Insurance ?

[emjay4248]

At least with DHL, the thing is: If a package gets lost or damaged in transit it's the receiving persons problem and he has to HOPE for cooperation with the person sending the item (If it's a private seller to a private buyer). It's different if the package is send from a commercial business to you THEN it's the businesses problem no matter what. So if he has no insurance and the person has no money in their Paypal account and decided to disappear, you're still out of your money. I am speaking from personal experience. But laws regarding that might be different in the states. Personally I wouldn't haggle over a few dollars for a small extra layer of insurance on an item that's a couple hundred dollars, but that's just me. That being said, I agree that the responsibility should lie with the shipper/seller and he or she should just tell the buyer it will cost XX$ to ship and include insurance just so he's on the safe side it the parcel service screws up.

I am flabbergasted that as a shipper DHL holds the recipient responsible if they loose the package in transit. What is the incentive for DHL to deliver the package to a private buyer ?
It's not about haggling it's about the fact that if the buyer pays for insurance he should be the one getting the insurance check not the seller but that's not the way it works.

 

[emjay4248]

USPS priority mail shipping is automatically insured up to $50. Buyer is protected by paypal, seller is not protected if the item gets lost in the mail over $50 unless extra insurance is purchased, so logically, the insurance is on the seller to protect himself, not the buyer.

I agree and it seems black and white but their are people that think differently and I just don't get the logic behind the buyer being responsible. The seller gets to keep my money and the insurance money. As I said it make no sense. I have been in business for over 40 years and I have never had the audacity to even suggest to my customers that they are responsible to pay me if it gets lost on the way to them. It's absurd. When I make up the invoice for my item I either build it in to the price, Charge a separate shipping and handling fee Or take a chance and not insure it but it never dawned on me to hold the buyer responsible.

 

[b00n]

They just make it easy for themselves. Person A ships to person B, DHL offers normal shipping for X$ and Insured Shipping for XX$, it's between the two non commercial parties to figure out what they want to use. And it's it's an item that is cheap enough/easy to replace the two people exchanging it can opt to go the cheaper route. It all comes down to money since it would be hard to really proof where and how the package got broken on the way to Person B, perhaps it was broken beforehand and not necessarily in transit. Seller send me a fake item, I used the DHL Insurance to get my money back from them since the guy disappeared of Paypal with no funds left and paypal told me they couldn't do anything than to "investigate" given that it was ~200$ I doubt they did anything.

And maybe it's my German mentality but I like the idea of being insured myself, in my mind it's like driving around in an insured car because I never have an accident and when somebody else hits me "well they're probably insured" (And yes, that's a little exaggerated of course). So I rather have my own than rely on the other person having purchased it because it's their responsibility. Just trying to convey my view on the matter.

 

[panoz77]

Even more, as a buyer, my money is refunded by paypal (seller really doesn't keep buyers money, unless buyer paid with a check or other unprotected method). That being said, if a package was lost in the mail and I as a buyer got a refund, I'm certainly not going to reimburse the seller for his loss. That's absurd.

As with anything, there are scammers and thieves always trying to game the system one way or another.

 

[emjay4248]

I am realizing that the only way to pay someone is PayPal G&S or take a chance at getting screwed even if I have to kick in 3%. at least paying that insures me and not the seller.
You all have been a great help in my decision making.

 

[b00n]

I agree and it seems black and white but their are people that think differently and I just don't get the logic behind the buyer being responsible. The seller gets to keep my money and the insurance money. As I said it make no sense. I have been in business for over 40 years and I have never had the audacity to even suggest to my customers that they are responsible to pay me if it gets lost on the way to them. It's absurd. When I make up the invoice for my item I either build it in to the price, Charge a separate shipping and handling fee Or take a chance and not insure it but it never dawned on me to hold the buyer responsible.

I completely agree that it simply should be included in the final price, simply because it's the sensible thing to do. No matter what the law might exactly be on the matter, if I ship something it's in MY best interest that it arrives to my buyer in the condition I ship it in. And if something happens, I should make it right and not tell the buyer "Oh yeah you got insurance on it, here is the package slip, go deal with it and figure it out."

 

[Glenn Goodlett]

I also disregard all sellers that want to be paid via friends and family. By paying as F&F you are giving away all protection that PayPal provides.

 

[emjay4248]

I also disregard all sellers that want to be paid via friends and family. By paying as F&F you are giving away all protection that PayPal provides.

Agreed. Friends & Family is called that for a reason although we all have friends and family that we need G&S to protect us from. LOL

 

[sheathmaker]

Okay, my friends, here's another scenario involving insurance and the who pays for what game. Discussion follows, have at it!

Scenario: This deals with a service provider who alters, or otherwise changes or adds to an item sent to him by a consumer. The consumer may or may not insure the item in transit to the service provider. (Keep in kind the service provider did not make or sell the item to the consumer. He is just going to alter or add to the existing item). Now let's add hypothetical value to the transaction. The inbound item is fairly valued at $2000 and the provider's work will come to $200 for the addition to the item.

If the consumer wants outbound insurance, should the provider be on the hook for $2200 worth of insurance ?.....or should the consumer be charged for at least $2000 worth of the insurance and have that added to his invoice under shipping and handling. Logic would dictate that would be fair since the provider has no stake in, nor profit derived from the owners original acquisition.

If the package is lost, stolen or damaged, on the way back to the consumer is the provider responsible for the entire $2200 value or just his $200 for his add on work?

Now as you ponder this, think about the times you've heard that a certain provider does excellent work "but he sure is High priced". Well, that high price ain't nuthin' 'til you see what he charges if he has to pick up the tab for full insurance on an item he didn't sell in the first place.

I have found from my own personal experience the most customers are more than happy to pay for the insurance if they request it and they also understand if they don't elect insurance and something goes wrong, we both take a hit. They lose their item and I lose my work. The other side of the coin is that if they did elect to have insurance for which they paid and something goes haywire, I quickly file the claim on their behalf.
(Never have had to do it though, .......yet!)

Paul

 

[WValtakis]

Okay, my friends, here's another scenario involving insurance and the who pays for what game. Discussion follows, have at it!

Scenario: This deals with a service provider who alters, or otherwise changes or adds to an item sent to him by a consumer. The consumer may or may not insure the item in transit to the service provider. (Keep in kind the service provider did not make or sell the item to the consumer. He is just going to alter or add to the existing item). Now let's add hypothetical value to the transaction. The inbound item is fairly valued at $2000 and the provider's work will come to $200 for the addition to the item.

If the consumer wants outbound insurance, should the provider be on the hook for $2200 worth of insurance ?.....or should the consumer be charged for at least $2000 worth of the insurance and have that added to his invoice under shipping and handling. Logic would dictate that would be fair since the provider has no stake in, nor profit derived from the owners original acquisition.

If the package is lost, stolen or damaged, on the way back to the consumer is the provider responsible for the entire $2200 value or just his $200 for his add on work?

Now as you ponder this, think about the times you've heard that a certain provider does excellent work "but he sure is High priced". Well, that high price ain't nuthin' 'til you see what he charges if he has to pick up the tab for full insurance on an item he didn't sell in the first place.

I have found from my own personal experience the most customers are more than happy to pay for the insurance if they request it and they also understand if they don't elect insurance and something goes wrong, we both take a hit. They lose their item and I lose my work. The other side of the coin is that if they did elect to have insurance for which they paid and something goes haywire, I quickly file the claim on their behalf.
(Never have had to do it though, .......yet!)

Paul

When I was doing custom anodizing on high end knives and flashlights I always built full value insurance cost into the return shipping part of the quote. I never had anyone complain, and probably wouldn't have accepted the work if they did.

~Chip

 

[emjay4248]

Okay, my friends, here's another scenario involving insurance and the who pays for what game. Discussion follows, have at it!

Scenario: This deals with a service provider who alters, or otherwise changes or adds to an item sent to him by a consumer. The consumer may or may not insure the item in transit to the service provider. (Keep in kind the service provider did not make or sell the item to the consumer. He is just going to alter or add to the existing item). Now let's add hypothetical value to the transaction. The inbound item is fairly valued at $2000 and the provider's work will come to $200 for the addition to the item.

If the consumer wants outbound insurance, should the provider be on the hook for $2200 worth of insurance ?.....or should the consumer be charged for at least $2000 worth of the insurance and have that added to his invoice under shipping and handling. Logic would dictate that would be fair since the provider has no stake in, nor profit derived from the owners original acquisition.

If the package is lost, stolen or damaged, on the way back to the consumer is the provider responsible for the entire $2200 value or just his $200 for his add on work?

Now as you ponder this, think about the times you've heard that a certain provider does excellent work "but he sure is High priced". Well, that high price ain't nuthin' 'til you see what he charges if he has to pick up the tab for full insurance on an item he didn't sell in the first place.

I have found from my own personal experience the most customers are more than happy to pay for the insurance if they request it and they also understand if they don't elect insurance and something goes wrong, we both take a hit. They lose their item and I lose my work. The other side of the coin is that if they did elect to have insurance for which they paid and something goes haywire, I quickly file the claim on their behalf.
(Never have had to do it though, .......yet!)

Paul

Hi Paul
When it comes to the scenario you have presented I have alot of experience. I will give you a couple of scenarios. 1st When I worked in the jewelry trade for 15 years this situation arose quite a few times. If a diamond is worth $20,000 and it is given to a diamond setter to put in a mounting and his fee is $100.00 he is providing a service for an amount that is is disproportionate to the value of the stone & he is not responsible if the stone is damaged during the setting process, If he charges $1000 to put the stone in then he is responsible to fix the stone and pay for the loss in value due to lost weight in the process of repairing the stone. By charging the large fee it is understood that the setter has loss insurance but I always asked to see their insurance certificate.
If I am sending an Item that is expensive to have a service done whose cost is disproportionate to the value of the Item it is the responsibility of the owner to take outgoing insurance. When the service is done the correct thing to do is have the return postage and insurance added to the price of your service in the beginning. If the buyer wants to take his chances he must provide a waiver

The Apostle P does exactly that everyday, I wonder what his policy is ? He must have it down to a science. He is the perfect example of a service that is disproportionate to the price of the item.

Paul I hope I have answered your question but that is not the scenario I have presented. If I buy a knife from Blade HQ and it costs more than $99 I get free shipping. If the knife gets lost in the mail it is replaced or refunded without question. Most brick and mortar operations have an insurance policy covering all outbound shipments and the responsibility of who gets stuck is the vendor for sure.
So why should it be any different with a seller on BF. The seller should add it to his charge upfront in his fee and if the item gets lost technically the post office is on the hook and the payment the buyer made should be refunded right away and it is up to the vendor to collect his money from the post office which unfortunately takes months. The cost of doing business. Whether Blade HQ has their own insurance or not. is not the responsibility of the buyer. If they offer free shipping it is still the responsibility of the vendor (seller) and I now realize that their is no question as to who is responsible.

 

[emjay4248]

When I was doing custom anodizing on high end knives and flashlights I always built full value insurance cost into the return shipping part of the quote. I never had anyone complain, and probably wouldn't have accepted the work if they did.

~Chip

But was their a question as to who was on the hook. I am going to assume that as a businessman you would refund the price of the Item quickly and not make the buyer wait until you got the money from the post office.

 

[WValtakis]

But was their a question as to who was on the hook. I am going to assume that as a businessman you would refund the price of the Item quickly and not make the buyer wait until you got the money from the post office.

As I was never in possession of the full value price of the item, I could not. I would refund my fees for the labor right away, but I would have to wait for the insurance payout to even be able get the customer his money. I was a hobbyist doing modifications on the side and I assume this was understood. Fortunately the situation never arose, USPS had treated me very well .

~Chip

 

[emjay4248]

Wow this subject seems to have been brought up in the past. I now can say that I feel comfortable as to how to handle this. Make sure that I ask before I buy. In the case of a private seller I now feel comfortable with the answers. If The person is providing a service then I should accept the fact that the insurance is on me, but if it is an Item that I am purchasing it should either be in the price from the getgo or make it clear in the beginning that those are shipping charges that will be added to the shipment

 

[emjay4248]

As I was never in possession of the full value price of the item, I could not. I would refund my fees for the labor right away, but I would have to wait for the insurance payout to even be able get the customer his money. I was a hobbyist doing modifications on the side and I assume this was understood. Fortunately the situation never arose, USPS had treated me very well .

~Chip

In the case of a small operator it is understandable when you are performing a service I would agree that as long as you took insurance it is reasonable to ask the to wait until the ins. pays but in the case of the seller selling an item of value that belongs to him he is in the possession of the full value of the item and it was never received by the buyer it is the vendors problem because the buyer was never in the possession of the item.
I know that in the venue that I sell stuff in if the buyer says that he never received it is the responsibility of the vendor to prove otherwise. If he cannot provide that information PayPal will just refund him for you if you have not done it already and now that I know that there are no hidden policy's in the BF bylaws then I will make sure I clarify this with the private buyer. I recently bought a CRK from a friend in Canada the price of the Item was set and the cost of the shipping and insurance was discussed in the beginning and the final price was agreed It just so happens that I have received the knife I bought but It was a trade. The item that he is getting is not yet shipped due to technical problems that he is aware of. If my incoming knife got lost I would not hold his outgoing knife hostage but this scenario is that way because it is a trade. Wow all these questions and so many answers.

 

[tyyreaun]

Seller send me a fake item, I used the DHL Insurance to get my money back from them since the guy disappeared of Paypal with no funds left and paypal told me they couldn't do anything than to "investigate" given that it was ~200$ I doubt they did anything.

Wait, really? How long ago was that, and was it in the US? I always assumed that Buyer Protection would cover you even if PayPal couldn't recover the money from the seller - that they'd just eat the cost. Otherwise, scamming someone through PayPal would be way too easy.

 

[b00n]

Wait, really? How long ago was that, and was it in the US? I always assumed that Buyer Protection would cover you even if PayPal couldn't recover the money from the seller - that they'd just eat the cost. Otherwise, scamming someone through PayPal would be way too easy.

Quite a while ago, probably around 10 years I think. And no, I'm in Germany, and if I recall correctly the seller was in Singapore I believe, the deal went through a military equipment related message board regarding Airsoft. Everything seemed to be alright with communication and all that. Things might have changed in that time, I do recall Ebay also changing a bunch of policies in recent years. So I am probably not up to date on everything, but the situation stuck with me.

 

[emjay4248]

Wait, really? How long ago was that, and was it in the US? I always assumed that Buyer Protection would cover you even if PayPal couldn't recover the money from the seller - that they'd just eat the cost. Otherwise, scamming someone through PayPal would be way too easy.

I am surprised because when you get started with PayPal the hold your money for a while, that means he was with PayPal for a while, I don't get it.

 

[emjay4248]

Quite a while ago, probably around 10 years I think. And no, I'm in Germany, and if I recall correctly the seller was in Singapore I believe, the deal went through a military equipment related message board regarding Airsoft. Everything seemed to be alright with communication and all that. Things might have changed in that time, I do recall Ebay also changing a bunch of policies in recent years. So I am probably not up to date on everything, but the situation stuck with me.

Their have been major improvements in customer relations and satisfaction. I don't know what their policies were like 10 years ago.

 

[tyyreaun]

Quite a while ago, probably around 10 years I think. And no, I'm in Germany, and if I recall correctly the seller was in Singapore I believe, the deal went through a military equipment related message board regarding Airsoft. Everything seemed to be alright with communication and all that. Things might have changed in that time, I do recall Ebay also changing a bunch of policies in recent years. So I am probably not up to date on everything, but the situation stuck with me.

I’m guessing maybe it was a German or European policy issue. I googled it and found similar stories on some random Australian forum.

I’m pretty sure in the US they’d refund you out of their own money. Different laws and regulations, I guess.