|
|
Posted by Justin on 05/08/06 13:36
Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 14:33:13 +0100]:
>
> "DarkMeister" <firstenlast@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0vE7g.1873$aq5.76582@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Hear hear...
>>
>> I had two claims with the PO, neither successful simply because they grind
>> you to death with details and bullshit.
>> More importantly, I was the seller in both cases. *I* purchased the
>> insurance, even though the buyer 'paid' for it - to me. Thus I was the one
>> who had to file a claim and subsequently satisfy the buyer. This is
>> especially true when shipping abroad.
>
> The point seems to be missed, and is all over the place.
>
> ITEM + S/H/I (Shipping, Handling, Insurance) = $10
>
> ITEM + S/H (with the hidden self-insure) = $10
>
> Business is business, it's up to the individual how they run them.
>
> Ergo it's up to the seller to
>> anticipate loss or damage in shipment and have a method of covering it.
>> How
>> the seller chooses to fund this is up to the seller.
>
> That's more true to the point in question. I think.
>
>> Asking for proof of 'what-if' is silly. As in "IF my parcel got lost, how
>> do
>> I know you WOULD have covered it?". Doh...
>
> There has to be a line of expectation drawn. If you pay for insurance, you
> expect to receive an item clearly indicated as insured.
>
> Otherwise, you end up with scumbag sellers, purposely NOT sending
> "uninsured, self-insured" items, and saying fuck you, you didnt insure.
> That's where the problems start.
Now we're getting to what your actual problem is.
Something that's "uninsured" isn't also "self-insured"
Now, trusting the seller would actually come through on something they
charge insurance on yet self insure is a completely different topic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|