|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 18:15 | | Subject: | Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 332 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
Self-insurance is fine, particularly on smaller orders. But when buyers place
large orders, request and pay extra for insurance, most buyers naturally expect
that insurance to be provided by an actual 3rd party insurance company rather
than the seller. If the seller chooses to self-insure, buyers should at least
know this because it may affect their decision on whether to place an order with
such seller, the size of the order they place and whether they wish to ask the
seller to purchase third party insurance instead (at the buyer's expense).
This has nothing to do with trusting one's seller. It has to do with providing
full disclosure and assurance to buyers that there is sufficient financial backing
and uniform published procedures in place to cover their order if something goes
wrong.
Some buyers won't mind the seller self-insuring. Some buyers prefer that
insurance be provided from an independent professional outside source. Give
this information to buyers and let buyers decide what is best for them.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
Self-insurance is fine, particularly on smaller orders. But when buyers place
large orders, request and pay extra for insurance, most buyers naturally expect
that insurance to be provided by an actual 3rd party insurance company rather
than the seller. If the seller chooses to self-insure, buyers should at least
know this because it may affect their decision on whether to place an order with
such seller, the size of the order they place and whether they wish to ask the
seller to purchase third party insurance instead (at the buyer's expense).
|
No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jenwick | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
Why?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jenwick writes:
| | | | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
Why?
|
It is questionable whether most BL sellers are allowed to sell insurance without
a license. And in the EU, it has been argued that all buyers already have "insurance"
with any order they place with a business seller.
But instead of getting into any legal issues, I would say that it should be removed
simply from a practical standpoint. We are here to sell Lego, not insurance.
There is wide disagreement among users what it means if a buyer does or does
not select the checkbox for insurance when they place an order. Having this option
needlessly complicates things.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=952389
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:13 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, jenwick writes:
| | | | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
Why?
|
It is questionable whether most BL sellers are allowed to sell insurance without
a license. And in the EU, it has been argued that all buyers already have "insurance"
with any order they place with a business seller.
But instead of getting into any legal issues, I would say that it should be removed
simply from a practical standpoint. We are here to sell Lego, not insurance.
There is wide disagreement among users what it means if a buyer does or does
not select the checkbox for insurance when they place an order. Having this option
needlessly complicates things.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=952389
--
Marc.
|
Pay with Paypal. Why would a buyer need insurance?
I can see why a seller wants insurance, but why would a buyer who uses Paypal,
choose for a seller to add insurance to the order?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| |
Pay with Paypal. Why would a buyer need insurance?
I can see why a seller wants insurance, but why would a buyer who uses Paypal,
choose for a seller to add insurance to the order?
|
Whenever I see a buyer treat PayPal as "free insurance", I make a Note on Member
about them to remind myself (a) not to offer them cheaper uninsured shipping
and (b) to include the cost of insurance and tracking in their shipping charge.
The buyer can certainly protect themselves via PayPal if they wish; sellers can
protect themselves via insurance; and sellers can also pass along that extra
costs to buyers who cause them to incur that extra cost. Or the parties can
amicably agree that the buyer will assume the small risk of loss in return for
significant savings on shipping. To each their own.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| |
Pay with Paypal. Why would a buyer need insurance?
I can see why a seller wants insurance, but why would a buyer who uses Paypal,
choose for a seller to add insurance to the order?
|
Whenever I see a buyer treat PayPal as "free insurance", I make a Note on Member
about them to remind myself (a) not to offer them cheaper uninsured shipping
and (b) to include the cost of insurance and tracking in their shipping charge.
The buyer can certainly protect themselves via PayPal if they wish; sellers can
protect themselves via insurance; and sellers can also pass along that extra
costs to buyers who cause them to incur that extra cost. Or the parties can
amicably agree that the buyer will assume the small risk of loss in return for
significant savings on shipping. To each their own.
Thor
|
What if buyer and seller amicably agree that buyer will assume the risk of loss
during shipping and the package does get lost. Buyer runs to paypal to get his
money back and basically screw the seller over. In who's favor would paypal
decide?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| |
Pay with Paypal. Why would a buyer need insurance?
I can see why a seller wants insurance, but why would a buyer who uses Paypal,
choose for a seller to add insurance to the order?
|
Whenever I see a buyer treat PayPal as "free insurance", I make a Note on Member
about them to remind myself (a) not to offer them cheaper uninsured shipping
and (b) to include the cost of insurance and tracking in their shipping charge.
The buyer can certainly protect themselves via PayPal if they wish; sellers can
protect themselves via insurance; and sellers can also pass along that extra
costs to buyers who cause them to incur that extra cost. Or the parties can
amicably agree that the buyer will assume the small risk of loss in return for
significant savings on shipping. To each their own.
Thor
|
What if buyer and seller amicably agree that buyer will assume the risk of loss
during shipping and the package does get lost. Buyer runs to paypal to get his
money back and basically screw the seller over. In who's favor would paypal
decide?
|
The buyer's of course. But just like in any other case where the buyer does
not honor the seller's terms, such buyers can be given non-positive feedback
to warn other sellers and, in some cases, even have an NPB completed against
them. In addition, sellers can make and share Notes on Member regarding such
buyers. Notes that will remind sellers such buyers should not be given this choice
and should instead pay more expensive fully insured shipping rates.
Fortunately, most buyers who make these agreements with sellers will honor them.
Because people are basically decent and their word means something to them.
And because they know that if they are no longer given the option for cheaper
uninsured shipping, they will pay more in the end. Sometimes more than they receive
back from PayPal.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 00:18 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| |
Pay with Paypal. Why would a buyer need insurance?
I can see why a seller wants insurance, but why would a buyer who uses Paypal,
choose for a seller to add insurance to the order?
|
Whenever I see a buyer treat PayPal as "free insurance", I make a Note on Member
about them to remind myself (a) not to offer them cheaper uninsured shipping
and (b) to include the cost of insurance and tracking in their shipping charge.
The buyer can certainly protect themselves via PayPal if they wish; sellers can
protect themselves via insurance; and sellers can also pass along that extra
costs to buyers who cause them to incur that extra cost. Or the parties can
amicably agree that the buyer will assume the small risk of loss in return for
significant savings on shipping. To each their own.
Thor
|
What if buyer and seller amicably agree that buyer will assume the risk of loss
during shipping and the package does get lost. Buyer runs to paypal to get his
money back and basically screw the seller over. In who's favor would paypal
decide?
|
The buyer's of course. But just like in any other case where the buyer does
not honor the seller's terms, such buyers can be given non-positive feedback
to warn other sellers and, in some cases, even have an NPB completed against
them. In addition, sellers can make and share Notes on Member regarding such
buyers. Notes that will remind sellers such buyers should not be given this choice
and should instead pay more expensive fully insured shipping rates.
Fortunately, most buyers who make these agreements with sellers will honor them.
Because people are basically decent and their word means something to them.
And because they know that if they are no longer given the option for cheaper
uninsured shipping, they will pay more in the end. Sometimes more than they receive
back from PayPal.
Thor
|
As if slapping an NPB on a buyer will satisfy the seller who just had a $100
order disappear AND lost the payment for that order.....
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jenwick writes:
| | | | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
Why?
|
My guess is because some believe that every BL seller should effectively self-insure
by remaining liable to the buyer until actual delivery of the order into the
buyer's hands. It is the same old argument that seller disclaimers of liability
for uninsured orders are somehow wrong. And it will effectively remove the ability
of many sellers to offer their buyers much cheaper uninsured shipping.
It is misleading to say that BrickLink sellers should sell only LEGO and that
they should not be in the business of "selling insurance". That argument has
as much sense (lack thereof) as saying that BrickLink sellers should not be in
the business of selling shipping or packaging materials.
Insurance is just as much a legitimate part of orders as is shipping and fees
to cover the costs of packaging materials. Not just on BrickLink, but on a great
many other online retail sites as well.
Nor is it illegal to purchase insurance for your packages from reputable licensed
third party insurers and to pass that cost along to buyers. Millions of businesses
do this quite legally every day.
The legal question would only arise if you hold yourself out as an insurer without
being licensed to do so. Thus, simply purchasing insurance from another reputable
licensed provider violates no laws.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:35 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, jenwick writes:
| | | | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
--
Marc.
|
Why?
|
...
It is misleading to say that BrickLink sellers should sell only LEGO and that
they should not be in the business of "selling insurance". That argument has
as much sense (lack thereof) as saying that BrickLink sellers should not be in
the business of selling shipping or packaging materials.
|
That's actually a perfect analogy. It is true that BL stores should not be
selling packaging materials. They BUY them. They can certainly pass on the costs
of that purchase to their customers, but they should not be in the business of
selling envelopes and plastic baggies on BrickLink.
| | Insurance is just as much a legitimate part of orders as is shipping and fees
to cover the costs of packaging materials. Not just on BrickLink, but on a great
many other online retail sites as well.
Nor is it illegal to purchase insurance for your packages from reputable licensed
third party insurers and to pass that cost along to buyers. Millions of businesses
do this quite legally every day.
|
Clearly, I never said otherwise. Sellers ABSOLUTELY can buy insurance, and they
ABSOLUTELY can pass their costs on to buyers. But they should not be SELLING
insurance.
| | The legal question would only arise if you hold yourself out as an insurer without
being licensed to do so. Thus, simply purchasing insurance from another reputable
licensed provider violates no laws.
|
It is unclear who you are disagreeing with here.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| |
It is misleading to say that BrickLink sellers should sell only LEGO and that
they should not be in the business of "selling insurance". That argument has
as much sense (lack thereof) as saying that BrickLink sellers should not be in
the business of selling shipping or packaging materials.
|
That's actually a perfect analogy. It is true that BL stores should not be
selling packaging materials. They BUY them. They can certainly pass on the costs
of that purchase to their customers, but they should not be in the business of
selling envelopes and plastic baggies on BrickLink.
|
Certainly. That is why there is not one single listing on BrickLink of any seller
selling envelopes or plastic baggies on BrickLink. Sellers treat these costs
the same as shipping - something else which is not sold here on brickLink.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| |
It is misleading to say that BrickLink sellers should sell only LEGO and that
they should not be in the business of "selling insurance". That argument has
as much sense (lack thereof) as saying that BrickLink sellers should not be in
the business of selling shipping or packaging materials.
|
That's actually a perfect analogy. It is true that BL stores should not be
selling packaging materials. They BUY them. They can certainly pass on the costs
of that purchase to their customers, but they should not be in the business of
selling envelopes and plastic baggies on BrickLink.
|
Certainly. That is why there is not one single listing on BrickLink of any seller
selling envelopes or plastic baggies on BrickLink. Sellers treat these costs
the same as shipping - something else which is not sold here on brickLink.
Thor
|
Exactly right. BL stores do not currently sell postage, nor do they sell envelopes.
Which is precisely as it should be. AND this should also be the case with insurance.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
|
Yes, I like this better.
I would add one more thing to Marc's suggestion: if Sellers wish to pass
their cost for 3rd party insurance to the buyers in their shipping rate tables,
that should be a feature in the shipping cost suggestion/methods setup. Has nothing
to do with Buyers wishes, and nothing to do with Checkout options.
-- Cameron
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
|
Yes, I like this better.
I would add one more thing to Marc's suggestion: if Sellers wish to pass
their cost for 3rd party insurance to the buyers in their shipping rate tables,
that should be a feature in the shipping cost suggestion/methods setup. Has nothing
to do with Buyers wishes, and nothing to do with Checkout options.
-- Cameron
|
As a buyer, I do not want sellers to force me to buy insurance, regardless of
whether it is changed separately, as part of shipping or built into their prices.
When dealing with a reputable seller, I am fully willing and able to assume
the small risk of loss during shipment in return for saving money on shipping.
Sometimes saving A LOT on shipping.
I have placed 1372 orders on BrickLink as a buyer. The vast majority of them
were not insured. If I had to pay insurance on all those orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in cumulative additional shipping and insurance charges.
So instead of enriching PayPal and insurance companies, I had $5000 extra I
could use to place even more orders with more BrickLink sellers.
If sellers force me to buy insurance, I will usually shop elsewhere.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | No. BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance at all.
Instead, please remove the option to buy insurance from BL stores.
|
Yes, I like this better.
I would add one more thing to Marc's suggestion: if Sellers wish to pass
their cost for 3rd party insurance to the buyers in their shipping rate tables,
that should be a feature in the shipping cost suggestion/methods setup. Has nothing
to do with Buyers wishes, and nothing to do with Checkout options.
-- Cameron
|
As a buyer, I do not want sellers to force me to buy insurance, regardless of
whether it is changed separately, as part of shipping or built into their prices.
When dealing with a reputable seller, I am fully willing and able to assume
the small risk of loss during shipment in return for saving money on shipping.
Sometimes saving A LOT on shipping.
I have placed 1372 orders on BrickLink as a buyer. The vast majority of them
were not insured. If I had to pay insurance on all those orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in cumulative additional shipping and insurance charges.
So instead of enriching PayPal and insurance companies, I had $5000 extra I
could use to place even more orders with more BrickLink sellers.
If sellers force me to buy insurance, I will usually shop elsewhere.
Thor
|
I don't recall anyone saying that sellers should force buyers to pay for
insurance, so it is unclear who you are disagreeing with here.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:17 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I don't recall anyone saying that sellers should force buyers to pay for
insurance, so it is unclear who you are disagreeing with here.
|
Don't feign ignorance Marc. This is precisely what your suggestion will
do. If sellers can no longer give their buyers the option of insuring their
orders, more sellers will just require everyone to pay for insurance. This is
exactly what is happening in Europe right now. EU law requires most sellers
to guarantee delivery of orders and accept returns, no questions asked. So to
protect themselves, more EU sellers are requiring insurance or more expensive
"registered" mail for orders as little as $20.
I used to buy a lot more from Europe. But for the last few years it has become
increasingly difficult to find EU sellers who do not require insurance even on
small or mid-sized orders. That can increase my buying costs by 10% or more.
The only saving grace to all this is that while US postage costs have been increasing
excessively, some countries in Europe (especially Germany) have actually reduced
postage.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:28 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I don't recall anyone saying that sellers should force buyers to pay for
insurance, so it is unclear who you are disagreeing with here.
|
Don't feign ignorance Marc. This is precisely what your suggestion will
do.
|
Not at all. In my store, I do not require any buyers to pay for insurance. I
have implemented my suggestion my own store, and costs to buyers have not gone
up. So, your statement is demonstrably untrue.
| | If sellers can no longer give their buyers the option of insuring their
orders, more sellers will just require everyone to pay for insurance.
|
If "more sellers" do that, then buyers can simply buy from other people. We are
in a very competitive marketplace. If some sellers that raise their prices as
you describe, they will get fewer customers.
| | This is
exactly what is happening in Europe right now. EU law requires most sellers
to guarantee delivery of orders and accept returns, no questions asked. So to
protect themselves, more EU sellers are requiring insurance or more expensive
"registered" mail for orders as little as $20.
|
Those sellers are allowed to do so. Just as other sellers are allowed not to.
As you have stated many times in other threads, there are plenty of stores to
buy from. So buy from those that meet your needs, and your costs as a buyer
WILL NOT increase.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
Self-insurance is fine, particularly on smaller orders. But when buyers place
large orders, request and pay extra for insurance, most buyers naturally expect
that insurance to be provided by an actual 3rd party insurance company rather
than the seller. If the seller chooses to self-insure, buyers should at least
know this because it may affect their decision on whether to place an order with
such seller, the size of the order they place and whether they wish to ask the
seller to purchase third party insurance instead (at the buyer's expense).
This has nothing to do with trusting one's seller. It has to do with providing
full disclosure and assurance to buyers that there is sufficient financial backing
and uniform published procedures in place to cover their order if something goes
wrong.
Some buyers won't mind the seller self-insuring. Some buyers prefer that
insurance be provided from an independent professional outside source. Give
this information to buyers and let buyers decide what is best for them.
Thor
|
I can see your point in this, but please understand that not ALL postal services
are geared the same way as the US's
Here in the UK, we can purchase "Track and Trace" on top of the normal shipping
cost, and this often enables packages/post get delivered the next day.
The size of the UK enables this to happen, and I am aware that the size of the
US doesn't allow for that service to happen.
Am I right in understanding that the US's postal service provides "Tracking"
on postage bought on-line?
Maybe your suggestion would be amended to be that instead of 'insurance',
the Tracking service should be provided instead?
Paul
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:21 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
Self-insurance is fine, particularly on smaller orders. But when buyers place
large orders, request and pay extra for insurance, most buyers naturally expect
that insurance to be provided by an actual 3rd party insurance company rather
than the seller. If the seller chooses to self-insure, buyers should at least
know this because it may affect their decision on whether to place an order with
such seller, the size of the order they place and whether they wish to ask the
seller to purchase third party insurance instead (at the buyer's expense).
This has nothing to do with trusting one's seller. It has to do with providing
full disclosure and assurance to buyers that there is sufficient financial backing
and uniform published procedures in place to cover their order if something goes
wrong.
Some buyers won't mind the seller self-insuring. Some buyers prefer that
insurance be provided from an independent professional outside source. Give
this information to buyers and let buyers decide what is best for them.
Thor
|
I can see your point in this, but please understand that not ALL postal services
are geared the same way as the US's
Here in the UK, we can purchase "Track and Trace" on top of the normal shipping
cost, and this often enables packages/post get delivered the next day.
The size of the UK enables this to happen, and I am aware that the size of the
US doesn't allow for that service to happen.
Am I right in understanding that the US's postal service provides "Tracking"
on postage bought on-line?
Maybe your suggestion would be amended to be that instead of 'insurance',
the Tracking service should be provided instead?
Paul
|
Hi Paul. Tracking is different and not affected by this suggestion. Nowadays,
almost everything in the USA has tracking. And tracking is being offered on
more international parcels too.
So, to address your concern, this suggestion will not affect your ability to
offer tracking in the UK. That is something completely different.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:01 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | | |
I can see your point in this, but please understand that not ALL postal services
are geared the same way as the US's
Here in the UK, we can purchase "Track and Trace" on top of the normal shipping
cost, and this often enables packages/post get delivered the next day.
The size of the UK enables this to happen, and I am aware that the size of the
US doesn't allow for that service to happen.
Am I right in understanding that the US's postal service provides "Tracking"
on postage bought on-line?
Maybe your suggestion would be amended to be that instead of 'insurance',
the Tracking service should be provided instead?
Paul
|
Hi Paul. Tracking is different and not affected by this suggestion. Nowadays,
almost everything in the USA has tracking. And tracking is being offered on
more international parcels too.
So, to address your concern, this suggestion will not affect your ability to
offer tracking in the UK. That is something completely different.
Thor
|
Right, so if Tracking is now commonplace for most of the US's packages, is
this an extra cost added to the standard shipping cost?
According to the Royal Mail's website, all of the UK's post is automatically
covered to a maximum cost of £20, and the Tracking service that we can buy will
allow it to be increased to £50 (If I am reading this right)
So, why not do-away with the 'insurance' request, and offer the Tracking
option, as I am sure that European postal services don't offer free tracking,
and that is an extra that we have to pay for.
Besides, how the heck are we in the UK, able to find a 3rd party insurer to cover
a package that might not get lost?
(I've never even thought about finding one for myself as I've used the
Royal Mail's service)
Paul
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:20 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| |
Right, so if Tracking is now commonplace for most of the US's packages, is
this an extra cost added to the standard shipping cost?
|
No, tracking is included in the postage we now pay. But with this change came
an increased price to cover the cost of "free" tracking.
| | According to the Royal Mail's website, all of the UK's post is automatically
covered to a maximum cost of £20, and the Tracking service that we can buy will
allow it to be increased to £50 (If I am reading this right)
So, why not do-away with the 'insurance' request, and offer the Tracking
option, as I am sure that European postal services don't offer free tracking,
and that is an extra that we have to pay for.
|
Because tracking and insurance are not the same (at least here in the USA).
It seems that in the UK, insurance is included and bundled together with tracking.
Not so here in the USA.
| |
Besides, how the heck are we in the UK, able to find a 3rd party insurer to cover
a package that might not get lost?
(I've never even thought about finding one for myself as I've used the
Royal Mail's service)
|
Royal Mail *IS* the 3rd party insurer. In this discussion, I use "third party
insurer" to differentiate insurance provided by the carrier and other shipping
insurers from the insurance provided by seller's who self-insure.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 22:50 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| |
Right, so if Tracking is now commonplace for most of the US's packages, is
this an extra cost added to the standard shipping cost?
|
No, tracking is included in the postage we now pay. But with this change came
an increased price to cover the cost of "free" tracking.
| | According to the Royal Mail's website, all of the UK's post is automatically
covered to a maximum cost of £20, and the Tracking service that we can buy will
allow it to be increased to £50 (If I am reading this right)
So, why not do-away with the 'insurance' request, and offer the Tracking
option, as I am sure that European postal services don't offer free tracking,
and that is an extra that we have to pay for.
|
Because tracking and insurance are not the same (at least here in the USA).
It seems that in the UK, insurance is included and bundled together with tracking.
Not so here in the USA.
| |
Besides, how the heck are we in the UK, able to find a 3rd party insurer to cover
a package that might not get lost?
(I've never even thought about finding one for myself as I've used the
Royal Mail's service)
|
Royal Mail *IS* the 3rd party insurer. In this discussion, I use "third party
insurer" to differentiate insurance provided by the carrier and other shipping
insurers from the insurance provided by seller's who self-insure.
Thor
|
Tracking that European post services provide also comes with small insurance
by default, at least for the most part. For example for me tracking that is going
out of Lithuania costs 2.03 EUR and also gives 30 EUR insurance. Within the country
it costs 0,58 EUR. Also just to clarify - if I do not pay for tracking then my
package has NO tracking ID of any kind and is not registered anywhere in any
way, shape or form. And no insurance.
Shipping, tracking and insurance is bought by me from the same provider. Insurance
is also paid out by the same provider *to me*.
By your "logic" of calling the Royal Mail a third party insurer, then Royal Mail
is also a third party shipper.
Interesting.
Also a question. Assuming the scenario above, what is the difference between
"self insurance" and "not self insurance", if the insurance is still paid out
to the one who paid for it (as in BL seller paying for it at the post
office). How does it have anything to do with the probability of BL buyer getting
the money back in case of a lost package? Self or not-self insured, BL buyer
is still at the mercy of BL seller paying-out.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
is an extra that we have to pay for.
| |
Besides, how the heck are we in the UK, able to find a 3rd party insurer to cover
a package that might not get lost?
|
Generally its always an optional extra on the shipping providers price.
But, it is covered by some (not all, it depends on the terms) public/product
liability insurance policies*
G
*incidentally, if your selling LEGO as a business you really should invest in
one of these, when I was trading proper I paid about £20 a year and was covered
for practically everything.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bsohn | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 04:12 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | | |
I can see your point in this, but please understand that not ALL postal services
are geared the same way as the US's
Here in the UK, we can purchase "Track and Trace" on top of the normal shipping
cost, and this often enables packages/post get delivered the next day.
The size of the UK enables this to happen, and I am aware that the size of the
US doesn't allow for that service to happen.
Am I right in understanding that the US's postal service provides "Tracking"
on postage bought on-line?
Maybe your suggestion would be amended to be that instead of 'insurance',
the Tracking service should be provided instead?
Paul
|
|
|
| | | | Hi Paul. Tracking is different and not affected by this suggestion. Nowadays,
almost everything in the USA has tracking. And tracking is being offered on
more international parcels too.
So, to address your concern, this suggestion will not affect your ability to
offer tracking in the UK. That is something completely different.
Thor
|
Right, so if Tracking is now commonplace for most of the US's packages, is
this an extra cost added to the standard shipping cost?
According to the Royal Mail's website, all of the UK's post is automatically
covered to a maximum cost of £20, and the Tracking service that we can buy will
allow it to be increased to £50 (If I am reading this right)
So, why not do-away with the 'insurance' request, and offer the Tracking
option, as I am sure that European postal services don't offer free tracking,
and that is an extra that we have to pay for.
Besides, how the heck are we in the UK, able to find a 3rd party insurer to cover
a package that might not get lost?
(I've never even thought about finding one for myself as I've used the
Royal Mail's service)
Paul
|
Actually with all of the price increases in the US the following has become commonplace.
Priority Mail US Domestic is insured up to $50.00 or $200.00 if priority Mail
is used internationally for most locations. This covers MOST shipments but not
all after that point we can add insurance to cover the remaining value. Tracking
is provided for all "packages" online or retail.
This is actually fairly nice as it allows for us to not have to worry so much
about loss in shipping. I haven't had any issues myself but you never know.
The only thing I don't like is having to quote $50.00 international shipping
when not to long ago the same thing would have been $35.00 but that is what we
get for the USPS including insurance and basically just raising rates as well.
Brion
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ScootersBricks | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:47 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | goshe7 | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 23:05 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Good point. That alone may be a deal-breaker.
A few other thoughts...
As a seller, I look at insurance as protection for me. Like it or not, PayPal
will take care of the buyer. I frequently purchase insurance on my own for orders
whenever I feel it warranted without telling the buyer anything about it. I
probably insure more orders for myself than orders that buyers request. (Although
neither number would come close to describing the majority of my orders).
Identifying if insurance is purchased from a reputable source could also lead
to false confidence for the buyer. The insurance needs to be properly bought
and assigned within the allowable timeframe for it to be effective. If something
goes wrong, I would expect that the "self insuring" seller will be much more
willing to make good on the order (since he has accepted the risk) than the "mistake
making" seller (since he thought he had transferred the risk to someone else).
I frequently use InsurePost as a lower cost alternative to USPS. They sell insurance
in increments of $100. For an order of $110, I will purchase $100 when buying
at my (seller's) choice. If a buyer is requesting insurance, he typically
will not balk at a price of $2.10 rather than $1.05. So I will purchase full
insurance for him (since he paid for it). But I could see where some sellers
would want to offer the cost savings of "self insurance" of a small dollar amount
to supplement the purchased insurance for orders just over an insurance threshold.
Matt
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | MassBricks | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 23:16 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ScootersBricks | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 01:03 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MassBricks | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 15:03 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
Not sure how many times it needs to be said. In terms of shipping, insurance
protects the seller only, and even then only if/when the courier damages or loses
the package. Having a buyer pay for insurance is a scam and nothing will ever
convince me otherwise. The buyer never has a contract with the courier, and if
the seller's contract with the courier fails for whatever reason, the seller
and the courier should always be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the
buyer (who has done sod all wrong).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 15:57 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
Not sure how many times it needs to be said. In terms of shipping, insurance
protects the seller only, and even then only if/when the courier damages or loses
the package. Having a buyer pay for insurance is a scam and nothing will ever
convince me otherwise. The buyer never has a contract with the courier, and if
the seller's contract with the courier fails for whatever reason, the seller
and the courier should always be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the
buyer (who has done sod all wrong).
|
This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
Not sure how many times it needs to be said. In terms of shipping, insurance
protects the seller only, and even then only if/when the courier damages or loses
the package. Having a buyer pay for insurance is a scam and nothing will ever
convince me otherwise. The buyer never has a contract with the courier, and if
the seller's contract with the courier fails for whatever reason, the seller
and the courier should always be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the
buyer (who has done sod all wrong).
|
This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Those are not the only two choices.
You list:
1) sellers insuring all packages
2) sellers letting the buyer choose if they want to add insurance.
What about:
3) sellers only insuring orders that they feel they cannot afford to lose, and
taking the cost of insurance out of their profits on that order.
It causes no additional cost for buyers, yet gives them the same protection as
choosing to add insurance.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| We use that all the time. We insure any package we can't afford to lose.
We sometimes have a lot of inventory so if we can replace it we may not insure
it, but that is usually our choice.
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
Not sure how many times it needs to be said. In terms of shipping, insurance
protects the seller only, and even then only if/when the courier damages or loses
the package. Having a buyer pay for insurance is a scam and nothing will ever
convince me otherwise. The buyer never has a contract with the courier, and if
the seller's contract with the courier fails for whatever reason, the seller
and the courier should always be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the
buyer (who has done sod all wrong).
|
This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Those are not the only two choices.
You list:
1) sellers insuring all packages
2) sellers letting the buyer choose if they want to add insurance.
What about:
3) sellers only insuring orders that they feel they cannot afford to lose, and
taking the cost of insurance out of their profits on that order.
It causes no additional cost for buyers, yet gives them the same protection as
choosing to add insurance.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:18 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | We use that all the time. We insure any package we can't afford to lose.
We sometimes have a lot of inventory so if we can replace it we may not insure
it, but that is usually our choice.
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, ScootersBricks writes:
| | My only fear is that scammers may choose to disproportionately target self-insurers.
Scamming individuals is bad, but scamming the USPS and having the US Postal
Inspector Service on your back is a thing of nightmares, though.
|
Postal insurance is not scam insurance. I see this way too much. If you buy insurance
from the post office, and your buyer decides to make a fraudulent chargeback,
too bad, the insurance does not help you at all.
|
If a US buyer were to defraud me, the first step for me would be to file a police
report, and then forward that to the US postal inspector service. Chances are
they won't do anything, but at the same time, you don't mess with the
USPIS. They make the IRS look like kittens. And a scam like that technically
would be using the US mail to perpetrate fraud over state lines, which opens
up all kinds of fun things for prosecutors to go on.
|
You don't need insurance to file a police report.
|
Not sure how many times it needs to be said. In terms of shipping, insurance
protects the seller only, and even then only if/when the courier damages or loses
the package. Having a buyer pay for insurance is a scam and nothing will ever
convince me otherwise. The buyer never has a contract with the courier, and if
the seller's contract with the courier fails for whatever reason, the seller
and the courier should always be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the
buyer (who has done sod all wrong).
|
This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Those are not the only two choices.
You list:
1) sellers insuring all packages
2) sellers letting the buyer choose if they want to add insurance.
What about:
3) sellers only insuring orders that they feel they cannot afford to lose, and
taking the cost of insurance out of their profits on that order.
It causes no additional cost for buyers, yet gives them the same protection as
choosing to add insurance.
--
Marc.
|
|
Same here. In cases like that I usually add a few lines in the invoice and make
buyers aware that the shipping option they chose offers no insurance or even
no tracking. I give an alternate grand total that includes the extras and then
buyer is free to choose.
If the payment comes with no extras, I may or may not pay for tracking or insurance
on my own.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Speaking as a business in the EU, ensuring that your goods reach your buyer is
a legal requirement. If they don't then you haven't fulfilled your contract
with them. Therefore, isn't offering cheap shipping with a stated - or even
unstated - understanding that the buyer takes the risk their order doesn't
turn up, against the law? Similarly, offering a second shipping option where
the only difference is insurance, a bit of a con? After all, in law they're
already covered by the cheaper shipping.
Like I've said many times, no other serious retailer would say "you can pay
£x for shipping but if it doesn't turn up then tough, or you can pay £x+y
and we'll arrange for insurance." BL may sell a different product but it
isn't immune from the norms of business.
Also, how do you know that the overwhelming majority of BL members prefer this?
Has there been a poll or are you just taking the temperature of the minority
of vocal posters who use the forum?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:27 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Speaking as a business in the EU, ensuring that your goods reach your buyer is
a legal requirement. If they don't then you haven't fulfilled your contract
with them. Therefore, isn't offering cheap shipping with a stated - or even
unstated - understanding that the buyer takes the risk their order doesn't
turn up, against the law? Similarly, offering a second shipping option where
the only difference is insurance, a bit of a con? After all, in law they're
already covered by the cheaper shipping.
Like I've said many times, no other serious retailer would say "you can pay
£x for shipping but if it doesn't turn up then tough, or you can pay £x+y
and we'll arrange for insurance." BL may sell a different product but it
isn't immune from the norms of business.
Also, how do you know that the overwhelming majority of BL members prefer this?
Has there been a poll or are you just taking the temperature of the minority
of vocal posters who use the forum?
|
Or, you can think the reverse.
Shipping + insurance is what you are billed.
If you think the cost of insurance is too high for the risk of that package going
missing, then if YOU had the choice of foregoing the insurance in exchange for
not holding the seller responsible for the delivery.
It's like the work around for paypal, I can't charge you 4% for paypal,
but I can charge everyone 4% and deduct that 4% for non-paypal transactions.
By taking that hard line "It's your job to get it to me", you eliminate the
choice of saving that money.
If you don't want that choice, it's fine.. I do though.
When I buy from US or international stores, my mind set has always been "If I
can't afford this to go missing, I will ask for insurance and tracking"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | Or, you can think the reverse.
Shipping + insurance is what you are billed.
If you think the cost of insurance is too high for the risk of that package going
missing, then if YOU had the choice of foregoing the insurance in exchange for
not holding the seller responsible for the delivery.
|
You could propose that to a business seller in the EU but it doesn't remove
their legal obligation to ensure your order reaches you. If it doesn't, irrespective
of any agreement made, you're entitled to a refund or replacement.
| | If you don't want that choice, it's fine.. I do though.
When I buy from US or international stores, my mind set has always been "If I
can't afford this to go missing, I will ask for insurance and tracking"
|
Seller A has had 1,000 orders with an average value of £40 each. 100 of these
orders had buyers requesting insurance, and a total of £300 was paid at an average
of £3 per order. Only 1 order has ever gone missing. 100 buyers paid a total
of £300 for insurance, but the seller could have stood the cost of replacing
or reimbursing the lost order for £40. This equates to £0.04 on every order.
Play with the figures all you like, but only in the extremes does this work out
seriously detrimental to the seller or all buyers.
This is how it's meant to work. Ensuring your orders arrive is a cost of
being an online trading business in the EU and that cost should be factored into
the running costs, same as public liability insurance and employee costs and
all sorts of other things.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 19:26 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | Or, you can think the reverse.
Shipping + insurance is what you are billed.
If you think the cost of insurance is too high for the risk of that package going
missing, then if YOU had the choice of foregoing the insurance in exchange for
not holding the seller responsible for the delivery.
|
You could propose that to a business seller in the EU but it doesn't remove
their legal obligation to ensure your order reaches you. If it doesn't, irrespective
of any agreement made, you're entitled to a refund or replacement.
| | If you don't want that choice, it's fine.. I do though.
When I buy from US or international stores, my mind set has always been "If I
can't afford this to go missing, I will ask for insurance and tracking"
|
Seller A has had 1,000 orders with an average value of £40 each. 100 of these
orders had buyers requesting insurance, and a total of £300 was paid at an average
of £3 per order. Only 1 order has ever gone missing. 100 buyers paid a total
of £300 for insurance, but the seller could have stood the cost of replacing
or reimbursing the lost order for £40. This equates to £0.04 on every order.
Play with the figures all you like, but only in the extremes does this work out
seriously detrimental to the seller or all buyers.
|
What this sounds like you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but if I
offer the choice of shipping and insurance (as the default), or just shipping
so you can save a bit of money and take the risk, you will
Take the shipping only, but ultimately, if the package doesn't show up, I
have to refund you.
Or would you indeed say "no, that's your job, I'll pay for the shipping
and insurance as is your default"
Certainly someone could say shipping only, and then if things don't go right,
will exercise their rights, but that means they blatantly lied about their intentions.
| |
This is how it's meant to work. Ensuring your orders arrive is a cost of
being an online trading business in the EU and that cost should be factored into
the running costs, same as public liability insurance and employee costs and
all sorts of other things.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 00:50 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | What this sounds like you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but if I
offer the choice of shipping and insurance (as the default), or just shipping
so you can save a bit of money and take the risk, you will
|
I almost certainly wouldn't buy from any store that says anything like "I'm
not responsible for your package once I hand it over to the post office" unless
they were clearly a private seller as opposed to a business.
| | Certainly someone could say shipping only, and then if things don't go right,
will exercise their rights, but that means they blatantly lied about their intentions.
|
So it's okay for a seller to blatantly offer a shipping method that sidesteps
their legal obligations, but not okay for a buyer to expect that they receive
what they actually paid for?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 01:10 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | What this sounds like you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but if I
offer the choice of shipping and insurance (as the default), or just shipping
so you can save a bit of money and take the risk, you will
|
I almost certainly wouldn't buy from any store that says anything like "I'm
not responsible for your package once I hand it over to the post office" unless
they were clearly a private seller as opposed to a business.
|
That is your choice. Thank you for telling us sellers this in advance. I will
make a Note on Member about you reminding me not to offer you cheaper uninsured
shipping and to instead require all your orders to be fully insured and tracked.
I suggest other sellers do the same. 
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 01:29 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | That is your choice. Thank you for telling us sellers this in advance. I will
make a Note on Member about you reminding me not to offer you cheaper uninsured
shipping and to instead require all your orders to be fully insured and tracked.
I suggest other sellers do the same.
Thor
|
I would say that's the very definition of wasting time. After all, as you
often tell us, you don't even sell Lego. Even if you did, the chances of
me ever buying from you lies somewhere in the region between 'slim' and
'none'.
Every time the insurance debate crops up several sellers add me to their stop
lists. I couldn't care less, it says everything I need to know about those
stores. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | That is your choice. Thank you for telling us sellers this in advance. I will
make a Note on Member about you reminding me not to offer you cheaper uninsured
shipping and to instead require all your orders to be fully insured and tracked.
I suggest other sellers do the same.
Thor
|
I would say that's the very definition of wasting time. After all, as you
often tell us, you don't even sell Lego. Even if you did, the chances of
me ever buying from you lies somewhere in the region between 'slim' and
'none'.
Every time the insurance debate crops up several sellers add me to their stop
lists. I couldn't care less, it says everything I need to know about those
stores.
|
Great for them! But you have no idea how many sellers are making a Note on
Member about you and will henceforth insist upon insurance and tracking with
your orders. I have made such a Note about you, shared that Note with other
sellers, and have encouraged other sellers to do the same. Several dozen sellers
have contacted me to say they are very appreciative and supportive of sharing
these Notes. And while I no longer currently sell here, I may do so again from
time to time in the future.
It is not punishment. It is simply giving you the guaranteed delivery service
you want and vehemently insist upon (which is your right). You just have to
pay for the level of service you want. It is good customer service. You have
stated that is is wrong for sellers to even ask you or give you this choice,
so I and others have decided not to risk upsetting or offending you by giving
you this choice. Instead, we will make sure your orders are guaranteed to reach
your hands and will simply pass along whatever shipping and other costs are necessary
to provide you with that level of shipping.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 07:18 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Great for them! But you have no idea how many sellers are making a Note on
Member about you and will henceforth insist upon insurance and tracking with
your orders. [and other "I'm a big shot and my opinion matters" nonsense]
|
Sounds like you're doing me a great service. Thanks.
| | It is not punishment. It is simply giving you the guaranteed delivery service
you want [and other nonsense]
|
Yeah, BAD ME for wanting to receive what I pay for. I'M A NAUGHTY BOY. I
MUST BE PUNISHED!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Great for them! But you have no idea how many sellers are making a Note on
Member about you and will henceforth insist upon insurance and tracking with
your orders. [and other "I'm a big shot and my opinion matters" nonsense]
|
Sounds like you're doing me a great service. Thanks.
|
You are welcome.
| |
| | It is not punishment. It is simply giving you the guaranteed delivery service
you want [and other nonsense]
|
Yeah, BAD ME for wanting to receive what I pay for. I'M A NAUGHTY BOY. I
MUST BE PUNISHED!
|
You are not bad at all. Nor are you being punished.
As a buyer, you have every right to keep and use your PayPal and legal rights,
and not be faulted or punished for such. I appreciate you letting us all know
this in advance. What I don't appreciate are buyers who agree to waive those
rights and then exercise them anyway. You are at least honest enough to say
you cannot agree to waive those rights. And for that you should be commended.
These Notes on Member are not a stoplist or any form of punishment. On the contrary,
they merely remind sellers to give you precisely the level of service you demand.
You have indicated you will NOT accept the small of loss during shipment and
that your sellers must alone bear this risk, as per EU law and PayPal's terms.
I and many other sellers are quite happy and able to provide this service.
All we ask are that buyers let us know this is what they want and that they pay
for it.
You have also indicated that you do not think kindly of sellers who give you
a choice, as you clearly have already made your choice. As such, these Notes
also remind sellers not to risk offending you by giving you this choice. It
is just good customer service to avoid asking you things that might offend you
or make you think less about your sellers.
With the above in mind, I do not understand why you or anyone else would object
to being on any list that reminds sellers to give you exactly the level of shipping
service you want. Unless you have a problem paying for that service? Or unless
you feel that other buyers who don't want that level of service should subsidize
the costs of providing you the specific service YOU want?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 07:49 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | As a buyer, you have every right to keep and use your PayPal and legal rights,
and not be faulted or punished for such.
|
I'm glad you agree.
|
We never disagreed on this point.
| |
| | You have indicated you will NOT accept the small of loss during shipment and
that your sellers must alone bear this risk, as per EU law and PayPal's terms.
|
Did I? Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, should I also notify every other online
retailer that I expect them to uphold my legally-granted consumer rights if and
when things go wrong? Or will you also do that for me?
|
Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
| |
| | You have also indicated that you do not think kindly of sellers who give you
a choice.
|
Not really, though I believe it doesn't look too good on an EU business seller
when they try and evade or avoid their legal obligations, or otherwise try to
cajole other users into allowing them to do so by offering discriminating levels
of service. It may also be illegal, though you being the international legal
expert will be able to tell us for sure.
|
Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices. But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
| |
| | these Notes [...and other nonsense]
|
...appear to serve a public service, in that they group all sellers who share
your view of online retail into a nice group who - thankfully - apparently self-exclude
themselves from dealing with people who know about consumer rights. Truly excellent
news, and all I had to do to be included was have a different opinion to you.
|
The fact that our opinions differ has nothing to do with the matter. You are
fully entitled to your opinion and I respect it. Thus, I made a Note on Member
to help make sure I always respect your opinion. A Note I share with dozens
of other sellers who only want to give their customers the service they want.
| | | | also remind sellers not to risk offending you by giving you this choice. It
is just good customer service to avoid asking you things that might offend you
or make you think less about your sellers.
|
I wouldn't be offended. I'd simply shop elsewhere. I'd also be happy
to take the risk, as I have many times, if it's a private seller I'm
dealing with. But of course, you've interpreted and transposed an isolated
stated opinion across all possible scenarios, and have seemingly chosen to spread
your badly-extrapolated suppositions with other sellers. I'd suggest that
was a downright #@!&#! thing to do. But hey ho, if your disciples choose to believe
your word as gospel, who I am to question it? As I said, it saves me the slim
chance of having a bad experience.
|
I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
| |
| | With the above in mind, I do not understand why you or anyone else would object
to being on any list that reminds sellers to give you exactly the level of shipping
service you want.
|
| | Unless you have a problem paying for that service?
|
No problem at all. I pay for the service every time I shop online. Except perhaps
at Bricklink because some sellers choose to be selective about whether or not
they believe they're responsible for consumer law obligations.
|
I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 08:20 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert. That's the only claim I've ever made though
you seem to make plenty on my behalf.
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
| | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 08:32 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
|
They are not "selling" anything. They are simply agreeing not to exercise certain
rights in return for getting something else of greater value to them. Quid pro
quo. It happens all the time in life and it is entirely legal and ethical.
| |
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert.
|
Of course you are! Good for you.
| |
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
|
Everything in life is a gamble. And this particular sort of "gambling" is not
illegal or unethical. Everyone is fully entitled to decide for themselves what
risks they wish to take.
| |
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
|
Exactly! If you don't want to risk losing your luggage, don't buy a
cheap ticket that includes that sort of disclaimer. But if you do, then don't
whine about something you agreed to. Very simple.
| |
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
|
Awww shucks, you got me there.
| | | | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
I never said that consumer rights are optional. I said only that every person
has the right to decide for themselves what rights they wish to exercise or not.
There is no right that anyone MUST exercise. That is left to individual choice.
Whatever the buyer decides, the seller will then act accordingly to honor the
buyer's choice.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 08:40 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
|
They are not "selling" anything. They are simply agreeing not to exercise certain
rights in return for getting something else of greater value to them. Quid pro
quo. It happens all the time in life and it is entirely legal and ethical.
| |
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert.
|
Of course you are! Good for you.
| |
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
|
Everything in life is a gamble. And this particular sort of "gambling" is not
illegal or unethical. Everyone is fully entitled to decide for themselves what
risks they wish to take.
| |
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
|
Exactly! If you don't want to risk losing your luggage, don't buy a
cheap ticket that includes that sort of disclaimer. But if you do, then don't
whine about something you agreed to. Very simple.
| |
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
|
Awww shucks, you got me there.
| | | | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
I never said that consumer rights are optional. I said only that every person
has the right to decide for themselves what rights they wish to exercise or not.
There is no right that anyone MUST exercise. That is left to individual choice.
Whatever the buyer decides, the seller will then act accordingly to honor the
buyer's choice.
Thor
|
IMO the problem here is EU vs USA.
BL was created in USA and before most of the laws that now relate to online trading
in EU.
The issue here is not that a buyer in EU cannot choose not to exercise his right,
of course he could do. The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service. The "insurance" box on BL is not really aligned
with EU trading law in the way that many sellers over here try to use it (which
might well be OK in the USA).
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service.
|
I understand EU laws may have stronger buyer protection rights than in the USA.
But could you please cite the specific EU law that states it is illegal for a
"trader" to even *OFFER* such an option, or for a buyer to choose not to exercise
their rights. Thank you.
I would just like to read that particular law myself. So I can better appreciate
the freedoms of contract and choice I have in my own country.
Maybe EU sellers can just say: "We fully comply with all consumer protection
laws. However, if you (the buyer) wish to offer not to exercise certain of your
rights, we will consider accommodating your request by, among other things, purchasing
less expensive shipping." Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sarbaek | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service.
|
I understand EU laws may have stronger buyer protection rights than in the USA.
But could you please cite the specific EU law that states it is illegal for a
"trader" to even *OFFER* such an option, or for a buyer to choose not to exercise
their rights. Thank you.
I would just like to read that particular law myself. So I can better appreciate
the freedoms of contract and choice I have in my own country.
Maybe EU sellers can just say: "We fully comply with all consumer protection
laws. However, if you (the buyer) wish to offer not to exercise certain of your
rights, we will consider accommodating your request by, among other things, purchasing
less expensive shipping." Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
Thor
|
I highly doubt it's illegal, but in some countries (Denmark for instance),
such a contract would not be legally binding.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:34 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | […]
Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
|
And ain’t that a nice piece of lawyering?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:36 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service.
|
I understand EU laws may have stronger buyer protection rights than in the USA.
But could you please cite the specific EU law that states it is illegal for a
"trader" to even *OFFER* such an option, or for a buyer to choose not to exercise
their rights. Thank you.
|
Distance Selling Regs 2006, subsequently amended (I believe) cover the 1st part
but I don't think there is any law to cover the 2nd bit i.e. no law "forces"
a buyer to use his rights.
| | I would just like to read that particular law myself. So I can better appreciate
the freedoms of contract and choice I have in my own country.
|
I don't think it applies to your country but the key element of it is that
the goods are specifically the responsibility of the seller until they are accepted
by the buyer and the seller is not allowed to contract out of that responsibility.
| | Maybe EU sellers can just say: "We fully comply with all consumer protection
laws. However, if you (the buyer) wish to offer not to exercise certain of your
rights, we will consider accommodating your request by, among other things, purchasing
less expensive shipping." Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
|
No, that contract would be thrown out of any court here. If you make such a contract
the law will not uphold it for you if the buyer does not fulfil his side of what
would be an illegal contract. In saying that you actually would be offering such
a contract to exist which, once it did exist would be an illegal one. You and
the buyer could make a "gentleman's" agreement but if it went wrong you could
not expect any support by law in anyway, you as the seller are in effect always
taking the risk if you do that and the buyer defaults on it (here that is).
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Maybe it's just me but the whole argument is really based on 2 things.
1 The buyer in any instance when purchasing an item is guaranteed to receive
the item. They are already insured by law and by almost every CC known to man
and that includes PP.
2 Offering the buyer insurance that they already have is really only insurance
for the seller. It can be stated a million different ways but in the end that
is what it is. I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
Telling a buyer you can ship it cheaper if they wave the right of loss? Yeah
that will hold up well in a legal argument but what do I know.
In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service.
|
I understand EU laws may have stronger buyer protection rights than in the USA.
But could you please cite the specific EU law that states it is illegal for a
"trader" to even *OFFER* such an option, or for a buyer to choose not to exercise
their rights. Thank you.
|
Distance Selling Regs 2006, subsequently amended (I believe) cover the 1st part
but I don't think there is any law to cover the 2nd bit i.e. no law "forces"
a buyer to use his rights.
| | I would just like to read that particular law myself. So I can better appreciate
the freedoms of contract and choice I have in my own country.
|
I don't think it applies to your country but the key element of it is that
the goods are specifically the responsibility of the seller until they are accepted
by the buyer and the seller is not allowed to contract out of that responsibility.
| | Maybe EU sellers can just say: "We fully comply with all consumer protection
laws. However, if you (the buyer) wish to offer not to exercise certain of your
rights, we will consider accommodating your request by, among other things, purchasing
less expensive shipping." Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
|
No, that contract would be thrown out of any court here. If you make such a contract
the law will not uphold it for you if the buyer does not fulfil his side of what
would be an illegal contract. In saying that you actually would be offering such
a contract to exist which, once it did exist would be an illegal one. You and
the buyer could make a "gentleman's" agreement but if it went wrong you could
not expect any support by law in anyway, you as the seller are in effect always
taking the risk if you do that and the buyer defaults on it (here that is).
Robert
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
|
Hogwash! You treat it as a cost of doing business. And EVERY cost of doing
business is factored into prices and, therefore, charged to buyers. EVERY cost
of doing business affects the bottom line. And if you are a for-profit business,
you have to account for ALL costs. You may not separately itemize or charge
for it, but buyers are certainly paying for it. At least if you run your business
for profit.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
|
Hogwash! You treat it as a cost of doing business. And EVERY cost of doing
business is factored into prices and, therefore, charged to buyers. EVERY cost
of doing business affects the bottom line. And if you are a for-profit business,
you have to account for ALL costs. You may not separately itemize or charge
for it, but buyers are certainly paying for it. At least if you run your business
for profit.
Thor
|
No, it can simply lower the profit, it doesn't need to be "factored into
prices".
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
|
Hogwash! You treat it as a cost of doing business. And EVERY cost of doing
business is factored into prices and, therefore, charged to buyers. EVERY cost
of doing business affects the bottom line. And if you are a for-profit business,
you have to account for ALL costs. You may not separately itemize or charge
for it, but buyers are certainly paying for it. At least if you run your business
for profit.
Thor
|
No, it can simply lower the profit, it doesn't need to be "factored into
prices".
|
"Lowering the profit" = "affecting the bottom line". And as far as any for-profit
business is concerned, the bottom line certainly affects prices.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
|
Hogwash! You treat it as a cost of doing business. And EVERY cost of doing
business is factored into prices and, therefore, charged to buyers. EVERY cost
of doing business affects the bottom line. And if you are a for-profit business,
you have to account for ALL costs. You may not separately itemize or charge
for it, but buyers are certainly paying for it. At least if you run your business
for profit.
Thor
|
No, it can simply lower the profit, it doesn't need to be "factored into
prices".
|
"Lowering the profit" = "affecting the bottom line". And as far as any for-profit
business is concerned, the bottom line certainly affects prices.
Thor
|
No, it doesn't "certainly affect prices".
You feel that it SHOULD, but businesses are not required to run the way that
you feel they should. Businesses can accept lower profits from time to time without
needing to raise their prices.
So, when you write:
"the bottom line certainly affects prices"
and
"EVERY cost of doing business is factored into prices"
and
"but buyers are certainly paying for it"
you are simply incorrect.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:10 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | I have changed my views on this from the past and we now are only
insuring packages that "WE" can't afford to lose and we do not charge for
that service.
|
Hogwash! You treat it as a cost of doing business. And EVERY cost of doing
business is factored into prices and, therefore, charged to buyers. EVERY cost
of doing business affects the bottom line. And if you are a for-profit business,
you have to account for ALL costs. You may not separately itemize or charge
for it, but buyers are certainly paying for it. At least if you run your business
for profit.
Thor
|
No, it can simply lower the profit, it doesn't need to be "factored into
prices".
|
"Lowering the profit" = "affecting the bottom line". And as far as any for-profit
business is concerned, the bottom line certainly affects prices.
Thor
|
No, it doesn't "certainly affect prices".
You feel that it SHOULD, but businesses are not required to run the way that
you feel they should. Businesses can accept lower profits from time to time without
needing to raise their prices.
So, when you write:
"the bottom line certainly affects prices"
and
"EVERY cost of doing business is factored into prices"
and
"but buyers are certainly paying for it"
you are simply incorrect.
--
Marc.
|
When I was a seller (never by, only sell) if I felt I did not want to take the
risk of an order going awry I would insure it myself if the buyer did not. If
it was a under that threshold I would not and except the chance. Only four times
here and eBay have packages gone missing. I know a couple were the buyers making
up the claim. If sellers' life style would change by paying for insures
here and there, they might look for a better way to earn an income or extra money.
Just my two cents (not insured.)
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Maybe EU sellers can just say: "We fully comply with all consumer protection
laws. However, if you (the buyer) wish to offer not to exercise certain of your
rights, we will consider accommodating your request by, among other things, purchasing
less expensive shipping." Here, the seller is not "offering" anything. Instead,
they are inviting buyers to make such offers. Is it also illegal in the EU for
BUYERS to offer not to exercise certain rights?
Thor
|
You claim to be a legal expert, then commit the faux pas of making a statement
that might not necessarily have any legal grounds anyway.
There is a legal ground lawyers use in such cases as you cite above:
"Just because something is not illegal to do does not necessarily mean it is
legal to do so."
In other words if anyone calls you out by suing you, hire yourself a lawyer to
cover your own mistakes!
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| |
IMO the problem here is EU vs USA.
BL was created in USA and before most of the laws that now relate to online trading
in EU.
The issue here is not that a buyer in EU cannot choose not to exercise his right,
of course he could do. The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service. The "insurance" box on BL is not really aligned
with EU trading law in the way that many sellers over here try to use it (which
might well be OK in the USA).
Robert
|
So, if I am buying from you, you can't even offer me to waive more expensive
shipping in exchange for me not holding you responsible for something not arriving?
Can you accept if I propose it?
All I know, is if I were to require insurance and tracking on all my order, I'd
lose a significant portion of my sales
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:09 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| |
All I know, is if I were to require insurance and tracking on all my order, I'd
lose a significant portion of my sales
|
I think that is true for everyone.
But there seems to be an implication that if the seller is responsible for undelivered
orders, then they will be required to add insurance and tracking on all their
orders. That simply isn't the case. Some sellers may choose to do so, but
it would not be a requirement.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| |
All I know, is if I were to require insurance and tracking on all my order, I'd
lose a significant portion of my sales
|
I think that is true for everyone.
But there seems to be an implication that if the seller is responsible for undelivered
orders, then they will be required to add insurance and tracking on all their
orders. That simply isn't the case. Some sellers may choose to do so, but
it would not be a requirement.
--
Marc.
|
I totally agree,
You have to weigh the odds of a lost order vs the cost to insure it and then
again the cost of putting that weight on the buyer vs potentially losing the
sale.
I have never said to a customer, you are stuck if it doesn't arrive because
I didn't make you put insurance on it.
Although, when these discussions do come up, it gives me a few names to say "just
add insurance to their order" (unless it's a light/small packet)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:28 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | […]
IMO the problem here is EU vs USA.
|
Obviously.
| | BL was created in USA and before most of the laws that now relate to online trading
in EU.
|
EU-level laws maybe; country-level laws, no way.
EU laws are just a rewriting and harmonizing of country-level laws.
Online consumer protection is just a part of consumer protection. Contrarily
to what some claim, adding “online” to something doesn’t make it all new. Mail
order predates the birth of any BLer’s great-grand-dad.
| | The issue here is not that a buyer in EU cannot choose not to exercise his right,
of course he could do. The issue is that it is illegal for a "trader" (one who
regularly buys goods with the intent to resell) to offer such a waiver of rights
in exchange for a cheaper service. The "insurance" box on BL is not really aligned
with EU trading law in the way that many sellers over here try to use it (which
might well be OK in the USA).
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 08:58 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | [a load of argumentative poppycock]
|
Okay. You win
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sarbaek | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 09:35 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
|
They are not "selling" anything. They are simply agreeing not to exercise certain
rights in return for getting something else of greater value to them. Quid pro
quo. It happens all the time in life and it is entirely legal and ethical.
| |
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert.
|
Of course you are! Good for you.
| |
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
|
Everything in life is a gamble. And this particular sort of "gambling" is not
illegal or unethical. Everyone is fully entitled to decide for themselves what
risks they wish to take.
| |
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
|
Exactly! If you don't want to risk losing your luggage, don't buy a
cheap ticket that includes that sort of disclaimer. But if you do, then don't
whine about something you agreed to. Very simple.
| |
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
|
Awww shucks, you got me there.
| | | | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
I never said that consumer rights are optional. I said only that every person
has the right to decide for themselves what rights they wish to exercise or not.
There is no right that anyone MUST exercise. That is left to individual choice.
Whatever the buyer decides, the seller will then act accordingly to honor the
buyer's choice.
Thor
|
In Denmark it's not possible to waive your rights. Any terms and condition
that stipulate this are void according to danish law.
In this discussion it also seems that there's an equality operator between
"ensuring delivery" and "tracking and insurance". I don't see this as the
absolute truth and if a store does this I don't think that this store will
get a lot of orders. From where does this assumption originate? To me it seems
flawed to have this discussion under those assumptions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, sarbaek writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
|
They are not "selling" anything. They are simply agreeing not to exercise certain
rights in return for getting something else of greater value to them. Quid pro
quo. It happens all the time in life and it is entirely legal and ethical.
| |
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert.
|
Of course you are! Good for you.
| |
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
|
Everything in life is a gamble. And this particular sort of "gambling" is not
illegal or unethical. Everyone is fully entitled to decide for themselves what
risks they wish to take.
| |
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
|
Exactly! If you don't want to risk losing your luggage, don't buy a
cheap ticket that includes that sort of disclaimer. But if you do, then don't
whine about something you agreed to. Very simple.
| |
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
|
Awww shucks, you got me there.
| | | | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
I never said that consumer rights are optional. I said only that every person
has the right to decide for themselves what rights they wish to exercise or not.
There is no right that anyone MUST exercise. That is left to individual choice.
Whatever the buyer decides, the seller will then act accordingly to honor the
buyer's choice.
Thor
|
In Denmark it's not possible to waive your rights. Any terms and condition
that stipulate this are void according to danish law.
|
Either you are not quite understanding what Thor is saying, or you have some
really odd law.
He is not saying that the seller can MAKE you waive your rights, he is saying
enacting your rights is a choice the buyer makes.
Let me give you a scenario
You have an order from me, I say "Shipping is $8, but insurance is another $10,
if you want me to be on the hook for it not getting there"
You say "No, I am sure it will arrive, I'll take the $8"
I mail it and it doesn't arrive.
Now, you have the RIGHT to file a complaint (in this case through paypal) and
even though you said you would take responsibility for the shipping to save the
$10, I can't stop you from doing so.
Scenario 1)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, recalling our discussion and thereby NOT using
your rights
Scenario 2)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, but the law intervenes and forces you to.
A police office shows up at your house and says "listen, this is your right and
you can not waive them, initiate a complain with paypal or we will take you to
jail and charge you"
Now, the way you've responded, it sounds like 2) is in play, but I think
you may have meant to say that (in this case) "I" (the seller) can't make
you live up to your agreement
and that would be true, but if you are going to say one thing and do another,
well, then that's who you are.
| |
In this discussion it also seems that there's an equality operator between
"ensuring delivery" and "tracking and insurance". I don't see this as the
absolute truth and if a store does this I don't think that this store will
get a lot of orders. From where does this assumption originate? To me it seems
flawed to have this discussion under those assumptions.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:17 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
Agree completely. Every buyer is personally allowed to waive their consumer rights.
I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. What's in question is whether
it's fair, moral and/or legal for an EU-based business seller to solicit
such a scenario by offering cheaper shipping if a buyer does waive them.
Consumer rights are central to the EEA. There is an over-arching requirement
that all EU directives take account of consumer protection where relevant. This
is achieved directly via the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EC), and indirectly
via many other directives, including those dealing with unfair commercial practices
and consumer contract law, such as misleading advertising and unfair contract
terms.
It is not possible to state with any certainty whether it is illegal to solicit
the waiver of consumer rights, as EU directives are transposed by member states
in an inexact way, but given what others have said here, and in similar debates
elsewhere on BO and BS, such contractual terms would be declared void.
There are two ways for EU businesses to deal with the cost of lost or damaged
parcels. If they treat it as a central business cost and opt to self-insure the
'1 in 1,000' that goes wrong, chances are it works out at around 0.1%
of turnover. For increased certainty they could otherwise choose to purchase
insurance on a global or per-order basis, or select a public liability insurance
policy that also covers lost or damaged shipments (I had no idea this was even
possible but someone else mentioned it earlier).
They could also deal with it as a per-order cost, where buyers can opt in or
out. In this case those buyers who opt in but receive their order, and those
who opt out and don't receive it, are paying a disproportionate amount of
covering this particular business cost. You might argue that's fair and reasonable,
but this requires that those customers are asked to waive their normal consumer
rights. Because the business has chosen not to treat the cost of dealing with
lost and damaged parcels as a business cost, the same as rent, light, employee
costs, etc., presumably so that those customers who are able and/or willing to
'take the risk' are rewarded with cheaper shipping. Contrary to pretty
much every other retailer operating in the EU.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:28 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I needed a few small pieces to finish Cafe Corner from a EU seller who required
insurance.
Shipping went up 3x (if I recall) because the package was so light, relative
to the value.
I really want that choice and I want people to trust me when I say "if it doesn't
show up, I will not come knocking on your door saying give me my money back"
I know I can lie and say that I won't and still do it and they can't
do anything about it, but (as they say) once you start down that dark path, forever
will it control your destiny. But if 10 euro in parts cost me 12 euro to get,
rather than 4 euro, I think I am grown up enough to weigh those consequences.
In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
Agree completely. Every buyer is personally allowed to waive their consumer rights.
I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. What's in question is whether
it's fair, moral and/or legal for an EU-based business seller to solicit
such a scenario by offering cheaper shipping if a buyer does waive them.
Consumer rights are central to the EEA. There is an over-arching requirement
that all EU directives take account of consumer protection where relevant. This
is achieved directly via the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EC), and indirectly
via many other directives, including those dealing with unfair commercial practices
and consumer contract law, such as misleading advertising and unfair contract
terms.
It is not possible to state with any certainty whether it is illegal to solicit
the waiver of consumer rights, as EU directives are transposed by member states
in an inexact way, but given what others have said here, and in similar debates
elsewhere on BO and BS, such contractual terms would be declared void.
There are two ways for EU businesses to deal with the cost of lost or damaged
parcels. If they treat it as a central business cost and opt to self-insure the
'1 in 1,000' that goes wrong, chances are it works out at around 0.1%
of turnover. For increased certainty they could otherwise choose to purchase
insurance on a global or per-order basis, or select a public liability insurance
policy that also covers lost or damaged shipments (I had no idea this was even
possible but someone else mentioned it earlier).
They could also deal with it as a per-order cost, where buyers can opt in or
out. In this case those buyers who opt in but receive their order, and those
who opt out and don't receive it, are paying a disproportionate amount of
covering this particular business cost. You might argue that's fair and reasonable,
but this requires that those customers are asked to waive their normal consumer
rights. Because the business has chosen not to treat the cost of dealing with
lost and damaged parcels as a business cost, the same as rent, light, employee
costs, etc., presumably so that those customers who are able and/or willing to
'take the risk' are rewarded with cheaper shipping. Contrary to pretty
much every other retailer operating in the EU.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
Agree completely. Every buyer is personally allowed to waive their consumer rights.
|
Awesome!
| |
It is not possible to state with any certainty whether it is illegal to solicit
the waiver of consumer rights,
|
And yet that is precisely what you do in your very next sentence:
| | but ... such contractual terms would be declared void.
|
| | Because the business has chosen not to treat the cost of dealing with
lost and damaged parcels as a business cost, the same as rent, light, employee
costs, etc., presumably so that those customers who are able and/or willing to
'take the risk' are rewarded with cheaper shipping.
|
What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
Hi Robert. Thanks for being such a good sport in how you responded to my comment.
I really enjoy the friendly banter Brits and Americans get themselves into once
in awhile. It is a toss-up with Canada as to whom we Americans respect and admire
more, and consider our closest international ally and friend.
There are good and bad things about every place. Having visited the UK, France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland several times, I can say I thoroughly enjoyed
myself in all those countries and learned a lot of great things about them and
their people. One of the most enjoyable experiences in my life was taking two
Slovenian clients into a local London pub and mixing it up with the locals.
Boy did we all get plastered!
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
Hi Robert. Thanks for being such a good sport in how you responded to my comment.
I really enjoy the friendly banter Brits and Americans get themselves into once
in awhile. It is a toss-up with Canada as to whom we Americans respect and admire
more, and consider our closest international ally and friend.
There are good and bad things about every place. Having visited the UK, France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland several times, I can say I thoroughly enjoyed
myself in all those countries and learned a lot of great things about them and
their people. One of the most enjoyable experiences in my life was taking two
Slovenian clients into a local London pub and mixing it up with the locals.
Boy did we all get plastered!
Thor
|
Cheers Thor!
Me too, no serious debate can take place without sometimes...well a debate
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:11 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
Hi Robert. Thanks for being such a good sport in how you responded to my comment.
I really enjoy the friendly banter Brits and Americans get themselves into once
in awhile. It is a toss-up with Canada as to whom we Americans respect and admire
more, and consider our closest international ally and friend.
|
Four words..
Worlds longest undefended border...
I think there's even a gas station in (very) upstate NY where the gas station
is in the US (and thus US prices) and the driveway (to that same gas station)
is in Canada.
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
| |
There are good and bad things about every place. Having visited the UK, France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland several times, I can say I thoroughly enjoyed
myself in all those countries and learned a lot of great things about them and
their people. One of the most enjoyable experiences in my life was taking two
Slovenian clients into a local London pub and mixing it up with the locals.
Boy did we all get plastered!
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
Hi Robert. Thanks for being such a good sport in how you responded to my comment.
I really enjoy the friendly banter Brits and Americans get themselves into once
in awhile. It is a toss-up with Canada as to whom we Americans respect and admire
more, and consider our closest international ally and friend.
|
Four words..
Worlds longest undefended border...
I think there's even a gas station in (very) upstate NY where the gas station
is in the US (and thus US prices) and the driveway (to that same gas station)
is in Canada.
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
When I lived in Japan I was a member of an expat club that had a lot of British
members. Every year they - along with the Canadians and Aussies - made a big
celebration out of the Queen's birthday. As honorary legal counsel for the
British Consulate, my boss and I were invited every year. As if we all needed
yet another excuse to drink. Good times!
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | […]
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
I thought you were supposed to lick the other side….
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | […]
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
I thought you were supposed to lick the other side….
|
We don't lick her anymore, she's been replaced by "faceless" RM shipping
labels that don't have the queen on them 
Robert
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | […]
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
I thought you were supposed to lick the other side….
|
We don't lick her anymore, she's been replaced by "faceless" RM shipping
labels that don't have the queen on them
Robert
|
You can still use ones where the Queen has a sticky backside.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 16:50 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
the Queen has a sticky backside.
|
Beware you’re going from lick-majesté to lèse-majesté
(works even better in French: lèche = lick but also flatter(y), and sounds very
near lèse (sh/z))
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| |
the Queen has a sticky backside.
|
That might explain why she doesn't walk very far these days
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | […]
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
I thought you were supposed to lick the other side….
|
We don't lick her anymore, she's been replaced by "faceless" RM shipping
labels that don't have the queen on them
|
Oooh. The bucket woman would not approve.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | […]
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
|
I thought you were supposed to lick the other side….
|
That must be why no one writes back..
Thanks
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sarbaek | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | What a nice example of the "nanny-state" approach to Business 101. Thank goodness
I live in a place where people still have relative freedom of choice and contract,
and the ability to accept responsibility for their own actions and wants.
Thor
|
... nobody in this debate is stating whether they vote for that stuff of not,
just discussing its existence, like the other old chestnut VAT
BTW, you might find this addition to the debate interesting:
All that consumer rights stuff applies to consumer transactions (well obviously)
but many buyers here are actually acting as businesses too.. if they have their
own BL store or sell Lego on eBay or whatever so you could... declare many of
the transactions here as "business to business", create your own commercial terms
to agree with the buyer and those laws will not apply as long as you as the seller
haven't "misrepresented the buyer as a business" to achieve the result. Now
that is a contract you could take to court if the buyer then broke the terms
and made a Paypal claim for example.. only catch is, you know how much business
disputes can cost in time and money... and all over a relatively small payment
over a Lego dispute? You can make your own decision on where is best to live
but I personally wouldn't move across the pond "just" for that reason, although
your country has its attractions I admit.
Robert
|
Hi Robert. Thanks for being such a good sport in how you responded to my comment.
I really enjoy the friendly banter Brits and Americans get themselves into once
in awhile. It is a toss-up with Canada as to whom we Americans respect and admire
more, and consider our closest international ally and friend.
|
Four words..
Worlds longest undefended border...
I think there's even a gas station in (very) upstate NY where the gas station
is in the US (and thus US prices) and the driveway (to that same gas station)
is in Canada.
That being said, the Queen is still our official head of state and when we
mail letters, we lick her head..
| |
There are good and bad things about every place. Having visited the UK, France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland several times, I can say I thoroughly enjoyed
myself in all those countries and learned a lot of great things about them and
their people. One of the most enjoyable experiences in my life was taking two
Slovenian clients into a local London pub and mixing it up with the locals.
Boy did we all get plastered!
Thor
|
|
The danes and canadians have actually been in the world's nicest territorial
dispute since 1973. It's regarding a small island (Hans Island) between Greenland
and Canada. So far every time a danish delegation visits the island, they raise
the danish flag. In turn the canadians then take it down and raise the canadian
flag
I find this very humorous.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, sarbaek writes:
| |
The danes and canadians have actually been in the world's nicest territorial
dispute since 1973. It's regarding a small island (Hans Island) between Greenland
and Canada. So far every time a danish delegation visits the island, they raise
the danish flag. In turn the canadians then take it down and raise the canadian
flag
I find this very humorous.
|
Like buying something together, you get it for 3 days, then I do.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | | | It is not possible to state with any certainty whether it is illegal to solicit
the waiver of consumer rights,
|
And yet that is precisely what you do in your very next sentence:
| | but ... such contractual terms would be declared void.
|
|
Except you didn't quote the bit where I said that's what "others" have
said. What is it you normally say, "you're being 'intellectually dishonest'"
or some other rubbish?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | | | It is not possible to state with any certainty whether it is illegal to solicit
the waiver of consumer rights,
|
And yet that is precisely what you do in your very next sentence:
| | but ... such contractual terms would be declared void.
|
|
Except you didn't quote the bit where I said that's what "others" have
said. What is it you normally say, "you're being 'intellectually dishonest'"
or some other rubbish?
|
I did not quote it because it was entirely irrelevant and redundant. There is
no difference between saying:
"It cannot be said with certainty that A is illegal, but ... A is illegal."
and
"It cannot be said with certainty that A is illegal, but given what others have
said here, and in similar debates elsewhere, A is illegal."
No difference it all. Except the first sentence is shorter.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | In Suggestions, sarbaek writes:
| |
In Denmark it's not possible to waive your rights. Any terms and condition
that stipulate this are void according to danish law.
|
Either you are not quite understanding what Thor is saying, or you have some
really odd law.
He is not saying that the seller can MAKE you waive your rights, he is saying
enacting your rights is a choice the buyer makes.
Let me give you a scenario
You have an order from me, I say "Shipping is $8, but insurance is another $10,
if you want me to be on the hook for it not getting there"
You say "No, I am sure it will arrive, I'll take the $8"
I mail it and it doesn't arrive.
Now, you have the RIGHT to file a complaint (in this case through paypal) and
even though you said you would take responsibility for the shipping to save the
$10, I can't stop you from doing so.
Scenario 1)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, recalling our discussion and thereby NOT using
your rights
Scenario 2)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, but the law intervenes and forces you to.
A police office shows up at your house and says "listen, this is your right and
you can not waive them, initiate a complain with paypal or we will take you to
jail and charge you"
Now, the way you've responded, it sounds like 2) is in play, but I think
you may have meant to say that (in this case) "I" (the seller) can't make
you live up to your agreement
and that would be true, but if you are going to say one thing and do another,
well, then that's who you are.
| |
In this discussion it also seems that there's an equality operator between
"ensuring delivery" and "tracking and insurance". I don't see this as the
absolute truth and if a store does this I don't think that this store will
get a lot of orders. From where does this assumption originate? To me it seems
flawed to have this discussion under those assumptions.
|
|
Thank you Brett. You have very accurately summed up what I have been saying along
along.
I and other pro-choice sellers don't "force" buyers to waive their rights.
We ask them if they will agree not to exercise those rights in return for giving
them cheaper shipping. We give this choice to the buyer, and we act in reliance
upon the buyer's choice. If the buyer wants NO risk, that is perfectly fine.
We will gladly ship that way, accept full responsibility and pass any extra
costs on to the buyer. But we will NOT split those costs with other buyers who
make different choices. Each buyer pays for their own choice.
We fully understand that PayPal and EU law may not enforce this arrangement.
And if the buyer reneges on this agreement after we have relied and acted upon
it, we understand there is little we can do and that we must still follow the
law. However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to rely
on his choice and then refuses to honor his choice. And we have every right
not to offer this choice to buyers who have shown in words or deeds that they
cannot be expected to honor or accept responsibility for their own choices.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I and other pro-choice sellers don't.....
We.....
We..... and we.....
We will..... But we will NOT.....
We fully understand.....
..... after we have relied.....
....we understand there is little we can do and that we
must.....
However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to....
And we have every right.....
Thor
|
When did you get appointed to be the spokesperson for all these sellers?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I and other pro-choice sellers don't.....
We.....
We..... and we.....
We will..... But we will NOT.....
We fully understand.....
..... after we have relied.....
....we understand there is little we can do and that we
must.....
However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to....
And we have every right.....
Thor
|
When did you get appointed to be the spokesperson for all these sellers?
|
Not all these sellers, but merely the ones that feel the same way..
He and I together make a we, so I gave him the right
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 13:07 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
|
Please keep it on topic, though it seems like everything constructive that can
be said may have been said by now.
Hard for me to tell at this point as I have to reduce my screen's resolution
so the font in down to about 5-point because the "whole thread at once" option
doesn't give me a horizontal slider.
-Ash
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ash_274 writes:
| |
Please keep it on topic, though it seems like everything constructive that can
be said may have been said by now.
Hard for me to tell at this point as I have to reduce my screen's resolution
so the font in down to about 5-point because the "whole thread at once" option
doesn't give me a horizontal slider.
-Ash
|
Sorry Ash
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I and other pro-choice sellers don't.....
We.....
We..... and we.....
We will..... But we will NOT.....
We fully understand.....
..... after we have relied.....
....we understand there is little we can do and that we
must.....
However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to....
And we have every right.....
Thor
|
When did you get appointed to be the spokesperson for all these sellers?
|
We had an International Conference of Pro-Choice Sellers at the United Nations
in New York last month. They unanimously anointed me as their spokesperson and
One True God of Thunderous Forum Defense. It was in all the papers and news
channels. I even have invitations to appear on Letterman, Colbert and the O"Reilly
Factor.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sarbaek | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2016 03:06 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I and other pro-choice sellers don't.....
We.....
We..... and we.....
We will..... But we will NOT.....
We fully understand.....
..... after we have relied.....
....we understand there is little we can do and that we
must.....
However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to....
And we have every right.....
Thor
|
When did you get appointed to be the spokesperson for all these sellers?
|
We had an International Conference of Pro-Choice Sellers at the United Nations
in New York last month. They unanimously anointed me as their spokesperson and
One True God of Thunderous Forum Defense. It was in all the papers and news
channels. I even have invitations to appear on Letterman, Colbert and the O"Reilly
Factor.
Thor
|
I am confused now. Are you selling a product called "Pro-Choice" and what is
it? Seems like it should sell fairly well, I might look into that
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| A wise man thinks he can never lose a battle, yet a wiser man knows when he
can't win a battle and walks away.
In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I and other pro-choice sellers don't.....
We.....
We..... and we.....
We will..... But we will NOT.....
We fully understand.....
..... after we have relied.....
....we understand there is little we can do and that we
must.....
However, we don't have to be happy with a buyer who causes us to....
And we have every right.....
Thor
|
When did you get appointed to be the spokesperson for all these sellers?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27068 | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | A wise man thinks he can never lose a battle, yet a wiser man knows when he
can't win a battle and walks away.
|
.....and the yet even wiser man (or woman) enters one name in the "Ignore" box
and all of the controversy/battles disappear!
Ahhhhhhhh.........................
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sarbaek | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | In Suggestions, sarbaek writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Yes, you did. And you only need to notify those who ask you and give you a choice.
|
The choice in question, of course, being that someone is able to 'sell'
their inalienable access to consumer rights. Some choice
|
They are not "selling" anything. They are simply agreeing not to exercise certain
rights in return for getting something else of greater value to them. Quid pro
quo. It happens all the time in life and it is entirely legal and ethical.
| |
| | Au contraire mon amie, when it comes to EU law *YOU* are the self-proclaimed
expert who, despite not having a law degree or license, has been very quick to
tell many here that what they do is illegal under EU law.
|
I'm a consumer law expert.
|
Of course you are! Good for you.
| |
| | As for "discriminating levels of service" c'est la vie. Numerous businesses
quite legally and legitimately provide different levels of service at differing
prices.
|
Indeed they do, but very few offer to discriminate based solely on whether someone
wishes to 'sell' their consumer rights for cheaper shipping. It's
like gambling.
|
Everything in life is a gamble. And this particular sort of "gambling" is not
illegal or unethical. Everyone is fully entitled to decide for themselves what
risks they wish to take.
| |
| | But as an airline passenger, I don't whine about not receiving First
Class service if I pay for an Economy ticket.
|
Indeed, like those airlines who offer cheaper tickets on condition you agree
to waive your consumer rights relating to lost luggage, etc.
|
Exactly! If you don't want to risk losing your luggage, don't buy a
cheap ticket that includes that sort of disclaimer. But if you do, then don't
whine about something you agreed to. Very simple.
| |
| | I don't respond to profanity. But I have done you a favor by replacing your
profanity so your words can be preserved if your original post is canceled.
|
Is that the same as "I don't respond to Marc"?
|
Awww shucks, you got me there.
| | | | I and other pro-choice sellers are fully aware of our consumer law obligations
and are completely willing and able to honor them. However, those obligations
do not forbid us from giving our buyers a choice in return for offering them
something else of significant value. If a buyer prefers to keep and exercise
their consumer rights, we will certainly honor them. Every time.
|
You make it sound like consumer rights are optional. In the EU, they are not.
And I've never spoken about anything else than EU consumer rights.
|
I never said that consumer rights are optional. I said only that every person
has the right to decide for themselves what rights they wish to exercise or not.
There is no right that anyone MUST exercise. That is left to individual choice.
Whatever the buyer decides, the seller will then act accordingly to honor the
buyer's choice.
Thor
|
In Denmark it's not possible to waive your rights. Any terms and condition
that stipulate this are void according to danish law.
|
Either you are not quite understanding what Thor is saying, or you have some
really odd law.
He is not saying that the seller can MAKE you waive your rights, he is saying
enacting your rights is a choice the buyer makes.
Let me give you a scenario
You have an order from me, I say "Shipping is $8, but insurance is another $10,
if you want me to be on the hook for it not getting there"
You say "No, I am sure it will arrive, I'll take the $8"
I mail it and it doesn't arrive.
Now, you have the RIGHT to file a complaint (in this case through paypal) and
even though you said you would take responsibility for the shipping to save the
$10, I can't stop you from doing so.
Scenario 1)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, recalling our discussion and thereby NOT using
your rights
Scenario 2)
You CHOOSE not to contact paypal, but the law intervenes and forces you to.
A police office shows up at your house and says "listen, this is your right and
you can not waive them, initiate a complain with paypal or we will take you to
jail and charge you"
Now, the way you've responded, it sounds like 2) is in play, but I think
you may have meant to say that (in this case) "I" (the seller) can't make
you live up to your agreement
and that would be true, but if you are going to say one thing and do another,
well, then that's who you are.
| |
In this discussion it also seems that there's an equality operator between
"ensuring delivery" and "tracking and insurance". I don't see this as the
absolute truth and if a store does this I don't think that this store will
get a lot of orders. From where does this assumption originate? To me it seems
flawed to have this discussion under those assumptions.
|
|
I think I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was, that a (danish) seller's
terms and conditions cannot in any way reduce a (danish) buyer's consumer
rights. There's obviously no law saying that I can't waive my rights
if I choose to do so. If I understand Thor correct, this is actually also what
he's saying.
My argument, however, is that when dealing with honest buyers (which is 99.99%
of the sales), there's absolutely no reason to not think an order should
arrive, in which case the point about prices being different when giving the
buyer the choice is moot. I think this is what MarieA has been saying as well.
I understand and respect Thor's standpoint, but I simply don't believe
it affects the prices to a significant degree.
I believe in transparency in part prices and shipping, and my argument is that
one bad seed doesn't really affect the overall picture.
In Denmark it's also possible, as a registered business, to deduct loses
like this in taxes. That is probably not unique to Denmark.
I hope this makes it a bit more clear.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 03:42 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
[…]
That is your choice. Thank you for telling us sellers this in advance. I will
make a Note on Member about you reminding me not to offer you cheaper uninsured
shipping and to instead require all your orders to be fully insured and tracked.
I suggest other sellers do the same.
|
Didn’t you already said that last time this dead horse was beaten?
In fact, didn’t all of you already said exactly the same things last time?
That horse not dead enough yet?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 07:41 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
[…]
That is your choice. Thank you for telling us sellers this in advance. I will
make a Note on Member about you reminding me not to offer you cheaper uninsured
shipping and to instead require all your orders to be fully insured and tracked.
I suggest other sellers do the same.
|
Didn’t you already said that last time this dead horse was beaten?
In fact, didn’t all of you already said exactly the same things last time?
That horse not dead enough yet?
|
Horses don't die on BrickLink. They become the Living Dead and Equine Zombies
gnawing away at our brains on a whole variety of Zombie Issues that also never
die. Zombies are meant to be beaten. It happens in every zombie movie, usually
to the cheers of the audience.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 20:20 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | Or, you can think the reverse.
Shipping + insurance is what you are billed.
If you think the cost of insurance is too high for the risk of that package going
missing, then if YOU had the choice of foregoing the insurance in exchange for
not holding the seller responsible for the delivery.
|
You could propose that to a business seller in the EU but it doesn't remove
their legal obligation to ensure your order reaches you. If it doesn't, irrespective
of any agreement made, you're entitled to a refund or replacement.
|
True, but the buyer does not HAVE to exercise their legal rights. The legal
right certainly exists, but there is no legal requirement that the buyer MUST
exercise that right and get a refund from the seller. Buyers have freedom of
choice NOT to exercise their rights.
Sellers make this agreement with their buyers fully aware that the buyer has
certain rights. The agreement merely asks the buyer NOT to exercise that right.
In return, the seller helps the buyer save more money. The seller knows he
is screwed if the buyer changes their mind and reneges on this agreement. But
the seller who makes this agreement nonetheless is demonstrating that he is trusting
the buyer to keep his word. If the buyer fails to do so, the seller has the
right to post negative feedback for the buyer, stoplist the buyer and warn other
sellers not to offer this deal to this buyer.
Rights are not free. You often pay a price to exercise your rights. For example,
I have the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. However, if I exercise
that right by discussing politics or religion in the BL forum, I will be banned.
I also have the right to sleep with whomever I want. But if I exercise that
right, my wife will divorce me and take half of everything I have.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Speaking as a business in the EU, ensuring that your goods reach your buyer is
a legal requirement. If they don't then you haven't fulfilled your contract
with them. Therefore, isn't offering cheap shipping with a stated - or even
unstated - understanding that the buyer takes the risk their order doesn't
turn up, against the law? Similarly, offering a second shipping option where
the only difference is insurance, a bit of a con? After all, in law they're
already covered by the cheaper shipping.
Like I've said many times, no other serious retailer would say "you can pay
£x for shipping but if it doesn't turn up then tough, or you can pay £x+y
and we'll arrange for insurance." BL may sell a different product but it
isn't immune from the norms of business.
|
Read it the other way around and perhaps it will make more sense to you.
If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
And then adding "I understand that 15 EUR shipping on your order is seriously
disproportionate to the value of the goods that you are buying, so I am willing
to put some trust in you, if you are also willing to put some trust in me. I
can ship it for 4 EUR, but I will not be able to get compensation from shipping
company if it gets lost or damaged. I am offering you this option in faith that
you choose responsibly, and are willing to take the risk of lost package should
the unfortunate happen. Legally I am not obliged to give you this choice and
the cost of insurance should be accounted for in your order total, but I am willing
to give you the choice."
However. PLEASE. What I am NOT arguing for or against is whether the seller should/should
not refund IF the buyer chooses uninsured shipping and things go wrong. It is
a completely different discussion. We are (OK at least I am) talking strictly
about how forced insurance on ALL orders would affect shipping prices.
| | Also, how do you know that the overwhelming majority of BL members prefer this?
Has there been a poll or are you just taking the temperature of the minority
of vocal posters who use the forum?
|
It would be my conclusion after making 1700 sales here, and talking to a very
large number of buyers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | This has been discussed to death a number of times already. It simply comes down
to what you prefer as a buyer
* sellers insuring all packages, and adding the cost to all your orders. This
is a cost directly related to shipping, after all. With your mindset, it should
make it into the grand total of your order in one way or another (included in
a shipping cost, included in the original price or whatever), because it is an
expense that the seller has to account for.
OR
* sellers giving you a choice, whether you want the cost of tracking and insurance
to be included in the grand total of your order, or not. Having the nature of
BL orders in mind, overwhelming majority of BL members prefer the second option
where they can choose.
|
Speaking as a business in the EU, ensuring that your goods reach your buyer is
a legal requirement. If they don't then you haven't fulfilled your contract
with them. Therefore, isn't offering cheap shipping with a stated - or even
unstated - understanding that the buyer takes the risk their order doesn't
turn up, against the law? Similarly, offering a second shipping option where
the only difference is insurance, a bit of a con? After all, in law they're
already covered by the cheaper shipping.
Like I've said many times, no other serious retailer would say "you can pay
£x for shipping but if it doesn't turn up then tough, or you can pay £x+y
and we'll arrange for insurance." BL may sell a different product but it
isn't immune from the norms of business.
|
Read it the other way around and perhaps it will make more sense to you.
If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
And then adding "I understand that 15 EUR shipping on your order is seriously
disproportionate to the value of the goods that you are buying, so I am willing
to put some trust in you, if you are also willing to put some trust in me. I
can ship it for 4 EUR, but I will not be able to get compensation from shipping
company if it gets lost or damaged. I am offering you this option in faith that
you choose responsibly, and are willing to take the risk of lost package should
the unfortunate happen. Legally I am not obliged to give you this choice and
the cost of insurance should be accounted for in your order total, but I am willing
to give you the choice."
However. PLEASE. What I am NOT arguing for or against is whether the seller should/should
not refund IF the buyer chooses uninsured shipping and things go wrong. It is
a completely different discussion. We are (OK at least I am) talking strictly
about how forced insurance on ALL orders would affect shipping prices.
| | Also, how do you know that the overwhelming majority of BL members prefer this?
Has there been a poll or are you just taking the temperature of the minority
of vocal posters who use the forum?
|
It would be my conclusion after making 1700 sales here, and talking to a very
large number of buyers.
|
exactly
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
|
But this assumes that every buyer will try and con you.
| | And then adding "I understand that 15 EUR shipping on your order is seriously
disproportionate to the value of the goods that you are buying, so I am willing
to put some trust in you, if you are also willing to put some trust in me. I
can ship it for 4 EUR, but I will not be able to get compensation from shipping
company if it gets lost or damaged. I am offering you this option in faith that
you choose responsibly, and are willing to take the risk of lost package should
the unfortunate happen. Legally I am not obliged to give you this choice and
the cost of insurance should be accounted for in your order total, but I am willing
to give you the choice."
|
Never mind 'legally not obliged' - I would argue you're legally not
allowed
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 17:07 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | | | If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
|
But this assumes that every buyer will try and con you.
|
And you are assuming that all regions of the world are similarly safe in regards
to package safety.
There are some countries where practically ALL my buyers expressively ask for
insurance. Then again there are some, where buyers almost uniformly opt for cheapest
shipping option possible.
Should the buyers from country 2 bare all the extra costs associated with country
1, if I were to distribute the cost of insurance/lost packages/whatever evenly
among all of my shipping charges (not necessarily saying that all shipments would
be insured)?
I leave it for the buyers to decide this on their own. If I think they made a
choice that is less than ideal, I will suggest them other options and provide
alternate grand-totals for them to choose from.
| |
| | And then adding "I understand that 15 EUR shipping on your order is seriously
disproportionate to the value of the goods that you are buying, so I am willing
to put some trust in you, if you are also willing to put some trust in me. I
can ship it for 4 EUR, but I will not be able to get compensation from shipping
company if it gets lost or damaged. I am offering you this option in faith that
you choose responsibly, and are willing to take the risk of lost package should
the unfortunate happen. Legally I am not obliged to give you this choice and
the cost of insurance should be accounted for in your order total, but I am willing
to give you the choice."
|
Never mind 'legally not obliged' - I would argue you're legally not
allowed
|
Well, strictly speaking, no seller is legally required to insure
every, or even any orders
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 17:17 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | And you are assuming that all regions of the world are similarly safe in regards
to package safety.
|
No I'm not, but different countries can have different shipping rates. And
if you notice a pattern of orders going astray in, say, Zimbabwe, then either
stop accepting orders from Zimbabwe or choose a more reliable courier and/or
increase the cost of shipping there.
| | There are some countries where practically ALL my buyers expressively ask for
insurance. Then again there are some, where buyers almost uniformly opt for cheapest
shipping option possible.
|
I'm sure there are, they perhaps don't have the same legal protections
as EU citizens do, particularly when it comes to cross-border purchases. Again,
as a seller you can account for these differing destinations with different shipping
methods/charges.
| | Should the buyers from country 2 bare all the extra costs associated with country
1, if I were to distribute the cost of insurance/lost packages/whatever evenly
among all of my shipping charges (not necessarily saying that all shipments would
be insured)?
|
Standing the cost of lost or damaged shipments is a cost of being in business.
It can be dealt with in various ways but the absolute worst, in my opinion, is
to say to buyers "if your parcel goes missing it's nothing to do with me,
unless you paid for insurance." And in some cases, as I've outlined, this
is outright dishonest.
| | Well, strictly speaking, no seller is legally required to insure
every, or even any orders
|
Agreed, but I didn't say otherwise.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | ...
If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
|
Then simply find a different seller.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| This whole insurance things is a discussion that has no easy answer. Most of
our orders for $50 or so are not a big deal to lose. We get some large orders
in the $1000's of dollar range that we insure. Is passing that on to a buyer
a bad idea? That's up to the seller to decide. The buyer has no need to purchase
insurance because they have PP and they know that. So by choosing no insurance
they are still fully insured.
Putting in your store terms that you will require insurance over a certain
amount is okay in my eyes. The buyers who say just find another store are not
understanding what losing a $500 order can do to some of the smaller stores.
So when they require insurance they are only protecting themselves against the
loss. Asking the buyer to pay is maybe the only way they will ship, but that
is up to each seller.
Some buyers will say I will assume the risk but will they really if they don't
get a big order. We know what we can afford to lose the rest we insure at our
cost.
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | ...
If seller is saying "this 20 EUR order will cost you 15 EUR to ship, because
I must fulfill my legal contract to you ensuring, that the package reaches you.
Charging 15 EUR is the only way I can do it"
|
Then simply find a different seller.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I don't want a self-insurance disclosure. If a store is FOB Destination terms
(maybe more common in EU than US), then as a Buyer, I don't care what financial
instruments a Seller uses to hold up their end of the terms. Savings account?
Escrow account? Shipping Insurance? Lloyds of London stop-loss policy? Doesn't
matter to me as a Buyer.
Instead I would like to see shipping options specify FOB terms in a standardized
way. That may have to comply with the laws in each country, but I think this
would still accomplish your goal in a different way, while getting away from
all this insurance nonsense.
As a Seller, I would still like the option to pass the cost of insurance
on to Buyers in my shipping rates setup.
-- Cameron
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2016 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
|
This is very much a co-issue with the one I posted about a few days ago here
… http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=978254
Some people seem to think that insurance should not be offered (of any kind),
so that effectively makes everything FOB shipping point, and let the buyer take
his/her risks with the shipment.
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
Denmark
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Australia, Queensland
