I agree with Damon and Edsilva. The shippers obviously believe that the ROL is on the seller, since they only pay the seller. Therefore, it should be in sellers best interest to make sure item is properly packed and insured. This has always seemed obvious to me, but has never been explicitly states as part of the "rules of the road" here. It would be a good idea for Agon to include it in their FAQ. Anyone listening out there?
A'gon Transactions, Risk of Loss?
I was reading a thread about a dispute earlier and found seemingly different views on who bears the risk of loss in shipping for transactions on A'gon...
Is this something that has been clearly established? If so, should it be better publicized? And, should it be alterable by agreement?
While I understand sellers typically ask for compensation for shipping, since shipping charges vary considerably, I always assumed the ROL was on the seller b/c the seller was the party contracting with the shipper--the seller is the only one who can insure and the only one who can increase the odds of the package arriving safety by properly packaging. I'd note, the only time I was involved in a deal where the product arrived damaged, the seller was very cooperative, we tried to prosecute a claim against the carrier (and lost b/c they said it was badly packaged), I shipped the item back, and he refunded my money (and the return shipping charges--I ate the original shipping costs). This also seems consistent with most mailorder businesses--if something arrives damaged, you get your money back if you want.
What I found confusing was that people seemed to be advocating a position (I would have posted in the thread, but it was closed) where the buyer was bearing the ROL and the shipment was only insured *if* the buyer chose to purchase insurance. But, the buyer *can't* insure the product--the carriers won't let them! The insured party is the *shipper*!
I would note that parties should be able to agree to changes--I advertised a product for local pick-up only, and someone asked if I'd ship. Since I didn't have original boxes, I said only if they picked the shipper, paid for shipping and packing by a professional mailer, specified insurance, and bore the ROL explicitly. I've also encountered cases where a buyer has wanted a specific carrier for the shipment--if a buyer insists on their own shipper of choice over the seller's choice, it might be appropriate to shift the ROL.
Am I out of my head?
Is this something that has been clearly established? If so, should it be better publicized? And, should it be alterable by agreement?
While I understand sellers typically ask for compensation for shipping, since shipping charges vary considerably, I always assumed the ROL was on the seller b/c the seller was the party contracting with the shipper--the seller is the only one who can insure and the only one who can increase the odds of the package arriving safety by properly packaging. I'd note, the only time I was involved in a deal where the product arrived damaged, the seller was very cooperative, we tried to prosecute a claim against the carrier (and lost b/c they said it was badly packaged), I shipped the item back, and he refunded my money (and the return shipping charges--I ate the original shipping costs). This also seems consistent with most mailorder businesses--if something arrives damaged, you get your money back if you want.
What I found confusing was that people seemed to be advocating a position (I would have posted in the thread, but it was closed) where the buyer was bearing the ROL and the shipment was only insured *if* the buyer chose to purchase insurance. But, the buyer *can't* insure the product--the carriers won't let them! The insured party is the *shipper*!
I would note that parties should be able to agree to changes--I advertised a product for local pick-up only, and someone asked if I'd ship. Since I didn't have original boxes, I said only if they picked the shipper, paid for shipping and packing by a professional mailer, specified insurance, and bore the ROL explicitly. I've also encountered cases where a buyer has wanted a specific carrier for the shipment--if a buyer insists on their own shipper of choice over the seller's choice, it might be appropriate to shift the ROL.
Am I out of my head?