Stolen Lens - Here's the REAL moral dilemma

[sanking]

I commented because the thread has interest beyond the specfic issue of how you and Clarence deal with and resolve the present matter. Those of us who ship valuable packages to others should have a clear undrestanding of the moral and legal responsibilities of the seller/shipper and buyer/receiver, and in that respect this thread has educational value. I always assumed that the legal responsibility was the seller/shipper because the claim for compensation must be filed by the shipper, and that is true with UPS and FedEx as well as USPS. I may be wrong in terms of my legal understanding but as a seller/shipper I operate with the understanding that if anything goes wrong I will be the responsible party.

Sandy King

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.

[ASRafferty]

I agree; yet I wonder how many sellers on the forum here automatically insure, and price their shipping, etc., to include the cost of insurance, whether the buyer wants it or not? If someone buying from me didn't want to pay it (and that hasn't happened yet), I'm not so sure I wouldn't pay for it myself if I wanted the sale to go through. I don't think a buyer saying "let's live dangerously" to save a few bucks is worth the risk the seller runs... though it's tempting when you have dozens of items get delivered flawlessly, it's the one foul-up we should all be living for!

[Dan Fromm]

Amy, I don't see buying insurance as a moral issue. I see making the buyer whole if the parcel vanishes as a moral issue, and IMO I'm responsible for the goods until the buyer has received them. For me, the question is self-protection. More exactly, how much risk am I prepared to take on?

Concrete example, not in the class of the lens you sold. In the last couple of weeks, I sold a lens for $150 plus delivery charges. On that one, I told the buyer that delivery charges included insurance. And I sold another for $10 plus deliver charges. On that one, I didn't tell the buyer that delivery charges included insurance. So I'm willing to eat $20, not willing to eat $165. But either way, if the lens vanishes en route I'm on the hook.

Cheers,

Dan

[David A. Goldfarb]

I do pretty much the same as Dan, when I sell things on the internet. If the item is under $50, it's not worth the time to pursue the claim usually. If it's over $100, then I insure. If it's in the middle somewhere, I think about how well I know the buyer, where I'm shipping, and such.

[sanking]

I do pretty much the same thing as Dave and Don. If an item is worth several hundred dollars I am going to insure it for the sale price as a matter of self-protection. And the insurance will be built into the sale price so the potential buyer does not have the choice to opt out on coverage.

I also tend to prefer UPS and FedEx for very expensive items because they provide a better tracking service. Aslo, with UPS you get $100 of insurance included in the shipping cost. On other hand, USPS first class service tends to be both faster and less expensive for shipment coast to coast and to foregin countries.

Sandy King

[ASRafferty]

I'm with all of you... I was just saying that the earlier posts here about the decisions being driven by whether or not the buyer wants to pay for the insurance (and implying that I'm not responsible if he doesn't) seemed off base to me; it IS a matter of my self-protection, not the buyer's, and if I want the sale to happen, I'll pay for the insurance even if the buyer doesn't want to pay the extra few dollars for it.

I just think a lot of people do a lot of business leaving a lot to the imagination, when, in times like these, it's worth a few minutes and a few dollars to clarify the "what if's". (It seems like every forum recently has at least one post that says, "the devil's in the details," and it belongs here too!)

[AutumnJazz]

Cases like this is why I always require insurance and delivery confirmation.

[Clarence Rhymer]

Hello All,

I just want everyone to know that Amy has sent me a full refund. The lens is her property and should anyone come across it, please send it to her.

Fujinon A 1:9/300 lens in copal shutter on Nikon Board. Serial number 780244.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Clarence

[BrianShaw]

Well... that's one-third of the situation resolved. Lets hope that Amy and the ebay vendor reach satisfaction soon!

[Joseph O'Neil]

Stolen mail is one thing, stolen mail showing up on Ebay is another. But what I find disturbing here is the speed it all happened at. Canada Post has always told me in the past a package has to be missing for at least 30 days before it can be claimed as lost.

Am I wrong, or did the lens missing lens show up on ebay far sooner than the official 30 day "missing" period? Just creepy somehow.

joe