When did the BUYER become responsible for shipping delays?

[reef_ranch]

That’s not old! I was there 82-85! That’s old!

Puppies! I was there 70-80!!

 

[UMALUM]

I guess that was my point, who's "standard"? I don't think there really is one or that one should be assumed. Most vendors I have ordered from have varying policies. Some better than others and some ridiculous. I would not assume anything, as that means setting my self up for disappointment.

Where exactly in this do find any room for assumptions? I've passed over most of your posts as I feel you're simply choosing what you want to comprehend in order to better fit your narrative. It's simple...when did shipping become the responsibility of the buyer? Not like pulling teeth is it?

 

[UMALUM]

Puppies! I was there 70-80!!

My Dad graduated in 70.

 

[OrionN]

FWIW - Now that most states have made these fees legal, some card processors (Visa/Mastercard) allow them and just require the charges to be displayed clearly that the point of sale. That is why you are seeing them more often now. I don't know about Amex, Discover, etc. I don't think can apply to debit or or prepaid.

The standard is really easy and straightforward. Guarantee to get the animal to the buyer alive with the following exceptions: hence DOA guarantee.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Where exactly in this do find any room for assumptions?

"standard DOA rules apply" sounds pretty darn ambiguous to me.

You and the seller clearly don't agree in what that phrase means.

I don't disagree that you got the short end of the stick here and that the seller appears to be less than stellar. I hope it works out.

 

[reef_ranch]

My Dad graduated in 70.

Sorry 78-80, I'm not quite that old!

 

[BeanAnimal]

The standard is really easy and straightforward. Guarantee to get the animal to the buyer alive with the following exceptions: hence DOA guarantee.

But it is not, it could mean anything, including him thinking he is not responsible for shipping issues, as many vendors make that part of their DOA language. That is the whole problem here. It is ambiguous and left to interpretation. Not a good situation.

 

[OrionN]

"standard DOA rules apply" sounds pretty darn ambiguous to me.

You and the seller clearly don't agree in what that phrase means.

I don't disagree that you got the short end of the stick here and that the seller appears to be less than stellar. I hope it works out.

The seller declined responsibility for shipping mishaps but did not stated ahead of time that he had a not responsible for shipping problem.
The seller is in the wrong.
To me it is really black and white. No grey in this case.

 

[UMALUM]

But it is not, it could mean anything, including that he is not responsible for shipping issues, as many vendors make that part of their DOA language. That is the whole problem here. It is ambiguous and left to interpretation. Not a good situation.

Your kidding me right?

 

[OrionN]

But it is not, it could mean anything, including him thinking he is not responsible for shipping issues, as many vendors make that part of their DOA language. That is the whole problem here. It is ambiguous and left to interpretation. Not a good situation.

He guarantee that the animal get to the buyer and remain alive for 1 hr, or until it leave the bag which ever come first.

His term of sale is the above.

 

[reef_ranch]

Lawyer here. Under the uniform commercial code, which in one form or another is enacted in every state, Seller is required to deliver conforming goods to the buyer. If it arrives dead, he failed in that obligation. Buyer may reject tender of delivery and recover the purchase price. The parties may by express agreement alter this allocation of risk, but it must be clear and unambiguous. That was not done here. And no thoughtful buyer should ever accept that risk.

Standard DOA policy means seller eats it if it arrives dead. A chargeback will likely be honored by the CC company and its a definite win in small claims court. Venue is in the location of delivery, so you can get a judgment in your home court cheap and easy. If Seller wants to dispute venue, he can pay for a lawyer to do so. Unlikely, since the cost will exceed the value of the coral. As the buyer, your biggest risk is collectability. The Seller's biggest risk is reputational.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The seller declined responsibility for shipping mishaps but did not stated ahead of time that he had a not responsible for shipping problem.

I don't disagree - but he apparently feels that was implied in the "standard doa policy" (whatever that is). I am not saying I agree (at all) I am just pointing out the fact that it is rather ambiguous and has clearly caused a problem.

 

[JNalley]

But it is not, it could mean anything, including him thinking he is not responsible for shipping issues, as many vendors make that part of their DOA language. That is the whole problem here. It is ambiguous and left to interpretation. Not a good situation.

Okay, I feel like we're beating a dead horse here. But Bean, the seller, is responsible for clarity, not the buyer, especially from a legal standpoint. So why are you still arguing about it? The seller did not have clarity or detailed outline of their DOA, they left it up to the buyer to interpret what that meant. The Ambiguity of the wording and the lack of detailed policy is the sellers problem, not the buyers...

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lawyer here. Under the uniform commercial code, which in one form or another is enacted in every state, Seller is required to deliver conforming goods to the buyer. If it arrives dead, he failed in that obligation. Buyer may reject tender of delivery and recover the purchase price. The parties may by express agreement alter this allocation of risk, but it must be clear and unambiguous. That was not done here. And no thoughtful buyer should ever accept that risk.

Standard DOA policy means seller eats it if it arrives dead. A chargeback will likely be honored by the CC company and its a definite win in small claims court. Venue is in the location of delivery, so you can get a judgment in your home court cheap and easy. If Seller wants to dispute venue, he can pay for a lawyer to do so. Unlikely, since the cost will exceed the value of the coral. As the buyer, your biggest risk is collectability. The Seller's biggest risk is reputational.

Thank you for the post.

Two questions

- what is "standard doa policy" or where is it defined?
- why is claim filed in location of delivery?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Bean, the seller, is responsible for clarity, not the buyer

I don't disagree with that at all. I thought that was clear from the beginning.

The Ambiguity of the wording and the lack of detailed policy is the sellers problem, not the buyers...

I don't disagree with that. My only point was that it is ambiguous and part of the problem.

 

[RockRash]

But it is not, it could mean anything, including him thinking he is not responsible for shipping issues, as many vendors make that part of their DOA language. That is the whole problem here. It is ambiguous and left to interpretation. Not a good situation.

That's ridiculous. Why you insist on playing devil's advocate for the seller I'll never know. Stating "standard DOA " and " pictures within a hour of arrival" doesn't dang him I dont know what does. I understand your just explaining how without reading and understanding the agreement your "SOL" well this guy clearly isn't a big retailer and probably is selling from his mom's basement. He in fact didn't state no compensation due to delivery delays. How you continue to defend this guy is amazing.

 

[OrionN]

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I feel that he just dodging his responsibility, clear and simple. He did not state his exceptions because if he did less people would buy his corals, or pay as much.
Either that or else he just greedy and did not want money to leave his grubby hands once he got the old of it.

 

[JNalley]

Lawyer here. Under the uniform commercial code, which in one form or another is enacted in every state, Seller is required to deliver conforming goods to the buyer. If it arrives dead, he failed in that obligation. Buyer may reject tender of delivery and recover the purchase price. The parties may by express agreement alter this allocation of risk, but it must be clear and unambiguous. That was not done here. And no thoughtful buyer should ever accept that risk.

Standard DOA policy means seller eats it if it arrives dead. A chargeback will likely be honored by the CC company and its a definite win in small claims court. Venue is in the location of delivery, so you can get a judgment in your home court cheap and easy. If Seller wants to dispute venue, he can pay for a lawyer to do so. Unlikely, since the cost will exceed the value of the coral. As the buyer, your biggest risk is collectability. The Seller's biggest risk is reputational.

From everything I know about this (which is probably less than you) venue is actually determined by state law, and is not clear everywhere. In fact, from what I understand, in most states the sellers jurisdiction will be the venue. That seems to be changing according to what research I've done tonight, but most places seemed to agree that it was a state law issue and every state is different, with most stating that sellers jurisdiction is the venue for court. Other than that, I agree with everything else you've said. If you have evidence to the contrary I will defer to your expertise, I just want clarity for anything that may pop up in the future

 

[reef_ranch]

Thank you for the post.

Two questions

- what is "standard doa policy" or where is it defined.
- why is claim filed in location of delivery?

Standard DOA policy means the uniform commercial code rules apply. No question. Any ambiguity goes against the seller.

Most states have venue rules that are designed to protect their residents from unlawful activity. For online sales, absent a written agreement designating another location for actions involving the contract (which is very common for this reason) the place of delivery is where the contract was to be performed. Thus, venue is proper there. To the extent the seller wants to argue otherwise, he needs to make a motion in the court where the action is filed. The cost is high and the chance of success very low.

 

[yanetterer]

For shippers failure. Yes, the seller is only responsible if they agree to be in their terms of purchase. It may not be comforting and you may not feel it is good business, but that does not change the facts. You are SOL if the seller does not want to cover the loss and the shipper refuses the claim.


You are being obtuse. We are talking about the shipper not fulfilling their part of the contract. It is not the sellers fault no matter how much you want it to be.


No sir - the seller is responsible for packing it as egreed upon and handing it off to the shipper. If the seller chooses to take on more responsibility that is up to them.


unfortunately, they are not responsible for the shippers actions. If the shipment arrives undamaged and on-time and they AGREED to a certain condition, then their responsibility may pick back up there

All of your condescension seems to be focused on something that is largely irrelevant: What goes on between the seller and the shipper - including the shipper's decision to approve or deny a claim - has nothing to do with the seller compensating the buyer for a loss. The buyer did not pay for a service from UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc., the buyer and shipping service have no contract.

It is nice to see UCC getting brought up, here is the actual language of the code:
§ 2-401(2) Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods, despite any reservation of a security interest and even though a document of title is to be delivered at a different time or place; and in particular and despite any reservation of a security interest by the bill of lading

• (a) if the contract requires or authorizes the seller to send the goods to the buyer but does not require him to deliver them at destination, title passes to the buyer at the time and place of shipment; but
• (b) if the contract requires delivery at destination, title passes on tender there.

Yes, subparagraph (a) does state that title passes to the buyer at the time and place of shipment (F.O.B. Shipping Point), but only if there is not an agreed upon destination. Since any paypal/shopify/etc transaction will require a delivery address, then subparagraph (b) would apply, in which case title passes once delivered.

It may pertain primarily to freight, but it is generally accepted that F.O.B. Shipping requires shipping to be paid by the buyer, while F.O.B. Destination is paid by the seller. Even though a seller may charge a shipping fee, that is not the same as a buyer purchasing shipping through the carrier.