Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 652366, member: 5629&quot;]If the insurance is paid for by the buyer, but simply included in the S&amp;H, and it is agreed that the seller would file any claim and reimburse the buyer, the seller has become a delegate to the buyer&#039;s duty.&nbsp; The buyer would still be holding the risk of loss, regardless.&nbsp; And, yes, it has already been demonstrated in court that the buyer does, in fact, have the liability in a shipment contract as the normal.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>What Heritage does is in accordance with their own business practices, but is not necessarily based on requirements of law.&nbsp; And, you have presented two separate issues here.&nbsp; First, you present a lost item.&nbsp; In that case, the law demonstrates that the buy has risk of loss.&nbsp; Heritage plays the good guy by assuming the role of delegate in processing the insurance.&nbsp; In the second, you have the instance of possible non-conformance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, with the non-conformance, if the items was damaged in transit and can be shown to be as such, again the buyer holds the risk of loss.&nbsp; However, if the item is not in the condition agreed to through the contract, the the agreement is breached, and the seller is legally allotted time to make things right.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Yes and no.&nbsp; It depends on what kind of wrong you are inferring.&nbsp; Is it legally wrong?&nbsp; Morally wrong?&nbsp; Ethically wrong?&nbsp; It all depends on the business practices of the merchant.&nbsp; Is it legally wrong for the seller to demand the buyer insure his goods and that the buyer pay for the insurance?&nbsp; No, unless he did not utilize the moneys to properly insure the goods for their full market/sales value.&nbsp; Is the merchant ethically wrong?&nbsp; Depends on if he complied with the buyer&#039;s request in obtaining the insurance (ie.&nbsp; no third party insurance, USPS insurance only).&nbsp; Is it morally wrong to do so?&nbsp; That all depends on the moral views of each individual who considers the scenario.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And this is the misconception that I am trying to bring to light.&nbsp; It has always been a perceived &quot;responsibility&quot;, not necessarily a legal one, with regards to the contract forms we have discussed.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I hope the citations help you to understand the situation.&nbsp; A leisure reading of the court opinion will shed even more light, as the Cornell Law version of the UCC does not include the official comments.[/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