rubendh SCAM.. Two Sides to Every Story

[dneal]

The proximate cause of the loss was the accidental destruction of the label by the carrier.

I must have missed that part, but had the receipt been coordinated ("hey mom, I've got a package coming from the States...") the accidental destruction of the label would be irrelevant.

[Wuddus]

As neither party has seen the package since it was sent, how is it known that the label was destroyed? Surely whoever advised this, knows where the package is.

[Jon Szanto]

Thus, the buyer's simple negligence is the proximate cause of the loss, and bears pecuniary liability.

Bonus points for exquisite use of the language. Good to see you again, D.

[mhosea]

The proximate cause of the loss was the accidental destruction of the label by the carrier.

I must have missed that part, but had the receipt been coordinated ("hey mom, I've got a package coming from the States...") the accidental destruction of the label would be irrelevant.

Yes, that is the gist of the argument for laying the blame for the loss on the buyer. However, although this event involved some negligence, what if it had not? And surely there are degrees of negligence. Do we not calculate liability somehow or other that takes the severity of the negligence into account? If there weren't such an obvious focal point, would we then be searching for some infinitesimal negligence to sort out the blame and then proceed to tilt the liability disproportionately in that direction? I don't think that makes sense. I think you look at the negligence and calculate the liability that flows directly from that negligence. TWO bad things happened here, not one bad thing, and the first only made the second one possible in a context where it was still not likely to occur. More to the point, it did not cause the destruction of the label.

Perhaps yet another analogy would help. And let's work on it together if it's not quite right.

Suppose the secretary at a doctor's office is canceling appointments because the doctor has called in sick, and they accidentally skip one of the patients on their notification list. So this patient's place of work is a fairly long distance away, and she clocks out, drives this long distance from her place of work to the doctor's office, discovers that her appointment has been canceled, reschedules her appointment for next week, and drives back to work, having lost wages, wasted gasoline, and put wear-and-tear on her automobile. The failure to notify is the proximate cause of this loss. We don't normally compensate this kind of loss, but nevertheless, negligence has indeed foisted extra costs upon another human being, and unnecessarily so. She will have to repeat the trip next week. In this case, if we were to suppose that the package had made it all the way back to the shipper, everyone agrees that the buyer is liable for all costs associated with the misadventure, which is at the very least shipping on the return trip if the deal is off, and an additional round of shipping if the deal is still on to get it sent out again. This is not an insubstantial liability compared to the value of the pen, but it is the actual damage that flows directly from buyer's error, at least what we can measure, in the hypothetical case that the package makes it all the way back.

But that didn't happen here. The return trip was not successful. So how do we fix up our analogy. Let's suppose that she gets a flat tire, and the sidewall is damaged so she actually needs a new tire, say $150 or so. So, is the secretary liable for the $150 for the flat tire? My thinking is no, the secretary's mistake is directly responsible for the lost wages, the wasted gasoline, and the unnecessary normal wear-and-tear on the vehicle associated with the trip, but the secretary is not liable for the flat tire. If we could find the responsible party for leaving the debris in the roadway that caused it, we might ask them to pay for it, but this is not practical.

A couple of observations.
1. It is every bit as true that the patient would never have been there to get that flat tire in the first place were it not for the secretary's error.
2. It's also true that every trip the patient makes inherently carries some risk, and the secretary's negligence resulted in doubling the risks for this patient (considering the return trip next week).

What is this analogy missing? Or is my premise wrong that the secretary isn't liable for the cost of the flat?

[jjm5812]

I've lost track of who sold what to whom and my ice is gone.



...Problem solved? I think so...

MY problem is certainly solved. I'm never going to deal with either of these two guys. I'd rather deal with something easier to untangle, like abortion rights or gun control. They don't belong on a "For Sale" Forum any more than this entire discussion does.

But whichwatch, in fact, we have dealt with each other over 4 times. Both in trading: my MB Virginia Wolf + PayPal for your Tibaldi Iride, and in sales ex: $2000+ for your Arco Verde and Extra Lucens, more that I don't remember but I believe each transaction went without problem.

Just saying..

[Dhruv]

A couple of observations.
1. It is every bit as true that the patient would never have been there to get that flat tire in the first place were it not for the secretary's error.
2. It's also true that every trip the patient makes inherently carries some risk, and the secretary's negligence resulted in doubling the risks for this patient (considering the return trip next week).

What is this analogy missing? Or is my premise wrong that the secretary isn't liable for the cost of the flat?

Just my opinion: the analogy might be a bit incorrect. The patient made it to the clinic, but was turned away at the entrance.

[whichwatch]

I've lost track of who sold what to whom and my ice is gone.



...Problem solved? I think so...

MY problem is certainly solved. I'm never going to deal with either of these two guys. I'd rather deal with something easier to untangle, like abortion rights or gun control. They don't belong on a "For Sale" Forum any more than this entire discussion does.

But whichwatch, in fact, we have dealt with each other over 4 times. Both in trading: my MB Virginia Wolf + PayPal for your Tibaldi Iride, and in sales ex: $2000+ for your Arco Verde and Extra Lucens, more that I don't remember but I believe each transaction went without problem.

Just saying..

Jason, I apologize that I didn't remember your screen name from deals we did in what I think was early 2017. I'm really glad they went well for both of us.

Please note that I am not saying that either party in this dispute is dishonorable. But I am saying that it is disconcerting to see two people fighting publicly and risking real damage to their reputations over an amount that nobody wants to lose, but is not exactly the end of the world to either one of you guys based on deals you have both been involved in. Perhaps I should have said that I'm never going to deal with either of these two guys again.

It's always easy when things go right. To me, the sign of a class act is how they deal with the situation when problems occur.

I've lost track of all the arguments and who said what to whom in this matter. I do remember one party suggested each party take a $150 haircut, but apparently the other has not yet accepted. Maybe it's time for you both to put on your big boy pants and recognize that one's reputation is worth more than $150, settle this thing, and move on.

[dneal]

Bonus points for exquisite use of the language. Good to see you again, D.

Thanks Jon. I have to give credit to Army Regulation 735-5 though. These are the criteria and terms we use for deciding whether or not to charge an individual for lost or damaged property.

Yes, that is the gist of the argument for laying the blame for the loss on the buyer. However, although this event involved some negligence, what if it had not? And surely there are degrees of negligence. Do we not calculate liability somehow or other that takes the severity of the negligence into account? If there weren't such an obvious focal point, would we then be searching for some infinitesimal negligence to sort out the blame and then proceed to tilt the liability disproportionately in that direction? I don't think that makes sense. I think you look at the negligence and calculate the liability that flows directly from that negligence. TWO bad things happened here, not one bad thing, and the first only made the second one possible in a context where it was still not likely to occur. More to the point, it did not cause the destruction of the label.

Perhaps yet another analogy would help. And let's work on it together if it's not quite right... (snip)


What is this analogy missing? Or is my premise wrong that the secretary isn't liable for the cost of the flat?

We have (in the Army) a very thorough process for this sort of thing. A lot of property gets lost and/or damaged in the normal course of business (not to mention combat). We determine the proximate cause of the loss, described as: "the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the [loss], and without which the [loss] would not have occurred." We also define types of responsibility (command, supervisory, custodial, personal and direct), types of negligence (simple and gross), and distribute liability by percentage depending on involvement and degrees of negligence.

The point of all that is that I've had a lot (like 30 years) of experience with everything from a soldier losing his helmet to an M1 tank being destroyed by an IED. I instinctively apply it when I read a thread like this.

I see no acts or omissions on the part of the seller that caused the loss - and the pen did arrive at the delivery address specified by the buyer. Upon refusal, the pen became lost. This is directly tied to the actions of the buyer. He specified delivery to that address, and he was aware that a 3rd party would (or should) receive it on his behalf. Getting the 3rd party (or agent of the buyer) to execute the buyer's end of the transaction is certainly not the responsibility of the seller. Failure to ensure this is negligent (however simply), and you seem to agree. Refusal is a positive action on the buyer's part (through his agent), and I think is what begins the natural and continuous sequence without which the loss would not have occurred.

I tried to hash out your analogy, but at the end of the day I think the original premises aren't reconcilable with the pen sale events and the analogy will remain flawed.

You asked "what if it had not (involved negligence)". "What-if's" are a precarious road, because there are so many possibilities. I see no reason for them here other than academic discussion. But I would present the issue in the opposite perspective though: what if the pen was successfully received, but returned for whatever reason, with no proof of delivery back to the seller? Is the seller still on the hook, or is a refund only due when the item is successfully returned? That seems to be more analogous to the situation described in the thread.

[mhosea]

Well this is an academic discussion as far as I am concerned, and I do not mind continuing in that context. Hell, I don't actually give a rat's ass about the real case. I've been talking about general principles from the beginning and marveling at the disagreement over them.

Refusal is a positive action on the buyer's part (through his agent), and I think is what begins the natural and continuous sequence without which the loss would not have occurred.

I see where you're coming from, but I also see now why you have reached a different conclusion. The principles and techniques employed in loss prevention analysis are inappropriate for the determination of civil liability. The point of analyzing such things for loss prevention is not principally to figure out who to blame for it and prosecute them or extract money from them, rather what policies, procedures, training etc. will minimize recurrence. Assignment of blame may occur, but it is secondary to identifying and implementing corrective action. This is very powerful insofar as you can trace a chain of occurrences back to arbitrarily minor causes and implement corrective action there. Diligence in small things pays big dividends. If the buyer tells his mother the package is coming, or if he updates his PayPal address as soon as his address changes, the problem is avoided. But loss prevention is a fundamentally different focus than determination of civil (or criminal) liability. Of course the practice of avoiding the refusal will result in a lower risk of loss. There's no arguing with that! The same thing works perfectly in the analogy. If the secretary employs some very simple procedures when processing the list to ensure that nobody is skipped, e.g. just crossing them off as each is done, they will not miss anybody, hence breaking this and future, potentially similar chains of unfortunate events. From a management perspective, that is the correct lesson. But at the same time it does not answer the question of liability in any sense that might be decided in court.

The analogy isn't intended to be an isomorphic to the real events here, and doesn't need to be to explore the relevant principles. The flat tire was meant to be a small financial matter, as the current issue is a small financial matter. But exploring the principles of identifying civil liability, we can easily ratchet up the severity. While it may not have seemed patently absurd that the secretary would be on the hook for the new tire, if the patient flips the car and dies because she was on the road due to the secretary's negligence, it is patently absurd to talk about the secretary being responsible for her death. This is not a hypothetical you can just brush aside. It's a proof of sorts, reductio ad absurdum. If your principles are correct, they will still apply in the severe case. The principles of loss prevention lead to the right answer for management and the wrong answer for liability in this case. There is no inconsistency in concluding that the secretary must employ a better process and is in some limited sense "responsible" for the chain of events that follows and also to conclude that she has no actual civil liability for accidents on the road that she isn't party to, regardless of how minor or severe they might be. In exactly the same way, it is consistent to conclude that the loss would have been prevented by avoiding the refusal while at the same time concluding that buyer has no actual civil liability for the loss.

This doesn't prove that there is no civil liability in that case. For that we have to look deeper at the contractual relationships between the seller/shipper, the carrier, and the buyer. But, assuming that you agree that the secretary doesn't have civil liability and hence can't be successfully sued for the losses associated with accidents on the road, it does illustrate that applying loss prevention principles can take you to what is obviously the wrong conclusion where civil liability is concerned.

And BTW, how can you be sure the seller wasn't negligent? I never send any package out but that my address is available inside the parcel.

From https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/lost-and-found:

Processing centers and retail and delivery units send mail items without valid addressee and sender information to the MRC, where MRC staff act as detectives. They scan and open packages in hopes of finding address information that will facilitate the delivery or return of items valued at $25 or more. If items can’t be delivered or returned, the Postal Service donates, recycles, discards, or auctions them off.

If they are to be believed, and if his address is inside the parcel as it should be, he may yet get the pen back. If not, well, there was a clear missed opportunity to avoid the loss, wasn't it.

But I would present the issue in the opposite perspective though: what if the pen was successfully received, but returned for whatever reason, with no proof of delivery back to the seller? Is the seller still on the hook, or is a refund only due when the item is successfully returned? That seems to be more analogous to the situation described in the thread.

Well, when the buyer purchases postage to ship the item back, they become the shipper, so then the carrier is operating as their agent. The roles are then reversed. If the carrier loses the package, the buyer is then on the hook. The problem in this chain of events, from the seller's perspective, is that the refusal preserved the status quo of the carrier acting as the seller's agent. The seller's agent damaged the label, which was the proximate cause of the loss.

[Larry Barrieau]

Both parties each pay half.

[dneal]

Well this is an academic discussion as far as I am concerned, and I do not mind continuing in that context. Hell, I don't actually give a rat's ass about the real case. I've been talking about general principles from the beginning and marveling at the disagreement over them.

I agree. I just don't have the time or energy to run down every rabbit hole. I got home from a business trip late last night and am still a little jet lagged. Maybe I'll have the energy this weekend.

I see where you're coming from, but I also see now why you have reached a different conclusion. The principles and techniques employed in loss prevention analysis are inappropriate for the determination of civil liability. The point of analyzing such things for loss prevention is not principally to figure out who to blame for it and prosecute them or extract money from them, rather what policies, procedures, training etc. will minimize recurrence. Assignment of blame may occur, but it is secondary to identifying and implementing corrective action. This is very powerful insofar as you can trace a chain of occurrences back to arbitrarily minor causes and implement corrective action there. Diligence in small things pays big dividends. If the buyer tells his mother the package is coming, or if he updates his PayPal address as soon as his address changes, the problem is avoided. But loss prevention is a fundamentally different focus than determination of civil (or criminal) liability. Of course the practice of avoiding the refusal will result in a lower risk of loss. There's no arguing with that! The same thing works perfectly in the analogy. If the secretary employs some very simple procedures when processing the list to ensure that nobody is skipped, e.g. just crossing them off as each is done, they will not miss anybody, hence breaking this and future, potentially similar chains of unfortunate events. From a management perspective, that is the correct lesson. But at the same time it does not answer the question of liability in any sense that might be decided in court.

Just to be clear, the policy I'm describing isn't related to loss prevention. It's determining potential responsibility and liability for losses (to include damage) that occur. Oftentimes there is an investigating officer, and it receives legal review. If all three elements (responsibility, proximate cause of the loss and negligence) aren't established, there is no liability. Oftentimes no liability is established.

In this instance, I have no problem establishing the three elements and laying them at the feet of the buyer. I am unable to do so as regards the seller.

The analogy isn't intended to be an isomorphic to the real events here, and doesn't need to be to explore the relevant principles. The flat tire was meant to be a small financial matter, as the current issue is a small financial matter. But exploring the principles of identifying civil liability, we can easily ratchet up the severity. While it may not have seemed patently absurd that the secretary would be on the hook for the new tire, if the patient flips the car and dies because she was on the road due to the secretary's negligence, it is patently absurd to talk about the secretary being responsible for her death. This is not a hypothetical you can just brush aside. It's a proof of sorts, reductio ad absurdum. If your principles are correct, they will still apply in the severe case. The principles of loss prevention lead to the right answer for management and the wrong answer for liability in this case. There is no inconsistency in concluding that the secretary must employ a better process and is in some limited sense "responsible" for the chain of events that follows and also to conclude that she has no actual civil liability for accidents on the road that she isn't party to, regardless of how minor or severe they might be. In exactly the same way, it is consistent to conclude that the loss would have been prevented by avoiding the refusal while at the same time concluding that buyer has no actual civil liability for the loss.

This doesn't prove that there is no civil liability in that case. For that we have to look deeper at the contractual relationships between the seller/shipper, the carrier, and the buyer. But, assuming that you agree that the secretary doesn't have civil liability and hence can't be successfully sued for the losses associated with accidents on the road, it does illustrate that applying loss prevention principles can take you to what is obviously the wrong conclusion where civil liability is concerned.

I didn't think the analogy was sophomoric. I just thought it diverged too far from the actual events to be representative. Analogies illustrate, but they don't constitute proof.

The shipper's potential responsibility is an interesting area though, but they also are "victims" of the buyer's negligence. They got the pen to the address like the buyer wanted, and held up their true contract. Had the buyer not been negligent, we wouldn't be talking about the shipper. It's a consequence of the buyer's action.

And BTW, how can you be sure the seller wasn't negligent? I never send any package out but that my address is available inside the parcel.

From https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/lost-and-found:

Processing centers and retail and delivery units send mail items without valid addressee and sender information to the MRC, where MRC staff act as detectives. They scan and open packages in hopes of finding address information that will facilitate the delivery or return of items valued at $25 or more. If items can’t be delivered or returned, the Postal Service donates, recycles, discards, or auctions them off.

If they are to be believed, and if his address is inside the parcel as it should be, he may yet get the pen back. If not, well, there was a clear missed opportunity to avoid the loss, wasn't it.

I can't be sure of a lot of things in this scenario, and can only analyze what's presented and work from an assumption that it's reasonably accurate. Again, if the seller contracted for the package to be delivered to the buyer's address - and that happened - I can't see any negligence. Including additional labels to ensure proper return have no bearing on getting the item delivered. If the buyer executed his end in good faith and without negligence then all of these other points regarding the shipper, while perhaps prudent, are irrelevant.

But I would present the issue in the opposite perspective though: what if the pen was successfully received, but returned for whatever reason, with no proof of delivery back to the seller? Is the seller still on the hook, or is a refund only due when the item is successfully returned? That seems to be more analogous to the situation described in the thread.

Well, when the buyer purchases postage to ship the item back, they become the shipper, so then the carrier is operating as their agent. The roles are then reversed. If the carrier loses the package, the buyer is then on the hook. The problem in this chain of events, from the seller's perspective, is that the refusal preserved the status quo of the carrier acting as the seller's agent. The seller's agent damaged the label, which was the proximate cause of the loss.

I don't disagree with the first part, and perhaps one could make the argument that the buyer in essence becomes the shipper because of the active refusal of the delivery. I can only point out that the seller's agent would not be in this position without the negligence of the buyer. The buyer still remains culpable for this whole problem.

I can't state any more clearly why I hold the viewpoint of this event (given the information presented), and will only end up reiterating moreso. I can establish in my mind all the elements that constitute the buyer being on the hook for the problem. You and others are free to agree or not with my analysis, and I can be persuaded otherwise given enough evidence or rational argument. Similarly, I see the point you're making but disagree with it. As regards the analogies, I think they're unnecessary, since the facts are relatively simple and easy to manage.

Some asides, for what it's worth; although I think none of these issues bear on the loss, negligence or liability:

I wouldn't have executed the transaction with the buyer, given the seller's description of the early events.
Relating that the pen had been received in return shipment by the seller for the purpose of avoiding a claim (if that was the reason) is disingenuous.
The buyer filing a claim in the first place is disingenuous.
If the pen is recovered by the seller, the buyer is due a refund.
If USPS pays out some amount, all of that is due to the buyer.

[mhosea]

The analogy isn't intended to be an isomorphic to the real events here, and doesn't need to be to explore the relevant principles.

I didn't think the analogy was sophomoric. I just thought it diverged too far from the actual events to be representative. Analogies illustrate, but they don't constitute proof.

"isomorphic". Analogies do not prove, but counterexamples disprove false conjectures. An analogy can be a counterexample. At any rate, forget the analogy as it relates to the current issue. I just have one question about it in isolation. Based on your understanding of the principles of identifying negligence and liability, why is the secretary not on the hook for the tire?

perhaps one could make the argument that the buyer in essence becomes the shipper because of the active refusal of the delivery.

Return of refused mail is a documented part of the service that the seller purchased.

I can only point out that the seller's agent would not be in this position without the negligence of the buyer. The buyer still remains culpable for this whole problem.

To establish liability under that theory, what you're necessarily claiming is that the loss of the package by the carrier was a reasonably foreseeable outcome. I think that's where you might have to work hard in court. Neither party foresaw that eventuality, the seller spectacularly so. I guess everyone is aware of the remote risk of parcel loss, but I'm not sure that you would be able to successfully argue that it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the buyer's choice not to discuss the parcel's arrival with his mother.

[dneal]

"isomorphic". Analogies do not prove, but counterexamples disprove false conjectures. An analogy can be a counterexample. At any rate, forget the analogy as it relates to the current issue. I just have one question about it in isolation. Based on your understanding of the principles of identifying negligence and liability, why is the secretary not on the hook for the tire?

Doh! Like I said, I was jet lagged and apparently read it too quickly. There isn't enough information to make a decision about the tire.

[/QUOTE]

Return of refused mail is a documented part of the service that the seller purchased.

I believe it's an optional service. The true service being contracted is delivery of the package, which happened. If there were multiple attempts, and no one was home, and it was lost while being returned... that would be a different set of circumstances. It seems you keep offering possible outcomes (what-if's) rather than focusing on what did. Like I said, there are plenty of rabbit holes we could run down.

To establish liability under that theory, what you're necessarily claiming is that the loss of the package by the carrier was a reasonably foreseeable outcome. I think that's where you might have to work hard in court. Neither party foresaw that eventuality, the seller spectacularly so. I guess everyone is aware of the remote risk of parcel loss, but I'm not sure that you would be able to successfully argue that it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the buyer's choice not to discuss the parcel's arrival with his mother.

You go on to answer the first sentence yourself when you recognize that "everyone is aware...". I agree that the active refusal of the package was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence, but that's more credit to the seller's case, not the buyer's.

[rubendh]

During this whole discution many say the buyer is partially in fault and many others that the seller is in fault.

The most decent way to solve this problem is to divide the loss by two, for the above reasons. I have yet to receive any response from the Jason, however we all want to conclude this already. If you don't agree, Jason, which other pro-active solution do you propose? Hope to hear any response from you soon

[jjm5812]

As I stated multiple times Ruben, I will return to you whatever amount USPS is due to refund or return to me through filing the claim. That is the offer I have agreed to return to you based on what I considered to be payment for the failure to receive the package. Considering 1) the package was delivered and at one point physically in the hands of your mother 2) she refused signature(your responsibility) and thus the package which lead to it being returned to sender aka me 3) once the package is in the hands of the buyer or in this case the addressee it is no longer my responsibility 4) my offer to refund you the amount that USPS will pay is what I have agreed to do to compensate you for the loss.

[rubendh]

As I stated multiple times Ruben, I will return to you whatever amount USPS is due to refund or return to me through filing the claim.

This is a good option if you have insured the pen for the value it was sold for. (As is the normal process and I hope you followed).

Please keep me up to date how it goes.

Thanks

[Pterodactylus]

Oh great deal, the seller keep the whole money from the buyer and graciously give back whatever he gets from the carrier if he get something.

Means 0 in words Null loss on seller side.

The seller show not the lightest amount of insight that the loss of the pen by HIS carrier was in his risk portfolio.

An real offer would be:
Return the buyer 275$ Immediately (he keeps 75 as I remember Ruben paid 350$)

The seller can claim up to 200$ from the carrier plus the 75 from the buyer left and additionally he still has the chance to get the pen back (means either up to 275 or 75+pen).

But to be honest my believing in the integrity of the seller is next to zero.
Without this discussion he would have kept the money and claimed the insurance from the carrier or got the pen back.

[Mastiff]

Thank you both for the most amusing and interesting read. I apologise for saying this as this must be a very painful experience for you both.

Mr. Ruben, I guess we all learn the hard way at times. I guess the critical mistake was closing the paypal claim. We all learnt from this event not to ever, ever, ever close the claim until the money is refunded. It would have been very simple. Also, you were a bit sloppy and haphazard in your actions (like ****ing up the address and not communicating with your mother etc). Might have to be a bit more careful when some money is involved.

Mr. jjm, my sympathy for what you went through. You did send the pen and spent a lot of time on trying to sort this out. But to a lot of us, all that is simply, utterly and absolutely nullified (from a moral point of view) by the fact that you deviously lied to Mr Ruben to close the paypal claim. I guess that is the lesson for you. Be honest. Things that go around do and will come around. If you do gain anything from this (by not losing anything) you will most certainly lose somewhere else. That is just life.

Good luck to you both. As much as I want to be contianually entertained by this I do hope you both will achieve some sort of a mutually agreeable conclusion.

[mhosea]

You go on to answer the first sentence yourself when you recognize that "everyone is aware...".

I disagree. Probabilities do matter in negligence cases. The test is not whether everyone is aware, rather whether a reasonably prudent person's actions would have been informed by consideration of the possibility. I seriously doubt that most reasonably prudent people would be reluctant to refuse a parcel because they fear it will be lost by the carrier. At any rate, this is, at least, a bona fide point of disagreement that we would have to let the judge or jury decide.

You haven't established proximate causality. Every time the question comes up, you fall back on an argument that the buyer was the cause in fact. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition. The analogy was an example of cause in fact not being sufficient to establish proximate causality. I have claimed that the carrier's error was the proximate cause. The carrier's error was intervening and converted the nature and severity of the loss that would have flowed naturally from the buyer's mistakes. Note that the buyer's error did not place the carrier in a difficult or unusual situation, rather a routine one from their perspective. Merely having put the carrier in position where it was possible for them to err is not ipso facto sufficient to be held responsible for the carrier's mistakes.

[Mastiff]

You go on to answer the first sentence yourself when you recognize that "everyone is aware...".

I disagree. Probabilities do matter in negligence cases. The test is not whether everyone is aware, rather whether a reasonably prudent person's actions would have been informed by consideration of the possibility. I seriously doubt that most reasonably prudent people would be reluctant to refuse a parcel because they fear it will be lost by the carrier. At any rate, this is, at least, a bona fide point of disagreement that we would have to let the judge or jury decide.

You haven't established proximate causality. Every time the question comes up, you fall back on an argument that the buyer was the cause in fact. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition. The analogy was an example of cause in fact not being sufficient to establish proximate causality. I have claimed that the carrier's error was the proximate cause. The carrier's error was intervening and converted the nature and severity of the loss that would have flowed naturally from the buyer's mistakes. Note that the buyer's error did not place the carrier in a difficult or unusual situation, rather a routine one from their perspective. Merely having put the carrier in position where it was possible for them to err is not ipso facto sufficient to be held responsible for the carrier's mistakes.

We are all watching this conversation between you and dneal with great interest. dneal said he was in the military, so perhaps he is a retired military prosecutor or something. Might we ask who you are? You sound like a law professor emeritus or a QC. Of course, if you don't mind letting us know.