|
 |
| | | Author: | SteeleTeamSix  | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2021 11:53 | | Subject: | Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 213 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tjb01527 | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2021 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Just send the items "signed for" Someone has to be responsible. The buyer will
have to pay the extra cost. Set a limit on what can be shipped ordinary post
& what has to be "signed for'.
In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SteeleTeamSix | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2021 13:08 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Thanks for the suggestions. Though that kind of raises the price for everyone.
You either have to include insurance on everything (to protect against that one
time) or buyers can just pick the cheapest way without insurance and appear to
have no responsibility.
But my question remains; are any terms via liability just window dressing and
should not be listed. Or am I missing something? My research showed that a seller/shipper
is liable if the carrier loses the shipment. It just doesn't seem to make
any sense when the buyer chose the shipping method.
In Terms and Policies, tjb01527 writes:
| | Just send the items "signed for" Someone has to be responsible. The buyer will
have to pay the extra cost. Set a limit on what can be shipped ordinary post
& what has to be "signed for'.
In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brickablocks | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2021 17:30 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In almost all online marketplaces, the seller is responsible for the product
until it is in the customer's hands. You chose the carrier, and paid for
the postage. You need to file lost package claim with USPS, at minimum. Here:
https://emailus.usps.com/s/
These things happen from time to time and you should have a plan for dealing
with it that is better than "Oops, too bad your package was lost. Out of my
hands, bro!"
That's just going to lead to poor feedback, and possibly a non-shipping seller
claim.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Speciale | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2021 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
go to the tos of paypal and you know the answer .
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2021 15:16 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
What is actually enforceable and who is going to enforce it? I believe there
is a point presenting buyers with your store terms, but those are really more
descriptions of how you do business, rather than terms that can be enforced on
the buyer.
The ability to enforce any contract will always be limited by a jurisdiction
with higher authority. A Bricklink sales agreement will come under other sets
of rules set by state consumer law, national law, and even Paypal.
Off hand, I can't think of a single major online retailer that would include
in the purchase agreement a line that means "If you don't get your package,
don't expect us to do anything about it."
Maybe I am unique, but of all my orders, I have had to refund exactly one buyer
for a parcel the buyer claimed was lost. So I don't think a "Not responsible"
term is going to save me a lot of money.
Instead of enforce-ability, why don't sellers concentrate on terms that outline
the service they provide to the customer, as in: "If your package is lost, here
is how we'll handle it."
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | macebobo | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2021 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
Or is it?
|
When I see these terms in a seller's T&C, even if I really want the items,
I refuse to do business with them. It just shows that they are not professionally
invested in their business.
A professional will make it right, even if it may be at a loss for them.
I currently have a cart full of items and the seller has 100% positive feedback,
but I just can not bring myself to pull the trigger since the T&C state "I am
not responsible for lost or damaged packages through USPS, insurance is cheap.
If for some reason you are not able to select insurance than contact me after
the purchase and I will inform you of the ammount to PayPal me to insure the
package. I will not guarentee or replace lost or damaged packages that are not
insured."
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2021 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
|
Exactly right. As sellers we are responsible for making sure the package arrives
safely to your customer and that is the way it should be. We, as suppliers of
product, are the ones who package up and ship our product so we naturally should
be responsible for making sure our product gets to the customer. I really think
strongly that we should not be able to get out of that responsibility by basically
telling our customers through our store terms that we are not responsible if
our shipper loses their package.
I really like the way calebfishn sums it up by stating "Off hand, I can't
think of a single major online retailer that would include in the purchase agreement
a line that means "If you don't get your package, don't expect us to
do anything about it.""
Think about it this way, imagine if you were to go to Best Buy's website
and you purchased a new $2000.00 75" flat screen tv but it was never delivered.
So you call Best Buy and imagine how you would feel if their reply was "We did
a trace on our end and it appears that your TV was somehow lost by the shipping
service. We sincerely apologize but as our store terms clearly state, we are
not responsible for lost or damaged goods once they leave our store or warehouse".
If you looked back through their store terms and saw that it did indeed say that
they were not responsible, would you just accept that? I am pretty sure you wouldn't.
The good thing is that VERY FEW packages are lost by the US Postal Service. I
know that out of over 16,000 orders we have had only 3 have gone missing over
the past decade. With 2 of those customers we were able to avoid getting a negative
or neutral feedback because they contacted us about their missing order and we
gave them a full refund. The third customer let us know about the missing order
by leaving us a neutral feedback but we still gave them a full refund, it was
hard but we knew that it was the right thing to do.
| |
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
|
I think that because it is not enforceable that it pretty much answers your question
right there that there is no real point to listing it in your terms and that
it would be good to cut it out. There is a good chance that some people may have
opted out of shopping at your store because of that so you may get more order
by cutting it out of your terms and those orders will help cover the occasional
loos you may experience in the future.
Jim.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SteeleTeamSix | | Posted: | Aug 9, 2021 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Thanks to everyone who weighed in. It is helpful to understand different points
of view.
And while I agree completely with calebfishn's statement, I just feel it
should be looked at a different way. Rather than say "we're not responsible"...
explain to people they have a choice. As a free-market capitalist, I believe
the decision should be in the customer's hands as to whether they wish to
pay MORE to have something insured. IMHO, it's the exact same thing as the
buyer having the option to pay MORE to get it faster. Consumers love choice.
Shame on me for not knowing what the law indicates. But when legislation is put
upon the businesses, costs go up for everyone as the business now has to raise
rates to cover potential losses or raise shipping rates and insure every single
package. So now I have to remove that choice and insure every package (or raise
my rates a bit) which will result in consumers paying more, my business likely
making a bit less as some will choose to buy elsewhere. All because one person
doesn't want to actually pay for the service that laws apparently force businesses
to deliver; which is guaranteed delivery.
Again, just my opinion... but I feel we've reached a point in society where
the consumer takes absolutely zero responsibility/accountability for their decisions.
It's just like the ridiculous lawsuits against Proctor & Gamble because some
really dumb people decided to INGEST a Tide Pod when there is clearly no indication
that the product is food.
In Terms and Policies, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Apparently as a seller, we are responsible for packages not being delivered even
if a carriers loses it.
|
Exactly right. As sellers we are responsible for making sure the package arrives
safely to your customer and that is the way it should be. We, as suppliers of
product, are the ones who package up and ship our product so we naturally should
be responsible for making sure our product gets to the customer. I really think
strongly that we should not be able to get out of that responsibility by basically
telling our customers through our store terms that we are not responsible if
our shipper loses their package.
I really like the way calebfishn sums it up by stating "Off hand, I can't
think of a single major online retailer that would include in the purchase agreement
a line that means "If you don't get your package, don't expect us to
do anything about it.""
Think about it this way, imagine if you were to go to Best Buy's website
and you purchased a new $2000.00 75" flat screen tv but it was never delivered.
So you call Best Buy and imagine how you would feel if their reply was "We did
a trace on our end and it appears that your TV was somehow lost by the shipping
service. We sincerely apologize but as our store terms clearly state, we are
not responsible for lost or damaged goods once they leave our store or warehouse".
If you looked back through their store terms and saw that it did indeed say that
they were not responsible, would you just accept that? I am pretty sure you wouldn't.
The good thing is that VERY FEW packages are lost by the US Postal Service. I
know that out of over 16,000 orders we have had only 3 have gone missing over
the past decade. With 2 of those customers we were able to avoid getting a negative
or neutral feedback because they contacted us about their missing order and we
gave them a full refund. The third customer let us know about the missing order
by leaving us a neutral feedback but we still gave them a full refund, it was
hard but we knew that it was the right thing to do.
| |
However we have seen many stores (like ours) that have terms listed stating no
responsibility for lost packages. What is the point if that is not enforceable?
|
I think that because it is not enforceable that it pretty much answers your question
right there that there is no real point to listing it in your terms and that
it would be good to cut it out. There is a good chance that some people may have
opted out of shopping at your store because of that so you may get more order
by cutting it out of your terms and those orders will help cover the occasional
loos you may experience in the future.
Jim.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 9, 2021 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| | |
And while I agree completely with calebfishn's statement, I just feel it
should be looked at a different way. Rather than say "we're not responsible"...
explain to people they have a choice. As a free-market capitalist, I believe
the decision should be in the customer's hands as to whether they wish to
pay MORE to have something insured. IMHO, it's the exact same thing as the
buyer having the option to pay MORE to get it faster. Consumers love choice.
|
And why would a customer want to pay more for that if they are already covered
by consumer protection laws or, for example, PayPal regulations?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Aug 9, 2021 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| | Thanks to everyone who weighed in. It is helpful to understand different points
of view.
And while I agree completely with calebfishn's statement, I just feel it
should be looked at a different way. Rather than say "we're not responsible"...
explain to people they have a choice. As a free-market capitalist, I believe
the decision should be in the customer's hands as to whether they wish to
pay MORE to have something insured. IMHO, it's the exact same thing as the
buyer having the option to pay MORE to get it faster. Consumers love choice.
|
Let's hear it for free market capitalism, but there other factors here that
go beyond a free and equal business exchange.
First, for sure, it should be up to the customer if she wants to pay more to
include insurance. But what benefit is the customer getting in exchange? That
someone else (the insurer) will take care of them, because the seller doesn't
feel obligated? That's not much of a free exchange to have to pay more for
something because a seller doesn't want to take responsibility.
Second, there is an imbalance here, that diminishes the freedom that the buyer
supposedly has in this transaction. The seller already has the buyer's money
and the buyer doesn't have the product they ordered. The buyer will be lose
product and money, and the seller will lose nothing. That imbalances of this
sort usually heavily favor the business that offers the product or service is
why we have more and more consumer protection rules.
Finally, this "choice" is really the choice to accept a higher level of risk,
and in this case, the buyers' choice makes them assume all of the risk of
a lost parcel. Why is that fair? Would sellers accept a situation where the
buyer replies: "Yes I will accept the risk of not getting my product if I don't
insure, but, of course, in fairness, that will mean the seller must accept the
risk that if my payment gets lost in the mail the seller will still ship the
product"?
We're talking here about buyers not taking responsibility, but what about
the seller's responsibility?
As for your business argument, it is mostly a red herring since in actual experience
the number of lost packages and money given in refunds is statistically very
small. It is so small that the seller should be able to assume the risk, since
the seller can distribute the risk across many shipments, whereas the buyer cannot.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Aug 9, 2021 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Is there any point to listing shipping terms? | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SteeleTeamSix writes:
| |
And while I agree completely with calebfishn's statement, I just feel it
should be looked at a different way. Rather than say "we're not responsible"...
explain to people they have a choice. As a free-market capitalist, I believe
the decision should be in the customer's hands as to whether they wish to
pay MORE to have something insured. IMHO, it's the exact same thing as the
buyer having the option to pay MORE to get it faster. Consumers love choice.
|
Insurance is for hedging seller's risk. It is not for buyers. Buyers are
already covered by PayPal.
| | Shame on me for not knowing what the law indicates. But when legislation is put
upon the businesses, costs go up for everyone as the business now has to raise
rates to cover potential losses or raise shipping rates and insure every single
package.
|
Yes. Retail stores do this as well, and always have.
| | So now I have to remove that choice and insure every package (or raise
my rates a bit) which will result in consumers paying more, my business likely
making a bit less as some will choose to buy elsewhere. All because one person
doesn't want to actually pay for the service that laws apparently force businesses
to deliver; which is guaranteed delivery.
|
Yes. Guaranteed delivery is essentially PayPal's policy. There is no way
around it.
If you stick to shipping domestically only, you will almost never have a package
lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
United Kingdom, England
Belgium
Canada, Ontario
