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!
