|
|
Posted by notbob on 06/02/06 19:03
On 2006-06-02, Kris Baker <kris.baker@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
> "notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
>> case of damaged goods, the addressee has to file because...
OK, I should have said "should file" instead of "has to file".
>> don't have the physical evidence. So, the addressee must file using
Here, again, I should have said "should file" instead of "must file".
I'll be more careful next time. But, in my own defense, I did
correctly state "Either the mailer or the addresee can file". OK, I
worded it badly, but how was I "completely wrong"?
Are you saying the USPS has a foolproof communication system that if
the addressee brings in damaged goods at the destination PO and the
mailer brings in the insurance receipts at originating PO, the issue
will be quickly and easily resolved? That two completely different
PO's with two completely different staffs, which are typically dumber
than two separate bags of hammers, will, in fact, actually function as
a competent unified organization? If this fantastic scenario should
actually occur within the USPC, I shall be dumbstruck into silent awe.
But, based on my past experience with USPS, I'm feeling pretty safe.
nb
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|