Stolen Lens - Here's the REAL moral dilemma

[goamules]

Lessons learned? Ebay remains committed to their profits, and doesn't care what happens to individual buyers and sellers. I've seen it before, they won't do anything.

[Clarence Rhymer]

Here are two responses I got from the seller:

Dear leptominia,

What??? This was bought at a liquidators auction a couple weeks ago near Toronto. What is the auction number of the one you bought??? Please show me some proof or pictures. Who is the original seller? Did you insure it and was a claim filed? Let me know before the auction ends.

- citizens-of-metropolis

AND

Dear leptominia,

All you've given me is links to forums. (By the way, "bid his item up to a million dollars" and sabotaging my auctions???)Obviously seeing my feedback, and having been here for so long, why didnt you just email me in the first place? I dont doubt that it may be, but why would you bid on it if its stolen? Naturally from my perspective you should understand it looks strange. Do you have at the very least a scan of a bill of sale or link to where it was originally posted for sale or something? I bought the item legitimately at a well advertised auction where estates and liquidation items are sold. They, like most liquidators probably have contracts with carriers like CanadaPost or DHL among others. Sounds like the item was not picked up for whatever reason and wound up unclaimed at the depot.. I dont know how long they hold on to things before they get rid of them but eventually it must have been sold to the Liquidators who auctioned it. 'Stolen' from Canadapost is highly unlikely as these people aren't buying things off the street. Whereas unclaimed packages that may have had the wrong address, damage, be unreadable, etc, etc happens ALL the time. I have been on ebay for 9 years and have dealt too many times with CanadaPosts many problems.

- citizens-of-metropolis

I sent the seller proof of my purchase and offered to send him photographs of the lens if he could provide an email address that accepts attachments - eBay messages does not as far as I can tell. I also explained why I had bid on the lens, and I have since retracted my bids using the only choice eBay allows that is close - wrong amount entered. I figure a zero or perhaps minus $500.00 bid would be appropriate for bidding on my own property. He has not responded, nor revealed who these "well advertised" auctioneers are. I also provided the tracking number so he could see that Canada Post still scanned the package on October 20, 2008, so it is odd that it would be sold off to a liquidator only two weeks later.

I have made the local RCMP aware of the case, but could not get all the paperwork to them on Friday.

I agree with Amy that while we have to resolve this, and I am sure she and I have, it certainly is shortening our lives altogether too much, which adds insult to injury.

Thank you all for your support. I may consider going to the press, but I am a full-time stay at home old f*rt dad, so it is a bit tricky to schedule. By the way, this is the best job I have ever had (being a dad, I mean).

Cheers,
Clarence

[BrianShaw]

Based on his responses and ebay reputation, the ebay seller seems like an "innocent bystander" also. In some ways I don't blame him for being cautious in his response. I suspect that if he were approached with same quesitions and evidence by a legitimate law enforcement agency he would (and will?) be quite cooperative. This is quite an unfortunate situation for all involved!

[Clarence Rhymer]

Hello Brain,

I agree to a point. I would be suspicious too, but he could cancel the auction and await further evidence. After all, he does have the lens, or at least very good pictures of it. I am not asking him to send it to me, although I suggested he contact the RCMP. He has the contact information of the RCMP in Fort Smith, and the PD in NH. He has certainly been given enough evidence to show that the lens is stolen, or at least certainly not his to sell. He may have bought the lens in good faith, but he evidently must realize that there is a problem or he would reveal his source. It may be that after a claim is settled with the post office, the lens would then become their property to dispose of as they see fit. It is quite a stretch to believe all this could have happened since October 20. With his nine years of experience, he should be all the more aware of this.

Cheers,
Clarence

[Jon Shiu]

The auction says that the lens came directly from an estate, which seems to contradict his liquidator auction story.

Jon

[Clarence Rhymer]

I have just read a post on APUG by thebanana that the seller has stopped the auction.

Cheers,
Clarence

[Clarence Rhymer]

Hello All,

The seller has contacted me and has pulled the auction. He will contact the people who sold him the lens on Monday. The matter is in the hands of the police now, so I would ask that we let it rest until it is resolved. He appears to have bought the lens in good faith. Thank you for all your support.

Cheers,
Clarence

[bwchrome]

if the buyer bought insurance for the shipment and you shipped the item 'with insurance' then it is the shipper [you] that needs to file the claim. if the buyer bought insurance and you failed to get insurance, then you are liable to give him a refund.
if you bought insurance and the shipped failed to pay the claim then you have to sue the shipper. there is no dilemma. the buyer must wait for the insurance process.

dw

Now that we've done the postal system bureaucracy in two countries (http://www.largeformatphotography.in...d.php?t=43061), here's the immediate problem:

What's the right thing to do about my sale of the lens to my buyer?

I performed to the best of my ability in exchange for the sale price, but my buyer doesn't have the lens through no fault of his own. He's thinking of asking his credit card company to go after the money from my PayPal account. He bought several items from Ted's estate, and this is the only one that went astray.

Should only one of us have to wait for the insurance claim to be paid, and which of us should that be?

Or, should I send him half the money back so we're both equally out-of-pocket til the claim is paid, when we'll both have the remainder of what's due us?

I know what I'm inclined to do, but would value opinions from you all.

[sanking]

Huuummm!! But what if the buyer did not ask for insurance and the seller did not buy it?

I personally always insure items that I sell and ship, and if not assume that I am the party responsible for reimbursing the buyer. Unless I offered insurance and the buyer declined.


Sandy

if the buyer bought insurance for the shipment and you shipped the item 'with insurance' then it is the shipper [you] that needs to file the claim. if the buyer bought insurance and you failed to get insurance, then you are liable to give him a refund.
if you bought insurance and the shipped failed to pay the claim then you have to sue the shipper. there is no dilemma. the buyer must wait for the insurance process.

dw

[ASRafferty]

I don't think there's much value in technicalities about who requested insurance when I decide whether or not to add it. When I add the cost of shipping to the price of an item, it includes the cost of insuring it unless I'm prepared to make a refund in a small amount out of my own pocket if something like this happens... period. The USPS only lets the sender file a claim, so it's my obligation to be sure I can if it's necessary, whether my buyer thought of it or not. Business may be business, but if you start with a baseline understanding of it that has good faith and effort built in, things rarely go sour.

As Clarence has made clear here, the USPS claim is entirely separate from the fact that the lens is in hands it shouldn't be, and he and I are working and waiting together to see how this all turns out. But thanks for your input.