Question Regarding New Item Damaged in Shipping


It's been a while since I've been active on this forum, and in audio.  I will not name names, will not provide additional information, my goal is not to sling mud, merely to understand if the practices of the "maker" and the "dealer" I am about to describe are, as the dealer is telling me, common in audio sales.

Facts:

I spent low 5 digits on a pair of mono block amplifiers. Shipped, they are 2 boxes of identical size and weight, about 85 lbs each. 

I did not use a credit card.

It appears that one of the boxes was damaged in shipping, however from the outside, it didn't / doesn't look like much of anything, however once the item is opened, you can see a little damage to the box, a little damage to the foam packing "clamshell", but not much.  

A speaker terminal was contacted by something sufficient to bend the chassis, and it isn't thin.  There's no marks of impact anywhere, it just looks as if pressure was applied to the terminal and the frame bent. 

All of my contact has been with the dealer. The dealer obtained a RMA, and asked me to ship the damaged mono back to the maker, at my expense, who will rebuild on a new chassis and send back to me at their expense.

I am being told that, despite the fact that the item was new when shipped to me "this is the way its done" in audio.  In other words, it is common practice among dealers and makers of high end audio to handle items damaged in shipping this way, and the buyer would bear the expense of getting the item to the maker for inspection and/or repair.

 

Is this accurate?

I appreciate any input you can provide.

 

 

gthirteen

The golden rule appears it is always someone else's problem and I am never responsible. Read the contract, you may be responsible.

"Customer Service" went out when people stopped paying for it. Everyone expects the cheapest price possible, and cotton glove service.

A few additional facts:

 

The invoice contains a line item for shipping. 
Shipping insurance was purchased, according to the seller

The seller and I discussed alternatives for shipping.  I made it clear that I was using the Seller or makers shipping service of choice and paying for it, because in the unlikely event that there was a problem, it needed to be someone else’s problem, versus my problem.

The purchase was made over the phone, after emails and text messages. 
There is no “purchase order” “contract” etc, other than our communications beforehand. 

I appreciate all of the comments, input, etc., however please see my original post for the one question that I am trying to answer.

 

I'm not sure if there's a "usual way things are done' anymore, given the new state of the world.  It is a great question to ask, and I am not sure whether either party should have involced 'standard practice' in such a case. Wht was promised and agreed on is, to me, the more relevant consideration.

That said, ih the old days, you wwne to the local tore, bought what you wanted, and if it was defective/damaged when you got it home, you drove back to the store, and they pulled another one off the shelf --maybe you opened it there to make sure it was not the entie batch--then went on your merry way.

Things are very different now.  Not sure how else to respond, without knowing way more of the specifics of the case. 

It is not common practice on a new item purchased from an authorized dealer...

 

And if it is common practice, neither the dealer nor manufacturer would object to being named…