Posted by Chris on 05/08/06 13:07

"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrne5tbl9.rui.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 02:37:38 +0100]:
>>
>> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrne5spv4.rgm.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>> The argument has already been won by myself.
>>
>> Those sellers who claim to offer insurance will now be asked if they can
>> prove they insure their parcels prior to a bid taking place.
>>
>> Failing to deliver THAT aspect of what I have paid for, well, you can
>> guess
>> the rest.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Prove it. Self-insurance is not a valid commodity. It's a process for
>> business to bear the weight of liability. It is not something you can
>> charge
>> someone for.
>
> Sure it is, it's just as valid as packing and handling.

What kind of a stupid reply is that?

Insurance is a commodity. Self-insurance is not. It means nothing to the
buyer, and self-insurance is not insurance by definition.

>
>> What next? Charging an extra 10 cents for the air inside bubble pockets?
>
> If you don't pay for the insurance and the item goes missing or is
> broken then the seller is under no obligation to make good on any claim.
> If you do then they are.

What insurance are you referring to?

>
>> A receipt for something that doesn't exist to buyers is about as much use
>> as
>> a chocolate firepoker.
>
> Who says it doesn't exist?

When you receive the package devoid of any proof of "insurance", it does not
exist. Simple as that.

Chris

[Back to original message]