rubendh SCAM.. Two Sides to Every Story

[rubendh]

I just refunded the whole shebang and moved on with my life. That's just the way it is. There is no life without risk. Shit happens.

I find the whole matter of claiming to have received a pen back when it wasn't back to be rather troubling despite the explanation, but fortunately, it is irrelevant to the correct disposition of this matter.
The bottom line is that the buyer paid for a pen that they don't have, and they contributed to this result by providing an incorrect address. The seller should refund the buyer's payment less the actual cost of shipping.

Yup. The shipping, packaging and effort is at the very most 50 usd. I'm expecting the 300 usd anytime soon!

[ethernautrix]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

[AzJon]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

Without properly insuring the pen...screwed. The Seller gets screwed. Were he an actual standing retail business, they would have to eat the cost.

Worth noting that while both sides made gross errors of oversight, at the moment the party at fault is the USPS. Had USPS not lost/re-routed the return package, everything would be fine at the moment. Therefore, USPS should be the one on the hook for awarding the paid insurance amount on the package. If the seller failed to properly insure a package and it gets lost/destroyed...a hard lesson to learn.

Insurance isn't for the buyer, it's for the seller. Period. It means the seller can recoup lost cost if a product goes missing. It protects the buyer only insofar as the seller will 100% have the means to refund them without taking a hit.

[Pterodactylus]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

To be honest I don’t care about the seller, he took the risk to sent the pen without insurance, it was his decision.
To be a seller, a businessman not only means to make profit and have no risks, just easy peasy business.
In this case he made the wrong decisions, this is also part of the learning process to be a businessman.


Just as a side note, I wonder how he will react on warranty claims of former customers, something such ˋbusinessmanˋ usually never think about. Just interested in making some easy money (in this case after school).
Only want to take the profit, but not willing to take the risks and consequences as a businessman.

Think about with which people you might want to do business when trading within such a forum ....

[mmd]

The bottom line is that the buyer paid for a pen that they don't have, and they contributed to this result by providing an incorrect address. The seller should refund the buyer's payment less the actual cost of shipping.

I kind of disagree with this. The key question is why the pen got returned? Is it because the seller sent a defect/damaged pen? Or it's because the buyer gave the wrong address and the person at the door simply refused to accept something they never bought? It's really not clear to me why the seller should take all the blame/loss. Even in the case when someone received a defect/damaged item from Amazon, Amazon will refund only after received the returned item from the buyer. In most situations, it's the buyer's responsibility to ensure the returned item got delivered safely when the seller accept the the return. If the item gets lost/damaged during the return process, I think the seller has the right to get compensation for the loss.

This case is a little more than that. The actual buyer doesn't take part in that decision making because the address is wrong and he's not the person at that door. Whoever lives in that wrong address decided that it's a good idea to just let the package returned. Of course, they shouldn't take any responsibility for the lost package. Then who should be? There are two different choices:

1. The buyer should. The return part of the shipping will not happen if the buyer gave the correct address. And it's more or less like the situation, when the buyer doesn't want whatever he bought and decided to just return using the original shipping method. I think it's pretty clear there's a causation. And in the case when the buyer decides he doesn't want the pen, it's the buyer's responsibility to communicate with the seller and make sure the returned package arrives nice and safe.
2. The seller should. The seller claimed to have the pen and later said he never had it. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect the seller did this only to trick the buyer to close the Paypal claim. And it's a bad practice, almost fraudulent. Yes, the seller didn't initiate the sell trying to scam the buyer but during the second phase of this sale, the seller might lie to the buyer, trying to close the Paypal claim.

I think this case is pretty complicated and both sides made mistakes that caused the lost of the package so both sides should take responsibility for the result. I think USPS international comes with $200 insurance by default so the seller should file a claim for that.

[Wuddus]

What a mess!

I think both sides owe each other apologies, not insults and accusations. Both entered into this with goodwill, but they both let each other down.

However, to sum this up, the seller dutifully sent the package to the address he was asked to send it to. That was what they entered into a contract to do, and they did it. The cause of everything that followed, was that the buyer gave the wrong address. It is not the seller's fault that the buyer wasn't at that dress to receive it. If the person at that wrong address had accepted the package and was now going about his day with a very nice free pen, would the buyer still think it's the sellers duty to fix it? I don't think it should be.

However, the seller didn't follow this up properly either. This is now a complete shambles, but still fixable. I'm sure that if both parties work together as they should have done before, this debacle can be tidied up fairly simply. Either locate the package and getting it to where it should have been addressed originally, or claim for the lost goods and reach an amicable conclusion based on the settlement, and apportion any losses accordingly. As part of this, both parties should admit they screwed up big time.

[comixfan]

WWJJD? (What would Judge Judy do?)

[Chrissy]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

If the seller didn't select an insured service that allows him to claim from USPS because they lost his parcel, then he suffers the loss.

[Chrissy]

WWJJD? (What would Judge Judy do?)

She would give the buyer his money back. Seller has the responsibility of getting the goods to the buyer. Yes it's a mess because of the wrong address, but if they don't get there for whatever reason, buyer gets his money back.

[mmd]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

If the seller didn't select an insured service that allows him to claim from USPS because they lost his parcel, then he suffers the loss.

The package wasn't lost on its way to the buyer but was lost on its way back to the seller, which the buyer should take responsibility for because the entire return process was caused by the fact that buyer provided the wrong address.

Such a return trip was neither expected by the seller nor the USPS.

[Chrissy]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

If the seller didn't select an insured service that allows him to claim from USPS because they lost his parcel, then he suffers the loss.

The package wasn't lost on its way to the buyer but was lost on its way back to the seller, which the buyer should take responsibility for because the entire return process was caused by the fact that buyer provided the wrong address.

Such a return trip was neither expected by the seller nor the USPS.

Doesn't matter. Doesn't mean that USPS can keep the parcel somewhere and claim it's lost without paying out to the sender. USPS has the parcel and the buyer certainly can't get it back from them.

If this had been filed as a PayPal claim, all they would look at was "does the tracking show that the item has been delivered to the buyer." If not, they will find for the buyer.

The wrong address and lost return make it much more complicated, but don't remove the seller's responsibility.

[Pterodactylus]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

If the seller didn't select an insured service that allows him to claim from USPS because they lost his parcel, then he suffers the loss.

The package wasn't lost on its way to the buyer but was lost on its way back to the seller, which the buyer should take responsibility for because the entire return process was caused by the fact that buyer provided the wrong address.

Such a return trip was neither expected by the seller nor the USPS.

Irrelevant where it got lost, transportation risk is sellers risk.

[mmd]

What does the seller get, since he no longer has the pen he'd further discounted as a favor to the buyer? Did the buyer, trying to keep his costs low, accept the risk of cheaper postage without insurance?

If the seller didn't select an insured service that allows him to claim from USPS because they lost his parcel, then he suffers the loss.

The package wasn't lost on its way to the buyer but was lost on its way back to the seller, which the buyer should take responsibility for because the entire return process was caused by the fact that buyer provided the wrong address.

Such a return trip was neither expected by the seller nor the USPS.

Doesn't matter. Doesn't mean that USPS can keep the parcel somewhere and claim it's lost.

If this had been filed as a PayPal claim, all they would look at was "does the tracking show that the item has been delivered to the buyer" If not, they will find for the buyer.

The wrong address and lost return make it much more complicated, but don't remove the seller's responsibility.

No it doesn't. So I said, the key problem is why the package was returned. Who made that decision? Is it someone at the door or it's the postoffice? And why the person at that address or the post office made that decision? Is it caused by the mistake of the buyer or the seller? Paypal claim system is far from the most equal sale agreement between buyer and seller.

[Dhruv]

Irrelevant where it got lost, transportation risk is sellers risk.

Nope. You're wrong.

1. It shouldn't have been sent back in the first place. Buyer's fault that it was sent back.
2. Seller is only responsible for the shipping from his address to the PayPal registered address, which he dutifully did.
If it is sent back, then it is buyer's responsibility.

Honestly, I think everyone is just going on and on about it only because they have grossly unfair PayPal claim. Remove that and then try to see things. The whole mess was created by the buyer, and he should take responsibility for it. At least give your own address correctly. And even if you shifted to a new address during the transit period, then you, at your own end should make arrangements with your postal service to have the package routed to your new address.
This is what we do here. I'll be shifting to a new address in the next 2 months and have informed all the neighbours and the postman to call me and let me know if there are any letters addressed to me.
Of course, there won't be any packages because I am not going to be doing any purchases in the next 4 months until I figure out which all websites I have to change my address at.

[mmd]

For one example why PayPal or Ebay claim system is seriously unfair for the seller: suppose you bought a pen and immediately regret it, you can simply bend the pen into two pieces when it arrives together with the packaging and then file a claim through Paypal, saying that the pen was damaged during the shipping process. It's almost certainly you will get refunded because it's impossible for the seller to have a picture of the pen, safely delivered to your hands, unless he's your neighbor. And of course, seller should take the risk of transportation.

Don't ask me hwo I know and I agree that we should really think about this aside from the Paypal claim system.

[Pterodactylus]

The package was always in the hands of the from the sellers contracted transportation company.

Imo it would have been different if somebody at the destination address signed for it and took it.
Then the risk would have been transferred to the buyer, and the buyer would had bad cards.


This never happened. The from the seller contracted transport carrier still had the package in his responibility, why should the risk should have been moved to the buyer? Can’t see it.

Would be the same if the carrier couldn’t found the destination address (don‘t laugh such things happens) and the package returns to the seller, still sellers Problem if it got lost.

Or if the carrier could not deliver it because no one was at home (one or more times) and it goes back to the sender and got lost, also sellers problem.

[Chrissy]

The seller sent the package to the address that the buyer had on his PayPal account. Sadly, that turned out to be an incorrect address, so the package was refused at the address, and was still in the hands of the sellers chosen carrier.

The seller's chosen carrier failed to successfully return the package to the sender within the terms of their contractual agreement which are to either deliver it or if unsuccessful, to return it to sender.

The buyer gets his money back because he doesn't have the item he has paid for.

The seller claims from his carrier and either gets back his original parcel or some monetary insurance value. If there is a shortfall he has self-insured the rest by his choice of carriage.

That's how contract law works. You can argue over the rest until the cows come home.

[Dhruv]

Why did you buy the item, bother with the negotiations when you weren't going to sign for it?

Like I said, you need to make your own arrangements if you are going to move to a new address instead of relying on others to make it work for you. It was your decision to move, not the seller's. He cannot and should be made to accept responsibility for something that the buyer was supposed to do.

As for seller's responsibility, he shipped it to the PayPal address and even a delivery was attempted, but it was the buyer because of whom the delivery could not be made. The buyer obstructed the seller from fulfilling his responsibility.

[mhosea]

The key question is why the pen got returned?

I think that's the opposite of a key question. So what if the package was returned? If it had been returned successfully we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not even a key question why the package was lost.

The key question is when has the seller fulfilled his obligation to deliver the item. Some argue, apparently, that he has done so merely by bouncing the package off the address that he was given. Again, my sympathies are with the seller on this point, and perhaps the buyer feels that way as well. For sure the seller is entitled to keep the shipping charge associated with the misadventure. But generally the package makes its way back to the shipper in that case, and the larger matter has been obfuscated by the loss of the package. If the shipper had purchased insurance for their shipment, would they still be entitled to keep both the insurance settlement and the purchase price? Suppose the seller has put their return address inside the package (which all shippers should do), and he is ultimately reunited with his pen and can no longer contact the buyer at that time. What then?

Insurance insures the shipper. The shipper purchases it, not the buyer, and the shipper is the principal one insured by it. There is no choice that the buyer can make in shipping that is not implicitly underwritten by the shipper, so if you're a shipper, don't agree to options that you are uncomfortable with, at least not without getting the buyer to agree explicitly to accept the liability associated with that choice. Even then, I would strongly advise against it.

The only way I can see to twist it around so that the buyer is on the hook for the bulk of the loss is to argue that, once the item reached the provided address and began its return journey, the roles of shipper and receiver, seller and buyer, were instantly reversed. I don't see that reversal happening without the package having been received at that address. Merely arriving at that address in control of the carrier without having been received at that address doesn't do it.

[mmd]

Of course it's a key question. Your argument makes close to 0 sense because ypu are assuming that the carrier transport the package to the requested address and then decided it's a good idea to ship it back without contacting anyone at that address. I don't understand where on earth this is a common practice. It's definitely beneficial for the post office to transport twice the distance and charging the same price. The common practice in my understanding is put it right there and mark as delivered. Or in the case when a signature is required, try redeliver it at a different time or leave a slip and ask recipient to pick up at local post office.

Something happened between attempted delivery to the requested address and the package got returned.