff in the Brawn case claimed that it was a "fact" and a "matter of law" that Brawn, the seller, had the risk of loss. And guess what the appellate court said?

Well, I have told you so many times already. If you want to educate yourselves and read the citations given, all the better. If not, then there is no more on the matter I can give you, because I have better things to do with my time at the moment.

I enjoyed some of the discussion in this thread.


Oops..almost forgot one:

No:
Jacq Wilson et al vs. Brawn of California, Inc. A105461, A106368
UCC § 2-509

The important thing about the Brawn case, is it reaffirmed the above referenced section of the UCC that makes it clear that the buyer does, in fact of law, bear the risk of loss in the type of contracts we have discussed here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oiy Vey MARIA !

 

Final comment.

Summarizing knowledge of a particular legal point gathered over a period of nearly half a century is one thing. Doing a full legal brief on the issue is something else entirely, which I don't choose to do without a client paying for the time and expense.

Another thing I absolutely don't do is argue the law with law students, pro pers (self-represented people) or other non-lawyer "experts". That's a totally losing proposition because those people will never acknowledge error.

I'm not sure I've ever before regretted opening a thread on any forum, but . . .

 

It's always good to know where people stand on important issues.

 

Okay, here is my end take on EBAY & PAYPAL. I have recently sold a few items on EBAY. Now I'm paying the bill to Paypal, not the buyer. They have now witheld my credit to my account citing it is for the protection of BUYER ( who is not paying them anything ) and Seller, who is footing the bill. The items were insured,tracked and delivery was confirmed. Now they state, it will be another 4 days, before my credit appears. Why should any seller, pay any service to withold payments from the seller? This is just crazy thinking, and perhaps , illegal ! I say goodbye to EBAY and PAYPAL.

 

I was just at the Post Office, and they told me that rare coins are considered to be currency and thus are only covered up to $50 by insurance. Using registered mail is the only way to ship coins above this value and have them fully covered. I wonder how many eBay sellers know this.

 

I didn't know that. I thought USPS packages were insured to an "amount" regardless of the contents...interesting.


I buy quite a bit on eBay and have run into insurance issues a fair number of times. eBay has decided this way each time...

1) The Buyer has a responsibility to pay the agreed upon price of the auction (item plus advertised expenses).

2) The Seller has the responsibility to deliver the item in the condition advertised.

3) If insurance is purchased from USPS by the Seller, the insurance belongs to the Seller and the Seller is the only person that can file a claim (USPS rules).

If the Buyer opts not to pay the Seller's insurance expense (insurance optional), that in no way absolves the Seller of their responsibility to make the Buyer "whole" for missing or damaged merchandise.

I found this on eBay... http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-shipping.html

 

All of this for protection of the unscrupulous and shady. wow....just wow....

As dumb as you may find this, I only buy on ebay and am totally turned off by paypal. As I got into buying I would pick up bits and pieces from various sellers and thought I was doing ok. As it went on I found myself going back to 3 or 4 vendors on a regular basis because they conduct their business as professionals and I like to deal with professionals. This new policy has caused 3 of the 4 to go to a 3rd party for all of their shipping insurance and it is domestic business only. Why do so few unscrupulous make it so hard for the masses of the ethical? I don't know, but the reactions certainly speak volumes.

For what it is worth I still do business with these businesses and I try to do it on a regualr basis. They know and trust me and I know and trust them. I might miss out on a deal or 2 because I am not watching the auctions like a man possessed, but if I don't know about them do I really miss them. I still peruse the auctions when looking for specifics and will buy and bid on occasion, but it is few and far between. Reality to me is I don't need the headache or heartache of falling into a trap of the untrustworthy or unscrupulous. They are on both sides of the fence and I don't want to associate with either.

 

Take a look at the insurance. If I am shipping my goods to a customer and my goods have a specific cost, only my specific cost is covered. If I bill something to my customer at $600 and my cost is $300 the insurance only covers $300, regardless of the amount of insurance I paid for. I could insure it for $1000 but I still have to prove its cost and that is all they will cover, period.

 

That sounds right...I don't sell on eBay so I don't have much experience with buying insurance. I buy quite a bit on eBay and have been on the other end this issue quite a few times.


NPcoin writes...

Quote:
If an insurance claim needs to be filed, the seller/shipper ( the person who actually buys the insurance ) is the ONLY person who can file that claim - yes or no ?
No:
USPS DMM 609.1.3(a) and (b)

lol...try arguing that one with the USPS in Maryland! (I have!) :crying:

 

NO...Great Thread! ...sometimes folks just need to get these things off their chest. This has been quite cathartic...thank-you.

 

I'm not sure that the buyer could not pursue the insurance claim. If you request the insurance and the seller buys it on your behalf, is he not then your agent and acting on your behalf?

 

All I can say is it hasn't ever worked that way for me...in Maryland.

eBay says they're stopping the shipping insurance option...

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-shipping.html

I guess I'm not the only one that's run into this.