Are vendors responsible for live delivery of Coral????

[EMeyer]

Whether it holds up in Court is a question of what terms were conveyed to the Buyer at the time of sale. If the terms are "Live arrival guaranteed IF shipment is delivered on time; not responsible for shipping delays" that is a contingent risk of loss transfer and is legally valid if it was properly conveyed to the Buyer.

Your post was very well said, its all about conveying clear terms of sale to the buyer prior to the purchase.

With that said, I think what many of us object to is the lack of the clarity in the phrase itself "not responsible for shipping delays".

This is a phrase that can be interpreted in very different ways.
1. Seller is not responsible for the late arrival, and the entire DOA guarantee becomes void the minute the package is delayed.
2. Seller is not responsible for the fact that it arrived late, but the DOA guarantee applies regardless.

I find interpretation #1 reprehensible, an invitation to scammers. I find interpretation #2 to be a reasonable expectation. But many sellers just say "not responsible for shipping delays" which completely fails to clarify which one is meant.

 

[Reefer1978]

But if it ever gets to a legal batter, then following things will come into question which goes well beyond "I just said if it's on time":

1. Was it packed well
2. was the weather checked
3. was memphis checked (for fedex)
4. was right size coldpack used for the weather
5. was water clean
6. was speciment sick before shipping

There's so much in the gray area that's beyond just not responsible for carrier. Are vendors really ready for the fight? Or are the consumers simply not aware they can go to small claims court?

 

[snowhite]

"why are corals so expensive?"

This is why.

 

[Reefer1978]

"why are corals so expensive?"

This is why.

That's ok, folks are willing to pay. But I don't think they are willing to pay expensive prices for brown water and a dead rock inside the bag.

 

[acro-ed]

Or are the consumers simply not aware they can go to small claims court?

The reality of this situation is that (in most cases) there is insufficiency in establishing personal jurisdiction over the Seller to bring a small claims case. Meaning the Court will not take the case if it involves a small business from another state. Larger corporations can be sued in a different state (again, depends on each particular situation) but in almost all cases a small business cannot. Theoretically you could sue the Seller in "their" state but that is probably not worth it either.

The other considerations you listed my very well be important if there was no clear policy set by the Seller. The best solution for everyone is to have a very direct understanding of shipping terms/risk of loss before the sale is completed.

 

[Brandon Smith]

A lot of opinions here. So even before the Pandemic, shippers never covered live animals. Being able to insure the cost of shipping has been gone for awhile now. Vendors know this. What that tells me is that of a package is shipped, then for the most part it is on the Vendor for shipping. As of yet, I have not had a package delayed overnight. I have had FedEx tell me that 1 or 2 would be, but I was able to talk to the local FedEx facility to make sure the package was still delivered that same day. Now if we are talking about shipping delays because of an Act of God that is out of everyone's control, that is situation based. Sometimes storms pop up out of nowhere, but that really doesn't happen that often. For the part, we will always cover the cost of the animal for the seller. Sometimes I do have a customer ask to ship on a day that I don't normally ship. In that situation I do inform the buyer that I really don't recommend shipping and that I may not be able to cover the cost of the animal j. Case of a shipping delay.

 

[92Miata]

This entire answer is incredibly well written. I found this point of yours to be quiet salient:

" In the event the Seller HAS clearly stated terms and the Buyer later has remorse about their risk of loss they shouldn't be compelled to damage the reputation of the Seller just because they don't like the terms they agreed to after the fact. "

It's salient, but incomplete.

Vendor's terms are often illegal in many states, or directly violate the terms of the platform they're using.

IE, if a vendor allows PayPal, they can't opt out of the gauarantees that PayPal requires - even by telling customers they don't guarantee things.

 

[andrewey]

It's salient, but incomplete.

Vendor's terms are often illegal in many states, or directly violate the terms of the platform they're using.

IE, if a vendor allows PayPal, they can't opt out of the gauarantees that PayPal requires - even by telling customers they don't guarantee things.

Would you be able to direct me to the gauarantee that is being violated in paypal's case? As far as I was aware, buyer protections are not extended to live animals via paypal, unless they changed that?

 

[Lizbeli]

Im not going to go into detail. But in its most basic forum, if it is due from shipping delays... It makes most sense to me that the vendor refund the customer and then the shipping company reimburse the vendor. Customer is happy, vendor isn’t out of money by a mistake they didn’t cause. And the shipping company pays for not upholding the set timeframe.

But there are a lot of IFs and BUTs. Gotta pick the vendors you trust, and assume they will stick to their policies.

 

[Tuffyyyyy]

Would you be able to direct me to the gauarantee that is being violated in paypal's case? As far as I was aware, buyer protections are not extended to live animals via paypal, unless they changed that?

I was curious so I checked the seller's protection policy and didn't see live animals/fish listed.

PayPal User Agreement - PayPal US

PayPal User Agreement provides information regarding opening and closing an account, managing funds in multiple currencies, account statement, fees, and more.

www.paypal.com

Ineligible items and transactions
Your sale is not eligible for coverage under PayPal’s Seller Protection program if:

It involves intangible, non-physical, items, including digital goods, and services. Digital goods are delivered and used in an electronic format, like a song delivered online or through a mobile application.
The buyer claims (either with us or their card issuer) that the item you sent isn’t what was ordered (referred to as a “Significantly Not as Described” claim).
It involves an item that PayPal determines, in its sole discretion, is a counterfeit item.
It involves an item that you deliver in person, including in connection with a payment made in your physical store.
It involves sales that are not processed either through a buyer’s PayPal account or a PayPal guest checkout transaction. For example, if the sale was made using the PayPal Payments Pro/VT product, PayPal business payments or using PayPal Here, then it is not eligible for coverage.
It involves items equivalent to cash including gift cards.
It involves a donation.
It relates to the purchase of a financial product or investment of any kind.
It involves a payment sent using PayPal’s friends and family functionality.
It involves a payment made using PayPal Payouts and Mass Pay.
The item is a vehicle, including, but not limited to a motor vehicle, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, aircraft or boat.

 

[acro-ed]

It's salient, but incomplete.

Vendor's terms are often illegal in many states, or directly violate the terms of the platform they're using.

IE, if a vendor allows PayPal, they can't opt out of the gauarantees that PayPal requires - even by telling customers they don't guarantee things.

It is true that there are specific terms that could be illegal but in this case setting risk of loss contingencies based on shipping would not be violative in any instances I can think of (not to say there isn't a State that has barred it; it is possible not having done the research on it).

It is also true that the payment platform may intercede, but that is effectively an additional vendor agreement and not a legal issue in the sense that the Seller is breaking a law by limiting their risk in the terms of the sale. I'm not sure how Paypal works, but hypothetically, if the Seller can prove that the item was packaged properly and delivered I don't see how Paypal could force liability on the Seller if the Seller clearly stated they do not guarantee live arrival IF there is a shipping delay. Does Paypal mandate live arrival terms on live goods? If so, then the payment platform vendor agreement would trump the sale agreement purely because the payment vendor has control over the funding/refund.

 

[92Miata]

Would you be able to direct me to the gauarantee that is being violated in paypal's case? As far as I was aware, buyer protections are not extended to live animals via paypal, unless they changed that?

It was a general statement - that all contracts in the chain are valid - and need to be considered.

For instance, eBay requires that the seller guarantee "safe overnight shipping" and that a violation of terms will be a refund for the buyer.

IE, you can disclose whatever you want, but as soon as dead or dying animals show up at someone's doors, you've violated eBay's terms and owe the buyer a refund.

(Technically, you're violating eBay's terms in every coral sale because corals aren't listed in the allowable animals)

 

[andrewey]

I was curious so I checked the seller's protection policy and didn't see live animals/fish listed.

PayPal User Agreement - PayPal US

PayPal User Agreement provides information regarding opening and closing an account, managing funds in multiple currencies, account statement, fees, and more.

www.paypal.com

Ineligible items and transactions
Your sale is not eligible for coverage under PayPal’s Seller Protection program if:

It involves intangible, non-physical, items, including digital goods, and services. Digital goods are delivered and used in an electronic format, like a song delivered online or through a mobile application.
The buyer claims (either with us or their card issuer) that the item you sent isn’t what was ordered (referred to as a “Significantly Not as Described” claim).
It involves an item that PayPal determines, in its sole discretion, is a counterfeit item.
It involves an item that you deliver in person, including in connection with a payment made in your physical store.
It involves sales that are not processed either through a buyer’s PayPal account or a PayPal guest checkout transaction. For example, if the sale was made using the PayPal Payments Pro/VT product, PayPal business payments or using PayPal Here, then it is not eligible for coverage.
It involves items equivalent to cash including gift cards.
It involves a donation.
It relates to the purchase of a financial product or investment of any kind.
It involves a payment sent using PayPal’s friends and family functionality.
It involves a payment made using PayPal Payouts and Mass Pay.
The item is a vehicle, including, but not limited to a motor vehicle, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, aircraft or boat.

You're absolutely right! I couldn't find any prohibition of live animals in the linked TOS or any accompanying documents, unless I'm missing something? This is all the more fascinating as I brought this claim up with paypal (via an ebay sale) from 7 or 8 years ago against a seller and was told Paypal would not cover live animals and linked me to a paypal buyer protection FAQ. Thanks for the information!

 

[Pntbll687]

I won't order if a vendor doesn't guarantee. I'm paying for an animal, not best effort.

Insurance exists for this sort of thing. Businesses can insure pretty much anything - it just costs money.

If you really want to see coral prices skyrocket, insurance on coral orders is the way to go!

 

[acro-ed]

I did some quick searching and it appears that Paypal considers live goods the same as other goods in terms of their Purchase Protection program. If the Seller can show proof of shipment/delivery then they will not be liable to refund the Buyer (unless of course the Seller guaranteed Live Arrival, then as a legal issue they would be liable to the Buyer in the event of a loss).

"

Your claim will not qualify for a refund under PayPal’s Purchase Protection program for an Item Not Received claim, if:

• The seller has provided proof of shipment or proof of delivery. "

(https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#purchase-protection)

 

[andrewkw]

50/50 + shipping costs is probably the most fair. Since sellers typically can get shipping costs back but as mentioned the actual animals themselves are not insurable.

I live in a rural area so shipping is always problematic here, I have noticed at least in Canada pretty much all places say they are not responsible for carrier delays. However if you ask you may get a difference answer. I have had an instance where a shipment was 100% lost and was compensated but I felt bad about it for a long time. It certainly was not the sellers fault. I have also been told if it's lost we'll work with you, and something along the lines of the 50/50 which imo is fair.

I will typically ask before placing an order and while I would not order a huge shipment that I was not comfortable losing, it's really not fair to expect them to cover it. Just one of the downsides to not living near quality LFS. I'd also like to add a seller is going to have to do a lot worse then sending me dead coral before I would ever consider taking them to court.

 

[ca1ore]

Fedex and big brown in their TOS say they are not responsible for shipping live animals. This is why vendors cannot put insurance on said packages. This is also why they(shippers) are not responsible for death in shipping.

Not 'responsible' perhaps, but seems to me that the more reputable places still honor any guarantees even with shipping delays. Has that changed I wonder? FWIW, I'm not seeing a significant instance of shipping delays like i did in March and April.

 

[RobB'z Reef]

As a legal issue it is no different than FOB Origin shipping terms from a manufacturer/Seller in a different industry. Simply put, the terms of the sale are what governs the risk of loss. The Seller could simply say "you are purchasing FOB my home/business" and then set up shipping in accordance with your wishes; that would put the risk of loss on the buyer. Now, in the aquarium trade I haven't seen people phrase it like that with Incoterms/legalese, but that is effectively what is being done.

I agree with this statement 100%

 

[Kellie in CA]

I really feel it should be a 50/50 loss.

 

[NashobaTek]

Most online stores are able to buy their inventory at wholesale prices, than they add a Mark up to buyers. So I doubt that they're really losing a ton of money when they replace dead losses.
But when you or I sell said item we are losing the money if it arrives dead.
Right now I refuse to take the risk of shipping livestock. Jmho