what is the proper protocol

I agree with many statements above. I would refund the buyer's money immediately once the shipping company has determined that the parcel is lost, and has committed to pay the claim. I would likewise expect a refund if I was the buyer.

I particularly agree with Orind - The seller owns the package until it's delivered. I've never understood sellers who think once the payment is made, all risk is the buyer's.

Finally, and obviously, once the refund is delivered to the buyer, it should be clear that the package if found is to be delivered to me.

Nhtran - I disagree. I suggest you read the contract you enter into with the shippping companies. If you're the sender, you own it, not the receiver. That is the contract is between the Sender and the shipping company (ie UPS, Fedex). They will not even recognize nor talk to the buyer/recipient of the package.

Yea, my statement may have been an exageration. They will accept the initial claim filing, and they certainly need to and do talk with the buyer to assess the damage, but they won't go further than that nor send the money to the buyer. At least this has not been my experience. I've been on the receiving end of 3 damaged packages from UPS (2 amps, a subwoofer) - whenever I called UPS to inquire about status they referred me to "the shipper of record" (ie the seller). If they do more than this, perhaps they have changed their practice of late?

FEDEX on the other hand has a process where the seller can transfer authorization to the buyer for all claims. This requires a letter from the seller to FEDEX authorizing the buyer to handle the claim and receive the money. I'm not aware that UPS has a similar process, though they might.

well. I think I already spent my quota of opinion on this thread, but I think this is worthwhile discussion and need to add a few more . . .

Viridian's reference to the FAQ's and the general terms of use of this site is right on. Everyone should check them out. Read it all - there's a lot of really good info there. If you read the section on "Shipping Policy", it's pretty clear. Below is the relevant text, and the URL for the entire statement:

Shipping policy
Shipping a Sold Item:
The buyer and seller will determine which party is responsible for paying the shipping charges. Regardless of this determination all items shipped will be F.O.B.* destination. In other words it will ALWAYS be the responsibility of the seller to guarantee that items shipped will be as described and fully functional upon arrival. The seller will further be responsible to insure each package for at least the amount the buyer has paid for the item.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/faq.pl?Sellers/Shipping&1065032072&actg#1

This says it's the "Policy". A policy is somewhat more than guidelines. Of course if you read the terms of use, Audiogon has enough disclaimer included so as to render them essentially non-binding (ie in my layman's point of view). I hope/think we can all agree though that the disclaimer is done for liability protection, and that since we all agreed to follow the rules when we sign up, these are the terms that should be followed, and what we expect of each other.

Sellers who think their responsibility ends when they receive their money are pretty common on ebay, and IMO they are simply saying out loud that they aren't trust worthy. As such the only way I would do business with them is if the deal was simply so good it's worth gambling on.

Finally, I think there are reasonable positions taken above with respect to when the refund is given. The key is for buyer and seller to keep cool, be patient, communicate clearly and in all cases act in good faith. I think this one may be hard to cookie cutter in a discussion, or in guidelines. Further, I know there are commercial establishments who will follow the practice as Tvad described, and there are those that would immediately refund. I would say in general I would probably be more comfortable doing return business with the business in the latter example, all other things being equal. In other words, this is an issue of service quality, not necessarily performance.

I understand this inclination. I can say that the company with whom I had this transaction has stellar customer service, and is one of the most highly regarded manufacturers in the high end industry. Communication was excellent, and I never had any doubt of a satisfactory outcome.

exactly - it's the total package that counts.

. . . well I thought I posted this last night, but it must have gone into a black hole.

The contract between seller and common carrier and the contract between seller and buyer are two different contracts.

Just because the seller agrees with the carrier that he bears risk of loss as it relates to their contract, he does not necessarily agree that he bears risk of loss in the contract with the buyer.
Nhtran (Threads | Answers)

thanks NT, I think our difference of opinion is based on the fact that you're making a legal argument, and I think this discussion is about expectations we have on this site, and what are fair, good faith practices. I'm not a lawyer, though you appear to be.

Regardless, the sellers I feel comfortable dealing with are those who stand behind their deal all the way, not those who wash their hands of responsibility once the item is handed to UPS.

As for parsing words in Audiogon terms of use doc's, I think the "Shipping Policy" which is published on the site FAQ is unambiguous, would appreciate other views of it. It's probably not legally enforcable, but a clear articulation of expectation. Here's the link again:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/faq.pl?Sellers/Shipping&1065032072&actg#1