Posted by Chris on 05/07/06 18:38

"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!

>
>> 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.

Give me something that proves what i've paid for exists, or don't claim it.
It's as simple as that.

Chris

[Back to original message]