When did the BUYER become responsible for shipping delays?

[BeanAnimal]

Considering “shipping” is a product the company it reselling who is actually paying for it? You are paying a shipping fee to the company (usually marked up a little). They are then paying for shipping using their commercial account to the actual shipper and are the ones who open the contract with the shipper.

I would not argue with that. So we would assume FOB destination as the default?

 

[a.t.t.r]

I would not argue with that. So we would assume FOB destination as the default?

For the vast majority of retail transactions yes.


Keep in mind there are also contracts in place between the payment processors and the vendors,(most likely says how shipping responsibilities are handled). the payment processors, and the credit cards and the credit cards and the end-user usually somewhere along that line someone will spell out exactly what the minimum requirement liability is.

It has been years since I dealt with this so it might’ve changed, but I do know we could’ve had our credit card processing account pulled if someone complained that we asked for ID when presenting a credit card. (For the reason of matching name on card… not for age or other)

 

[BeanAnimal]

For the vast majority of retail transactions yes.

I think that the issue (and basis for the disagreement here) is legally what contract is in place for the various common shipping methods.

If it, is in fact FOB destination or similar then the seller is responsible, even if the package is stolen, etc. However, all the seller has to do is state that their terms are FOB origin and that changes everything.

I will gladly change my position in context to a given shipping method (FedEx Priority or whatever) if we can find what terms are in place and agree that those terms apply as long as the sale does not include a different agreement (as in terms stated on the sellers side that one read or didn't read when making payment).

Keep in mind there are also contracts in place between the payment processors and the vendors,(most likely says how shipping responsibilities are handled). the payment processors, and the credit cards and the credit cards and the end-user usually somewhere along that line someone will spell out exactly what the minimum requirement liability is.

Yes - that complicates things.

 

[OrionN]

I believe that the animal is under the responsibility of the seller/or seller agent until it get to the buyer, since it is the responsibility of the seller to get it to where it is going. The shipper is the "seller agent" since they have a contract with he seller to bring the animal to the buyer.
The seller should cover the damage and take it with "his agent" regarding the poor job that they did, and get compensation from "his agent"

So I am still interested in who this seller is so I wont loose money like you did.

 

[Griev]

Agree here 100% and sadly that falls on deaf ears these days.

In fact, the reduced (read barely reasonable) rates that FedEx offers "Live animal" vendors typically comes with a contract that says no claims can be filed.

As a customer though, I'm not signing or even aware of that 'no claims' agreement that you the vendor have agreed to without any additional recourse in the event the vendor fails to provide services within the SLA you've paid for. Sounds like you've agreed to accept the liability from Fedex for a discount, but don't want to actually accept it so you've written a policy that protects you and not your customers. That's a choice.

Personally I would have red lined the heck out of that contract before sending it back, while calling different vendors to work with.

 

[Reefin' Alaska]

No DOA policy. No for me.

 

[UMALUM]

 

[BeanAnimal]

As a customer though, I'm not signing or even aware of that 'no claims' agreement that you the vendor have agreed to without any additional recourse

That part does not change the buyer seller part of the agreement and who (the debate here) is responsible based on the terms of the sale and shipping agreement. That does change if the seller can get compensated or not in the event of a loss.

Sounds like you've agreed to accept the liability from Fedex for a discount, but don't want to actually accept it so you've written a policy that protects you and not your customers. That's a choice.

I don't have said agreement (I don't ship anything), but many vendors do. Their decision for sure.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

"Standard DOA rules apply, pictures within 1 hour of delivery in unopened bag" = if the coral arrives dead or dies within 1 hour (before you start acclimating), the vendor will replace/refund the coral.

 

[OrionN]

@leicalux
Standard DOA for this case is "not cover, not my responsibility"
So @leicalux will never ever get a red penny from me.
Thanks for let me know who not to order corals from. Sorry for your trouble.

 

[RockRash]

I've only been here a few weeks and I already get to put somebody on ignore.

 

[Griev]

That part does not change the buyer seller part of the agreement and who (the debate here) is responsible based on the terms of the sale and shipping agreement. That does change if the seller can get compensated or not in the event of a loss.

I disagree and have personal experience successfully charging back with a vendor who tried to say their DOA policy didn't cover shipping delays because their 'policy' written on their FAQ page doesn't actually legally supercede the agreements they've made with their payment processors.

 

[JNalley]

I guess it depends on how it is worded.

The whole point here is that one must understand the terms they are working under.

I was working on a rather large post, citing precedent and case law, and then decided to click "view them" and read this... No need for me to do all of that, because this is where the argument stands...

The seller sold a live item, with the expectation that the item would arrive in an alive state. The seller failed to disclose the DOA terms they were operating under.

Given these 3 things, the court would rule in favor of the buyer... But your understanding of UCC vs FTC is severely flawed. FTC and State/Local Consumer Protection Laws will always supersede UCC. FTC focuses on consumer protections while UCC is a broad brush that mostly geared towards B2B with only a bit of B2C where FTC and local consumer protections don't cover (such as warranties).

 

[BeanAnimal]

I disagree and have personal experience successfully charging back with a vendor who tried to say their DOA policy didn't cover shipping delays because their 'policy' written on their FAQ page doesn't actually legally supercede the agreements they've made with their payment processors.

I think you missed my point, but that is okay. My point was that the seller may have an agreement with the shipper where the shipper will not reimburse the seller even if the seller has to reimburse you.

All good.. glad you got the money back.

 

[OrionN]

@BeanAnimal
Unless specifically stated differently, do you agree that it is normal and to be expected that it is the seller who is responsible to get the animal to the buyer alive (normal DOA policy). The shipper is an agent contracted by the seller. Unless the seller specifically stated, AHEAD OF TIME, that he is not responsible for the shipper/shipping delay, it is his responsibility in standard unwritten agreement , thus DOA guarantee.
I don't see anything that specifically stated that he is not responsible for shipper action here, but I don't have all the information, other than what was posted. With what I see, I believe that my assumption is accurate and reasonable.

 

[Griev]

I think you missed my point, but that is okay. My point was that the seller may have an agreement with the shipper where the shipper will not reimburse the seller even if the seller has to reimburse you.

All good.. glad you got the money back.

And you missed my point that it's irrelevant as the buyer seller transaction is governed by the credit card agreement, not some made up FAQs or a seller/shipper agreement. They may try and lie to you or give you the run around, but that signed slip of paper binds BOTH parties to THOSE terms.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I was working on a rather large post, citing precedent and case law, and then decided to click "view them" and read this... No need for me to do all of that, because this is where the argument stands...

The seller sold a live item, with the expectation that the item would arrive in an alive state. The seller failed to disclose the DOA terms they were operating under.

Given these 3 things, the court would rule in favor of the buyer... But your understanding of UCC vs FTC is severely flawed. FTC and State/Local Consumer Protection Laws will always supersede UCC. FTC focuses on consumer protections while UCC is a broad brush that mostly geared towards B2B with only a bit of B2C where FTC and local consumer protections don't cover (such as warranties).

What court? I don't disagree that the outcome of a lawsuit could favor the seller... or the buyer. But realistically the cost to wage a civil suit for a few hundred dollars in loss is not realistic one way or the other.

Unfortunately the conversation is broadened significantly. My original point was to make sure that you understand the terms you are working under so that reasonable expectations are set.

 

[Griev]

@BeanAnimal
Unless specifically stated differently, do you agree that it is normal and to be expected that it is the seller who is responsible to get the animal to the buyer alive (normal DOA policy). The shipper is an agent contracted by the seller. Unless the seller specifically stated, AHEAD OF TIME, that he is not responsible for the shipper/shipping delay, it is his responsibility in standard unwritten agreement , thus DOA guarantee.
I don't see anything that specifically stated that he is not responsible for shipper action here, but I don't have all the information, other than what was posted. With what I see, I believe that my assumption is accurate and reasonable.

All of this is irrelevant if you paid with a credit card. That agreement supercedes any 'policy' a non-lawyer wrote on a post or page. If you push the issue with your credit card company you will prevail.

 

[littlefoxx]

Yep seems pretty black and white to me since its in writing. Says nothing about delays just upon delivery

 

[BeanAnimal]

@BeanAnimal
Unless specifically stated differently, do you agree that it is normal and to be expected that it is the seller who is responsible to get the animal to the buyer alive (normal DOA policy).

My point is that the seller can dictate the terms and buy purchasing you agree to those terms.

I think the argument came about regarding what the "default" terms are if none are explicitly stated.

I don't see anything that specifically stated that he is not responsible for shipper action here, but I don't have all the information, other than what was posted. With what I see, I believe that my assumption is accurate and reasonable.

It very well may be, especially if I am incorrect about what "default" legal terms would come into play.