Posted by Justin on 05/09/06 16:46

Chris wrote on [Tue, 9 May 2006 17:19:26 +0100]:
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrne5uhs5.28b.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 14:24:21 +0100]:
>>>
>>> "Frank" <frank@frankcoinsnospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:irz7g.6646$DT5.5177@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> A seller who self insures will give you
>>>> your money back immediately.
>>>
>>> That is all well and good in the theory of the concept, the seller DOES
>>> self-insure. But, tell me Frank, if a seller does self-insure anyway,
>>> what
>>> is the point in advertising that fact? And before you answer, there are
>>> many
>>> ways to skin a cat.
>>
>> If the seller only self insures when requested to, for example. It's a
>> hard concept to get, I can tell.
>
> You can't request that - hence the word "self".

Why not?

Self-insurance is not madatory. If you buy something from me and I can
prove it was sent and you don't get it, if you didn't request insurance
then tough shit, you lose.

>>> But then, buyers who pay for surface mail, generally except an item to
>>> take
>>> longer to arrive. No one is suggesting Postal Insurance is the quickest
>>> option, but buyers have a right to receive exactly what they understand
>>> they
>>> are paying for.
>>>
>>> It saves a hell of a lot of hassle down the road (and the OP proves
>>> that!)
>>
>> What's the fucking hassle for the OP? He got the item he wanted and it
>> was in the condition he expected. He's just whining because he feels he
>> was overcharged for insurance. Sounds more like he had no clue what he
>> was buying and is experiencing some buyer's remorse.
>
> The problem for all sellers is right there with the OP.

Which has nothing to do with insurance of any kind, it's called customer
service.

If you don't want to piss people off then you bend over backwards to do
your best to help a customer. That's still pretty irrelevant when it
comes to insurance.

[Back to original message]