|
|
Posted by Kris Baker on 06/02/06 17:56
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:IJ-dnXn_04X75B3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2006-06-02, Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>> http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1000.pdf
>>
>> +++
>> 3. Proof of Damage and/or Estimate of Repair: For damage, loss, or
>> partial loss of contents, the addressee must present the
>> following:
>> (a) The container, wrapping, packaging, and any contents that were
>> received;
>> (b) The original mailing receipt, or other proof of mailing specified
>> in paragraph 1, above;
>> (c) Evidence of value; and
>> (d) Estimate of repair (if applicable).
>> NOTE: Do not return the damaged parcel(s) to the mailer to file the
>> claim. Either the addressee or the mailer may file claims for
>> damage or loss of contents.
>> +++
>>
>> What part of "Either the addressee or the mailer may file claims for
>> damage or loss of contents" don't you understand, you fucking retard?
>
> LOL!....
>
> Well, I guess you win, technically speaking. But, could it be anymore
> confusing? Either the mailer or the addressee can file, but if it's a
> case of damaged goods, the addressee has to file because shipping the
> damaged goods back to the mailer is another chance for damage, so it's
> forbidden. That means it's pointless for the mailer to file, as they
> don't have the physical evidence. So, the addressee must file using
> the docs the mailer sends him, unless the USPS has some sort of
> foolproof inter-PO messaging system I'm unaware of, and I doubt it.
> It's definitely a hassle no matter how one looks at it.
>
> This makes one argument in favor of the seller charging for insurance
> and keeping the money and just replacing the occansional lost/damaged
> goods. Same protection, less hassle. Specially with items like CD's
> and such. Maybe this approach should get its own term, like
> "self-insured goods charge" or SIGC or whatever. But, what if it's a
> damaged $28K grilled cheese sandwich? Then, the buyer is going to
> want to see that insurance receipt and he'll be consulting a lawyer
> and if the add said insurance and none was purchased, there's going to
> be Hell to pay and the lawyer may go after deep pockets ebay. Yes,
> I'm thinking ebay may have to deal with this issue eventually.
>
> Just thought I'd add my 2, as a soon-to-be seller. It's been
> enlightening. ;)
>
> nb
.....and you're completely wrong. Sorry. Either can file, but the
buyer has to keep the item "to present for inspection"...so it's smarter
for them to do it. If it's a PayPal shipping label, they have their
own receipt to print out), and can be paid over the counter if it's $50
or less. The PO will ask the seller for further documentation, if needed.
But they shouldn't need it if the buyer has already presented all
packing, packaging (with the shipping label attached for scanning),
But believe who you want. You have the experience, right?
Kris
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|