|
|
Posted by Justin on 05/08/06 13:12
Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 14:07:57 +0100]:
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrne5tbl9.rui.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 02:37:38 +0100]:
>>>
>>> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrne5spv4.rgm.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>>> Chris wrote on [Sun, 7 May 2006 19:38:58 +0100]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrne5r6ft.l5e.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>>>>> dvdscds wrote on [6 May 2006 23:26:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>> dvdscds wrote on [6 May 2006 20:18:30 -0700]:
>>>>>>>> > $2.95 is reasonable for S&H, but the seller shouldn't state that
>>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>>> > item is "insured" if he isn't paying for postal insurance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not? If they just say it's insured they are not claiming it's
>>>>>>>> postal
>>>>>>>> insured. Just that it's insured.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you get the item either way it doesn't matter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No problem as long as the package shows up. I've paid for postal
>>>>>>> insurance
>>>>>>> for items in excess of $100+ and received the package uninsured.
>>>>>>> The seller may claim it was "self insured", but I have no way of
>>>>>>> knowing if
>>>>>>> the seller would have sent a refund if the package was lost or
>>>>>>> damaged..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you get the package then it doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it does matter. The package has arrived whether insured or not. It
>>>>> means i've paid out for something that I could have received without
>>>>> paying
>>>>> the extra for. If it's postal insurance, then I have no way of knowing
>>>>> if
>>>>> I
>>>>> would have received the package without it. BIG DIFFERENCE!
>>>>
>>>> No difference at all.
>>>
>>> The argument has already been won by myself.
>>>
>>> Those sellers who claim to offer insurance will now be asked if they can
>>> prove they insure their parcels prior to a bid taking place.
>>>
>>> Failing to deliver THAT aspect of what I have paid for, well, you can
>>> guess
>>> the rest.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect sellers don't state "self insured" in their auctions
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> know most buyers are not interested in paying postal insurance for
>>>>>>> "self insured" shipping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying something is insured doesn't say it's postal insured now, does
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why say it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no difference to a seller - if they self-insure, then that's
>>>>> up
>>>>> to
>>>>> them. But don't tell me i've "bought" insurance, because I havn't.
>>>>
>>>> Whether it's insured through the post office or if it's self insured
>>>> it's still insured.
>>>
>>> Prove it. Self-insurance is not a valid commodity. It's a process for
>>> business to bear the weight of liability. It is not something you can
>>> charge
>>> someone for.
>>
>> Sure it is, it's just as valid as packing and handling.
>
> What kind of a stupid reply is that?
>
> Insurance is a commodity. Self-insurance is not. It means nothing to the
> buyer, and self-insurance is not insurance by definition.
It only means nothing to the buyer if it's not honoured if need be.
>>> What next? Charging an extra 10 cents for the air inside bubble pockets?
>>
>> If you don't pay for the insurance and the item goes missing or is
>> broken then the seller is under no obligation to make good on any claim.
>> If you do then they are.
>
> What insurance are you referring to?
Any
>>> A receipt for something that doesn't exist to buyers is about as much use
>>> as
>>> a chocolate firepoker.
>>
>> Who says it doesn't exist?
>
> When you receive the package devoid of any proof of "insurance", it does not
> exist. Simple as that.
Are you really as stupid as you come across?
If you get the item then it doesn't matter if it exists. If you don't
get the item or it's broken and then notify the seller and they make
right on it then does it still not exist?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|