Posted by Justin on 05/07/06 21:34

Chris wrote on [Sun, 7 May 2006 19:38:58 +0100]:
>
> "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!

No difference at all.

>>> 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.

Whether it's insured through the post office or if it's self insured
it's still insured.

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

Did you not get an email receipt?

[Back to original message]