posted on September 7, 2000 02:49:56 PM newI'm not sure that "blame" is the right word, but seller was the one who selected UPS, not buyer. Thus, seller was responsible for such charges.
Incorrect. The buyer had an opportunity to suggest a different carrier besides UPS. This didn't happen. The seller selected UPS, probably because he uses them as his main shipping method. He quoted the shipping price. Buyer paid the shipping price. Seller paid UPS. USP presumably didn't mention the extra charge to the seller. Therefore the seller (and the buyer) were in the dark about the extra charge. The seller fulfilled his end of the transaction. Neither buyer or seller is "at fault" as far as the UPS add-on charge. But the seller did his part in the transaction. Any beef that the buyer had should be with UPS, not the seller.
posted on September 7, 2000 02:51:10 PM newThis transaction wasn't poorly implemented.
Seller selected a courier which turned out to charge $30 more than seller understood when quoting shipping charges. Sure, there are even better examples of "badly implemented favor", loading a bunch of well connected civilians onto a submarine for its maiden cruise comes to mind.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:00:22 PM newThis transaction wasn't poorly implemented.
Seller selected a courier which turned out to charge $30 more than seller understood when quoting shipping charges. Sure, there are even better examples of "badly implemented favor", loading a bunch of well connected civilians onto a submarine for its maiden cruise comes to mind.
The key words here are turned out to charge $30 more.
Hindsight is 20/20. The seller evidently didn't know this when the item was sent. The buyer didn't either or he would have told the seller to ship a different way. This transaction wasn't poorly executed by the seller. It was poorly executed by the buyer when he refused the shipment. The package should have been accepted, the extra money paid, and then contact the seller and try to work it out. Even then, the seller would be under no obligation to help pay the extra, but he just might have in the interest of customer relations. By refusing the package, the buyer opened up a whole new can of worms that turned rotten when the item became damaged. Now the seller has no incentive to work with the buyer at all.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:02:58 PM newabingdoncomputers,
There is a simple fix for this problem. That is for the seller to make the insurance claim with UPS. The buyer can do nothing because the seller has the merchandise and the paper work. The seller is in total control and apparently, from his lack of cooperation, knows it.
Are we to assume from your posts that you think the buyer should let this go and let the seller walk with her money, the merchandise, and possibly the insurance money as well?
There is definately something wrong with that picture.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:05:14 PM new
I don't blame either party fully for this mess, however, the seller does have the item and the buyer's money. The seller's lack of interest in pursuing an insurance claim too is odd.
I vote to invite the seller...
Not Kerryann on eBay
posted on September 7, 2000 03:14:30 PM newExactly my thoughts. Something smells VERY rotten about this sellers reluctance to pursue the insurance claim.
The seller should indeed attempt to get an insurance settlement from UPS. That way the buyer might get at least some of his money back. But the seller SHOULD NOT be expected to refund out of his own pocket, as he did nothing wrong. He might wish to do so in the interest of good customer relations however.
I will re-state what I believe to be the best solution: Buyer leaves seller a positive feedback and chalks this one up to a learning experience. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't try to work with the seller to recover the insurance money. But to attempt to convince the seller that he is partly responsible for the mess is the wrong aproach. Reason 1 being it just ain't true. Reason 2 being, as someone has already said, the seller has the money and the damaged merchandise. Why should the seller go out of his way to help resolve the situation if he is getting blamed unfairly?
Maybe the merchandise isn't damaged as much as the seller claims. If UPS rejects the insurance claim, why not ask the seller to re-ship the merchandise COD for the shipping, using the buyer's choice of carrier?
posted on September 7, 2000 03:17:10 PM newkerryann,
Correct. Placing blame on one or the other does not resolve the issue. The ability to resolve this issue resides with the seller.
All he has to do is file the claim with UPS. When the claim is paid it will also include the shipping amount that he buyer paid. The seller will be out nothing but a small amount of time to fill out the form. The UPS rep will come to the seller's home or place of business to inspect the merchandise. Been there, done that, many times. That is why I no longer ship by UPS, because of the way they abuse packages.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:18:32 PM newI vote to invite the seller...
Excellent idea... I would be interested in knowing why he refuses to answer the buyer's emails. And it would be good to hear the other side of the story.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:26:44 PM new
Even being a US buyer, I can't help but notice how xenophobic USA sellers can be towards their Canadian buyers.
"The Canadian buyer should have known about the brokerage fee".
The unprofessionalism on these threads kills me. Ask yourself if Borders or Amazon would pull this scam.
They wouldn't. They realize customer service is the reason that they are billion dollar companies. If the buyer was buying from a DECENT online company, not only would he/she have the merchandise, they would have a full refund, a gift certificate and a profuse apology.
Networker67, if you're reading, your 30 day suspension can't end soon enough. When you come back, just be sure that you don't dare disagree with seller's, ok?
posted on September 7, 2000 03:30:47 PM new
Yankee98 .... I happen to be a seller as well.
Some of thse so called sellers need a serious reality check, eh?
posted on September 7, 2000 03:44:51 PM new
reddeer: No kidding. I wonder if any of these people would even let Canadian buyers DRINK their lemonade, eh? After all, maybe they had someone from Canada buy their lemonade, and the Canadian says it wasn't cold enough, or complained the seller didn't get all the seeds out, or complained that the seller couldn't pour it fast enough, so therefore, they can't sell lemonade to Canadians because it's too much trouble.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:46:15 PM new
Back to the basics...
The carrier is selected by seller, and performs (or not) the bidding of seller.
And the seller selected the carrier. The seller charged the shipping fee required to the buyer. The seller paid the carrier. The carrier delivered the goods. The carrier added an extra charge to be paid by the seller. The seller refused the shipment. In a nutshell, the seller fulfilled his end of the transaction. Any "extras" that USP adds-on for Canadian customers is not the responsibility of the seller. If the seller knew of this extra charge beforehand, he probably would have used a different carrier. He didn't know about it. UPS says shipper pay this amount. Seller paid that amount. Rnd of story. The buyer's beef is with UPS, not the seller.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:52:59 PM newabingdoncomputers,
You said:
"The buyer's beef is with UPS, not the seller."
But, as I and others have stated, the buyer can do nothing without the seller's cooperation. The seller has the merchandise and the paperwork. The buyer can't file a claim with UPS without those items.
posted on September 7, 2000 03:56:21 PM new
The seller did choose the carrier.
The carrier did deliver the goods to the buyer.
The seller carried out each and every requirement in order to fulfill his end of the transaction.
These are the facts of the matter.
The extra charge added on by UPS has nothing to do with the seller's responsibilities in completing this transaction. The item was (figuratively and probably literally) on the buyer's doorstep. He refused the package. Not the seller's fault (or his problem). The seller should, however, pursue an insurance claim. But this in no way places fault on the seller.
posted on September 7, 2000 04:06:18 PM new
noshill:
But, as I and others have stated, the buyer can do nothing without the seller's cooperation. The seller has the merchandise and the paperwork. The buyer can't file a claim with UPS without those items.
GET IT!
Yes, I get it. Apparently you do not. I have said several times that the seller should return the buyer's emails and pursue the insurance claim. To do otherwise is unacceptable. This is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the insistance that the seller did something wrong in his handling of the shipping. He did not. The issue of the shipping and the issue of his failure to cooperate are two completely different issues. As with redeer, I'm sorry that you are unhappy that we don't share the same opinions on this matter. You don't have to shout to get my attention. I can read your responses in lower case just fine.
posted on September 7, 2000 04:18:32 PM new
Well, everyone, I can't help but think how differently this could have all turned out if equestrian had just accepted the package..then fought it out w/the seller over the $32.
I agree..invite the seller.
BTW, why do we always have to align ourselves either with the seller group or the buyer group? Aren't we all big enough to look at everything on a case by case basis? Sometimes the seller IS in the wrong. Sometimes the buyer IS in the wrong. Sometimes they are BOTH wrong.
posted on September 7, 2000 04:27:25 PM newabingdoncomputers,
You said:
"What is in dispute is the insistance that the seller did something wrong in his handling of the shipping. He did not."
Wrong! The buyer came here and asked for advice on how to resolve the situation. She has never pointed an accusing finger at the seller. In fact, she did just the opposite.
The insistance of placing blame has now become the subject of this thread. Placing blame on either party will not resolve the issue. Only the filing of the UPS insurance claim will do that.
Why is it so important to place blame? Equitable resolution of the matter seems much more important.
posted on September 7, 2000 04:33:45 PM new
eventer:
Finally a voice of reason. As far as the initial transaction is concerned, neither the buyer or the seller did anything wrong. The only problem was the buyer refusing the transaction. I'm not saying that this was the wrong thing to do. It just wasn't the best thing to do under the circumstances.
The seller needs to work with the buyer concerning an insurance claim. To do otherwise is unacceptable. But as far as the entire shipping fiasco is concerned, the seller is not at fault.
Maybe if the seller is invited to these threads we can get this resolved in a manner that is at least partially acceptable to both buyer and seller.
The shouting and condescending comments bandied about here are counterproductive and childish. We really don't need it. Speaking in a louder voice or nastier tone doesn't change the basic message or make it any more valid. It just reflects an inability to communicate on an adult level.
Anyway, I think I'll just lay low now and wait for the seller to show up...
posted on September 7, 2000 04:36:53 PM new
noshill:
Why is it so important to place blame? Equitable resolution of the matter seems much more important.
Finally something we can agree on. Which is good, because I read your posts on other threads and generally agree with them. This is basically what I've been saying all along.
posted on September 8, 2000 06:49:43 AM newThe carrier did not deliver the goods. The carrier offered to deliver the goods in return for more money.
Incorrect again. The carrier delivered the goods. The goods were refused by the buyer. The extra $30 charge has nothing to do with the goods being delivered. The buyer had 2 choices:
1) Pay the $30 and accept the delivery that had been made. Then, with goods in hand, attempt to negotiate with the seller over equitable payment of the $30. At least with the goods in hand, the buyer would have something to show for her money if negotiations with the seller came to naught.
2) Refuse the shipment and leave the package at the whims of the UPS grinding machine for another international trip. And then turn around and have to pay a 2nd shipping fee for the same merchandise that had already been delivered, not to mention being shipped internationally a 3rd time.
The buyer made a poor decision, as evidenced by the seller now having the money, the damaged merchandise, as well as the insurance paperwork. And apparently the seller is also refusing to cooperate with the buyer to resolve the issue.
At this point, if the seller refuses to communicate with the buyer, the buyer's only realistic option is to leave appropriate feedback (and only the buyer can determine what that is at this point) and move on, having learned a valuable lesson.
There is really nothing the buyer can do to try to force the seller to cooperate, other than try to convice the seller to file an insurance claim. The seller has proof that the item was delivered and refused by the buyer. The seller can also prove that the merchandise was damaged in the return shipment, if indeed it really is damaged. The seller should do the right thing and cooperate with the buyer as far as the insurance claim in concerned. But due to the way the buyer chose to handle the delivery situation, she is basically at the mercy of the seller. Is this fair? No. Is it a reality? Yes.
