|
|
Posted by Kimba W. Lion on 05/31/06 17:05
On Wed, 31 May 2006 14:32:56 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 May 2006 12:51:54 -0400, Kimba W. Lion
><KimbaWLion@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Buying postal insurance is for the protection of the seller, not the buyer.
>
>Then why doesn't the seller pay for it out of the proceeds of the
>sale?
Because nearly all the time it's unnecessary. Rather than pay a minimum of
$1.30 per package for insurance, pocket the money and then pay yourself
for the one item in 200 that gets lost or damaged. Things get settled a
whole lot faster and with a whole lot less hassle that way, too.
>Why does the buyer have to pay for something the seller benefits
>from?
Because it's part of SHIPPING AND HANDLING and it's part of the agreed
upon charges at the time of the sale.
>Ebay better step in before this gets out of hand and wrecks it for
>everyone.
I wish ebay would do something about educating the buyers.
>the buyer can make the claim at the carrier.
It doesn't work that way and ebay is not going to be able to make it work
that way
>Make insurance mandatory and force the sellers to take it out and
>include it on the shipping
That will just result in higher shipping and handling charges.
Just think, in this case the seller provided the buyer with good service,
an item that arrived in good condition, and a LOW shipping and handling
charge. But that's evil to some people. If this seller is smart he'd put
the OP on his blocked bidders list for the future.
Or maybe the smart thing to do would be to double the shipping and
handling charge and go ahead and buy the postal insurance--people love
seeing that little red stamp on the package even more than they appreciate
someone trying to save them a buck or two.
--
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|