I want to do the right thing - Need Advice and Opinions.
- Thread starter Mkkari
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Gtinnel
10K Club member
Well since it's F&F (which is against forum rules, if it was a transaction on R2R) then AFAIK you have all of the power to handle it however you see fit. The buyer has no recourse that I know of.
ying yang
2500 Club Member
Sorry to hear about this as sad for fish and upsetting for whoever ends up losing money.
But if i was the buyer i would be expecting a live fish and want my money back.
If i was the seller i would have to give the money back to the buyer as that was risk i took shipping an animal.
( but i would never buy anything that gets shipped to me as want to see the fish im getting and want to buy from an lfs after they had fish for one week so if any fast killing dieseses then fish die at lfs before i buy)
It seems you dont think its fair that at end of day you lost a good nice looking expensive fish and no fish and no money.
Was going suggest if he and you would be willing for you to offer him a similar fish little less expensive and he takes little loss and you get some money but same can happen again.
But my opinion i would never buy or sell online but if i did sell online i would have to take the full loss as risk i took unless talked/ arranged with buyer different rules
But if i was the buyer i would be expecting a live fish and want my money back.
If i was the seller i would have to give the money back to the buyer as that was risk i took shipping an animal.
( but i would never buy anything that gets shipped to me as want to see the fish im getting and want to buy from an lfs after they had fish for one week so if any fast killing dieseses then fish die at lfs before i buy)
It seems you dont think its fair that at end of day you lost a good nice looking expensive fish and no fish and no money.
Was going suggest if he and you would be willing for you to offer him a similar fish little less expensive and he takes little loss and you get some money but same can happen again.
But my opinion i would never buy or sell online but if i did sell online i would have to take the full loss as risk i took unless talked/ arranged with buyer different rules
Then you are likely in luck. I think you would have lost the paypal dispute otherwise.
Having said that i would even try harder to reach an agreement with him if you are really trying to do the right thing. Poor choice on his part to save you money using F&F.
Hopefully a lesson to any buyer reading this though never use F&F thougg.
James_O
5000 Club Member
But if the seller didn’t ask about DOA, or it wasn’t mentioned in the sale post, the OP isn’t responsible.
Who says? From what i have seen paypal is much more likely to choose the side of the buyer if important details like that are never put in writing.
All irrelevant though since buyer used F&F though.
As mentioned above, I'd try to reach some sort of compromise. The buyer did accept the risk of having a live animal shipped to him, and we all know crap happens during shipping. But it's not unreasonable for him to want something back in return. I say pay him the cost of the zoas and a bit on top. Next time discuss a DOA policy beforehand. Sorry for the loss of both parties.
workhz
Valuable Member
There is no way on earth a buyer should be responsible. They have zero control over how something is shipped or handled or even what condition the item was in to begin with.
Were there signs of damage to the box? Was it sent overnight? Was the bag punctured? Was their an inner styrofoam container? Did the buyer send you a picture as soon as they got the package? Did it sit on their doorstep for 6 hours while the neighbors dog gnawed on it?
Were there signs of damage to the box? Was it sent overnight? Was the bag punctured? Was their an inner styrofoam container? Did the buyer send you a picture as soon as they got the package? Did it sit on their doorstep for 6 hours while the neighbors dog gnawed on it?
REEFTIDE
2500 Club Member
Alright, here is my opinion. The price you paid for the fish is irrelevant. You could have paid $5 or $5000, the second you agreed on $500 that became the new price/value of the fish. I don't think the shipping he paid should play a roll in this. No LFS in the world will cover DOA on a fish they shipped for someone else, its not their sale. They're making no money off it so they wont assume any responsibility beyond packing it as best they can.
If I was the buyer I would be upset with this transaction. They paid for a live fish and it arrived dead. While no DOA was spoken about, its pretty much always implied that when shipping something it should arrive alive. Its also an act of good karma to take care of it.
If they're open to splitting the difference 50/50 I think that would be the most fair approach but honestly I would personally refund this gentleman the money. Ultimately they paid for something and it didnt arrive in good condition. If they're really upset and their card was linked to PP they could claim it was fraud or something and then you'd be out the money plus a chargeback fee.
Gtinnel
10K Club member
We will have to disagree on this. I don't feel as though because it wasn't mentioned it clears the seller of all responsibility. If the seller isn't responsible for it then they should at least share the liability.
Rmckoy
7500 Club Member
A little more information is needed and to answer the questions above .
was the box damaged , punctured , how long did shipping take from departure to arrival ?
wad the neighbours dog in fact chewing at the box .
did the fish puncture a hole , it’s all irrelevant but important .
id go after fedex for the loss !
But to be the good person , this needs to be dealt with appropriately .
50/50 seams fair seeing as both parties are out .
pay for the frags and work out a compromise deal that essentially both parties involved lose a little .
if I were the seller .
I would offer 50% back with knowing the risk of buying and selling livestock .
That being said .
no lfs around here will guarantee saltwater livestock .
a huge franchise ( big als ) will guarantee fw fish but not marine .
I have bought fish , they were bagged proper , drove 35 mins home and they were dead .
Complete loss to the buyer
Mentioning it the next visit they will often offer a little deal on something but never full refund value .
It’s sad to say , but it’s a risk on both sides .
was the box damaged , punctured , how long did shipping take from departure to arrival ?
wad the neighbours dog in fact chewing at the box .
did the fish puncture a hole , it’s all irrelevant but important .
id go after fedex for the loss !
But to be the good person , this needs to be dealt with appropriately .
50/50 seams fair seeing as both parties are out .
pay for the frags and work out a compromise deal that essentially both parties involved lose a little .
if I were the seller .
I would offer 50% back with knowing the risk of buying and selling livestock .
That being said .
no lfs around here will guarantee saltwater livestock .
a huge franchise ( big als ) will guarantee fw fish but not marine .
I have bought fish , they were bagged proper , drove 35 mins home and they were dead .
Complete loss to the buyer
Mentioning it the next visit they will often offer a little deal on something but never full refund value .
It’s sad to say , but it’s a risk on both sides .
That is too bad that this situation occurred, but there are many things you could have done as a seller to protect yourself and some things the buyer could have done to make sure terms were clear.
As a seller, I think you should have been clear on the DOA terms. It seems to me that the requirement should be on sellers to clearly state how shipment issues will be handled. This may include multiple options where buyer assumes risk if he/she chooses a lower-cost option without the protection. If no options are given, the responsibility lies with the seller to ensure good shipment, at least in my opinion.
If the shipping was done through an LFS, you should have arranged it with them with a contract to ensure how a DOA situation would be handled. That would put the emphasis on the LFS to do the best they can on shipping and to ensure that the shipper takes responsibility for package delivery in good condition.
It is ultimately your responsibility as a seller to make sure the terms of sale are clear, especially on how a bad shipment is handled.
The buyer should have checked on these terms to make sure they were in place, but I consider this the responsibility of a good seller rather than a requirement for a buyer to make sure of protection. The buyer should still safeguard by verifying, though.
The buyer also should never have entered into an F&F transaction, especially in a situation for a higher sale value and purchase of a living animal. This is exactly why F&F is very risky for the buyer: no recourse action in such an event of unclear terms and shipping damage. It costs extra to pay the fees for a sales transaction, but that is the protection cost. Had buyer made sure to pay for purchase rather than send money F&F, they would probably get full refund and seller would be left with no recourse.
Ultimately, I still side with the buyer in a case like this, since there was no responsibility on their part with how the livestock was packed and shipped. They lose money by no fault of their own since I consider the DOA terms and shipping damage protection the responsibility of the seller (at least to offer it, such as increased shipping cost with insurance that the buyer can deny and accept responsibility in that case).
...and it makes no difference in my mind whether the seller is a business or an individual unless the terms were clearly stated and agreed upon.
As a seller, I think you should have been clear on the DOA terms. It seems to me that the requirement should be on sellers to clearly state how shipment issues will be handled. This may include multiple options where buyer assumes risk if he/she chooses a lower-cost option without the protection. If no options are given, the responsibility lies with the seller to ensure good shipment, at least in my opinion.
If the shipping was done through an LFS, you should have arranged it with them with a contract to ensure how a DOA situation would be handled. That would put the emphasis on the LFS to do the best they can on shipping and to ensure that the shipper takes responsibility for package delivery in good condition.
It is ultimately your responsibility as a seller to make sure the terms of sale are clear, especially on how a bad shipment is handled.
The buyer should have checked on these terms to make sure they were in place, but I consider this the responsibility of a good seller rather than a requirement for a buyer to make sure of protection. The buyer should still safeguard by verifying, though.
The buyer also should never have entered into an F&F transaction, especially in a situation for a higher sale value and purchase of a living animal. This is exactly why F&F is very risky for the buyer: no recourse action in such an event of unclear terms and shipping damage. It costs extra to pay the fees for a sales transaction, but that is the protection cost. Had buyer made sure to pay for purchase rather than send money F&F, they would probably get full refund and seller would be left with no recourse.
Ultimately, I still side with the buyer in a case like this, since there was no responsibility on their part with how the livestock was packed and shipped. They lose money by no fault of their own since I consider the DOA terms and shipping damage protection the responsibility of the seller (at least to offer it, such as increased shipping cost with insurance that the buyer can deny and accept responsibility in that case).
...and it makes no difference in my mind whether the seller is a business or an individual unless the terms were clearly stated and agreed upon.
The deal is not "fair" to you, but a lot of fault ends up being yours for not clarifying with LFS/shipper. They obviously cannot "deny any responsibility" since the packaging was done by the LFS who also chose the shipper and shipping method and the shipper handled the package until delivery, but, unless you are protected under some form of contract, this will be a nearly impossible battle to fight. You still should check into LFS policies and FedEx policies to find any protection possible for your costs, but it may likely be a case where you are out the money as a learning experience.
...of course, since the buyer paid F&F, the recourse lies entirely in your power, so that depends on what you mean by "doing the right thing". I would say the honest thing as a seller is to accept responsibility, but that is easy for me to say when I am not the one losing the fish or the money. I have just dealt with enough transactions as a buyer to know that the responsibility almost always lies with the seller to be clear on terms and protection.
You understood enough about shipping to get the LFS to package it so I’m slightly amazed you didn’t discuss DOA as you knew that was a risk hence why you got the lfs to package it.
If you were the buyer in this case and a dead fish was delivered what would you be expecting from the seller?
If you were the buyer in this case and a dead fish was delivered what would you be expecting from the seller?
Similar threads
- Price: 150
- Shipping Available
