Charging buyers "otional insurance" - What a crock.

Charging buyers "otional insurance" - What a crock.

Joined: May 19th, 2007, 1:37 am

June 20th, 2012, 11:23 pm #1

Nothing chaps my hide more than this relatively inane practice. It really boils my blood to have a seller insist that I insure that HE packs well and delivers what I already paid for intact. I've always felt insurance is for the seller, not the buyer. He's the one guaranteeing I get what I paid for isn't he? If not, then why do we expect other merchants to refund us when damaged goods arrive - and they usually do with little argument. They roll the dice and pay when they lose. The seller has the contract with the shipper... not the buyer.

There. I feel better now. But it still sucks.

Tim
VPilot
Reply
Share

Joined: March 13th, 2009, 5:21 pm

June 20th, 2012, 11:37 pm #2

....and then tells you the package is insured? Is it possible insist on optional insurance? Does not insisting exclude the optional part? A lot of people charge a set amount for shipping and insure the package, which seems fine to me...I'm just slightly confused at the whole scope of what your saying.

kr,
Paul
Reply
Share

Joined: May 19th, 2007, 1:37 am

June 20th, 2012, 11:58 pm #3

It's the principle of offering a buyer the opportunity to "insure" he gets what he pays for that just rubs me wrong. It's silliness. Honestly, in my mind it's just a marketing ploy to make the shipping appear to be reasonable compared to a competitor who may include it.

Let's turn the tables for perspective. How would you feel about buyers offering the sellers the chance to insure the letters with the money orders arrive safely ... then insisting that the product be sent even if the money was not received on uninsured mail? Sounds ridiculous no? Well to me so does the seller's position. When I send money, I alone guarantee its safe arrival to the seller and do not expect the product if the money doesn't arrive - so neither should the seller.

Tim
VPilot
Reply
Share

Joined: March 13th, 2009, 5:21 pm

June 21st, 2012, 12:17 am #4

....I think is BAD form. Because It implies that the seller/shipper is negating his responsibility for getting the item to the buyer in good condition unless extra costs are incurred. And I agree with you that the seller/shipper can't really morally rid himself of the responsibility by laying it on the buyer like that.

I have only lost one uninsured package I shipped through damage, and I ended up paying the $100 dollar sale, and shipping cost back to the buyer. It was my fault.

You make a good point, and I think the seller is the one at risk when a package is uninsured, not the buyer. Tracking should be used in every case of course.

kr,
Paul
Reply
Share

Joined: June 18th, 2008, 3:36 am

June 21st, 2012, 12:36 am #5

Nothing chaps my hide more than this relatively inane practice. It really boils my blood to have a seller insist that I insure that HE packs well and delivers what I already paid for intact. I've always felt insurance is for the seller, not the buyer. He's the one guaranteeing I get what I paid for isn't he? If not, then why do we expect other merchants to refund us when damaged goods arrive - and they usually do with little argument. They roll the dice and pay when they lose. The seller has the contract with the shipper... not the buyer.

There. I feel better now. But it still sucks.

Tim
VPilot
Never made sense to me either.


Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Reply
Share

Joined: April 9th, 2008, 2:40 am

June 21st, 2012, 1:36 am #6

Nothing chaps my hide more than this relatively inane practice. It really boils my blood to have a seller insist that I insure that HE packs well and delivers what I already paid for intact. I've always felt insurance is for the seller, not the buyer. He's the one guaranteeing I get what I paid for isn't he? If not, then why do we expect other merchants to refund us when damaged goods arrive - and they usually do with little argument. They roll the dice and pay when they lose. The seller has the contract with the shipper... not the buyer.

There. I feel better now. But it still sucks.

Tim
VPilot
Who pays for packing and shipment is part of the negotiation. Generally, I want to have this under my control as the buyer. I want to pay the lowest price possible for the item at the sellers location and then be sure that I get it in one piece.

For high value or difficult and bulky items like antiques, I often have a shipping agent collect an item from the seller and have him pack the items. When the item needs a crate to be made or the item needs to be "made safe" for shipment, this the best way. If you travel to a foreign state or country to buy items at auctions or estate sales, this is the only way, these services are often not willingly provided by the seller. I prefer not to hang around and deal with collection and packing myself.

For smaller items, I send the seller a call tag so I control the method and cost of shipment. If you buy an item on craigslist or ebay that says "local pickup only" you have to do this. In some cases I have persuaded the seller who said "local pickup only" to take the item to a UPS store and have it packed there at my expense.

Buying unique items from individual private parties, I think you have this completely wrong. For transactions with retail merchants or businesses, your expectations are reasonable. I think you have wrongly assumed that these two cases are the same.
John






Reply
Share

Joined: October 10th, 2003, 5:24 am

June 21st, 2012, 2:40 am #7

Nothing chaps my hide more than this relatively inane practice. It really boils my blood to have a seller insist that I insure that HE packs well and delivers what I already paid for intact. I've always felt insurance is for the seller, not the buyer. He's the one guaranteeing I get what I paid for isn't he? If not, then why do we expect other merchants to refund us when damaged goods arrive - and they usually do with little argument. They roll the dice and pay when they lose. The seller has the contract with the shipper... not the buyer.

There. I feel better now. But it still sucks.

Tim
VPilot
Say you buy an airgun for $450. It can be shipped for about twenty bucks but that won't cover any insurance. In that case, I would pay the extra few bucks. OTOH, if they charge $30, they should insure it for the full amount. I've gotten good deals on guns in the auction sites but paid twice or more what it should have cost to ship. At least, on those, it's up front. Personally, if I quote a shipped price, I pay the insurance. Should my guesstimate be off, that's my problem.

Reply
Share

Joined: October 27th, 2010, 4:43 am

June 21st, 2012, 5:16 am #8

....I think is BAD form. Because It implies that the seller/shipper is negating his responsibility for getting the item to the buyer in good condition unless extra costs are incurred. And I agree with you that the seller/shipper can't really morally rid himself of the responsibility by laying it on the buyer like that.

I have only lost one uninsured package I shipped through damage, and I ended up paying the $100 dollar sale, and shipping cost back to the buyer. It was my fault.

You make a good point, and I think the seller is the one at risk when a package is uninsured, not the buyer. Tracking should be used in every case of course.

kr,
Paul
had a damaged package. But correct me if I'm wrong. If I the seller insure a package to you, and it gets damaged,then I the seller collect the money from the insured package and then pay the buyer for the product he didn't get? Is that the way it works???
Reply
Share

Joined: May 19th, 2007, 1:37 am

June 21st, 2012, 6:22 am #9

Say you buy an airgun for $450. It can be shipped for about twenty bucks but that won't cover any insurance. In that case, I would pay the extra few bucks. OTOH, if they charge $30, they should insure it for the full amount. I've gotten good deals on guns in the auction sites but paid twice or more what it should have cost to ship. At least, on those, it's up front. Personally, if I quote a shipped price, I pay the insurance. Should my guesstimate be off, that's my problem.
The seller receives money for an item he's selling. The seller promises to return something in exchange for the money. He does not have to insure against loss but naturally assumes the risk since at the time he receives the money he OWES the buyer something in return. It's his responsibility to get that something to the buyer. If he wishes to insure against HIS loss when sending the goods, then so be it. He gets peace of mind. And if the seller wishes to assume the risk he can take his chances, but most honorable sellers I've met have at one time or another refunded money for various reasons including for perceived misrepresentation, damaged goods from poor packing etc. That's because the seller has certain obligations along with the buyer ... it's not all the buyer's responsibility. I can assure you, most buyers who send a healthy sum of money and get nothing in return are not going to be held responsible for the loss in any court proceedings if ever a case was presented.

Further, as mentioned by another in this thread the damage claims procedure is ALWAYS handled by the seller not the buyer. In fact most carriers won't even allow the buyer to get involved in the claims process since it was a contract between the seller and shipping company. That's because the insurance protects the SELLER against loss, not the buyer. Claims can also be denied even when insurance was purchased if the packing was determined inadequate. So again, this is a seller induced issue by those who wish all the benefits of nationwide exposure without assuming one iota of responsibility to the buyer.

That having all been said, I still pay the bloody thing when required, but as I mentioned, it simply chaps my hide on the matter of principle. The seller should be willing to foot the bill for his part of the deal IMO. If not, then put the blame thing up for local only sale and see if it ever sells for anything close to what it gets with nationwide exposure on the internet. Again, the sellers want ALL the bene's without taking on ANY responsibilities brought by that type of selling.

Tim
VPilot

Reply
Share

Joined: October 27th, 2010, 4:43 am

June 21st, 2012, 6:56 am #10

I always insure an expensive gun, for fear of a damage or loss. I don't want my buyer to be out the money. I have sold some expensive guns. Also I insure my guns when I travel via airlines.
Reply
Share