2. misc-audio
  3. 1040241020

A'gon Transactions, Risk of Loss?

I was reading a thread about a dispute earlier and found seemingly different views on who bears the risk of loss in shipping for transactions on A'gon...

Is this something that has been clearly established? If so, should it be better publicized? And, should it be alterable by agreement?

While I understand sellers typically ask for compensation for shipping, since shipping charges vary considerably, I always assumed the ROL was on the seller b/c the seller was the party contracting with the shipper--the seller is the only one who can insure and the only one who can increase the odds of the package arriving safety by properly packaging. I'd note, the only time I was involved in a deal where the product arrived damaged, the seller was very cooperative, we tried to prosecute a claim against the carrier (and lost b/c they said it was badly packaged), I shipped the item back, and he refunded my money (and the return shipping charges--I ate the original shipping costs). This also seems consistent with most mailorder businesses--if something arrives damaged, you get your money back if you want.

What I found confusing was that people seemed to be advocating a position (I would have posted in the thread, but it was closed) where the buyer was bearing the ROL and the shipment was only insured *if* the buyer chose to purchase insurance. But, the buyer *can't* insure the product--the carriers won't let them! The insured party is the *shipper*!

I would note that parties should be able to agree to changes--I advertised a product for local pick-up only, and someone asked if I'd ship. Since I didn't have original boxes, I said only if they picked the shipper, paid for shipping and packing by a professional mailer, specified insurance, and bore the ROL explicitly. I've also encountered cases where a buyer has wanted a specific carrier for the shipment--if a buyer insists on their own shipper of choice over the seller's choice, it might be appropriate to shift the ROL.

Am I out of my head?
edesilva

Showing 1 response by edesilva

edesilva OP
768 posts
 
I think the emphasis on cashing the check is overstated. The buyer can legitimately reject the goods for many reasons, including, for example, if it is misdescribed, and the A'gon community accepts that. The seller doesn't get away with misrepresenting items as soon as the check gets cashed, so that isn't when it becomes the buyer's property. The extension seems to be that a contract between the buyer and the seller is for the seller to deliver conforming goods. Goods destroyed or damaged in shipment aren't conforming. This is why consumer mail order businesses almost uniformly accept the ROL.

Obviously, clearly agreeing on ROL up front is desirable. In the absence of that, I tend to think policy favors seller bearing the risk. The seller is the one who knows the original condition of the item, packs the item, selects the shipper, makes determinations on insurance, is the insured party, and should bear the risk. While it would seem the buyer has a reasonable obligation to cooperate with any insurance investigation, the buyer can't settle with the insurance company and has no standing to appeal the decision if they don't believe the right result was achieved--they can't sue the carrier, only the seller can.

If you place the ROL on the buyer, don't you get into some difficult hair-splitting? If the insurance company determines the item was improperly boxed, does that then operate to impose the liability on the seller? If that's the case, you might as well put ROL on the seller, b/c either the insurance will pay off (buyer not harmed) or determine the packaging was defective (seller has liability, buyer not harmed). The only case where there is an issue is if the parties don't insure the package (or insure it sufficiently). Guess, at a minimum, I'll be darn sure to agree on insurance coverage in the future!
More to discover