jlw said:
This isn't what you're going to want to hear, but I think you're being too hard on the USPS.
Possibly. I have this strange expectation that people should be held accountable to do their jobs.
The above quote is only what you prefer to believe -- NOT what the USPS agrees or (more importantly) what a court would agree. It's a little like saying, "I don't need auto insurance because I paid for a car that drives, not one that crashes into trees."
Not quite. It's like saying "I am buying a car that is not on the dealer's lot, and I expect it to be delivered to me from the factory." If the car fails to show up, the dealer can't reasonably tell me too bad for me.
The fact is that you buy insurance -- any insurance -- to protect yourself against risks, such as the risk of loss or damage to the property.
Agreed. And in the case of loss, the insurance pays off.
That's not what the Post Office says to people - and it is not what people say to each other. They say "Buy insurance if you want to make sure the item arrives." Do you see the difference? Semantics, perhaps - but to me the logic is quite clear. If you don't want to have your package go missing, you should buy insurance. Not to protect against loss/damage - to ensure that it GETS THERE.
This is the canard the Post Office repeats like a mantra over and over again - go ask them. Oh, they don't put it on their web site, but that's what they'll say to you in person if you ask.
Handling it the way you prefer would put the USPS in an impossible position. The alleged seller says, "I swear I mailed the package." The alleged buyer says, "I swear I didn't receive the package." The USPS says, "Okay, we'll take your word for it. Here's a sack of money." How do they know the seller mailed the package at all, or that he didn't send you a box of rocks, or that the package was worth what you claim it was? Sure, WE know you wouldn't lie to the USPS, but they can't afford to do business that way.
Agreed. So I'm stuck. Oh, wait. If you refer back to my original rant - one of the sellers got a 'delivery confirmation' slip back from the Post Office on the package he sent me. The mail carrier swore that they delivered it.
Know what that gets me? Bupkis, is what. Nothing, nada, zilch. They agree they delivered it. If pressed, they'll refund the amount of the delivery confirmation fee to the seller who shipped the camera. That's it.
So that does a whole lotta good, huh? I feel so much better now.
What I think is off-kilter about your situation is that YOU aren't the one who should have been worried about buying insurance. As it stands, you paid money to the seller, and you didn't receive anything. Oh, yeah, he SAYS he sent it to you, but how do you know? As it stands, you paid your money, you received no merchandise, so you're entitled to a refund.
When I originally emailed both sellers, I got an instant response from one, and no response from the other. The first said "Well, I sent it. That's all I can do. I offered insurance, you didn't buy it. Sorry." The second ignored me until I had sent 4 'friendly' emails and then filed a complaint with Paypal. Then he responded to all four emails in a couple of minutes - accused me of trying to cheat him, saying that "I know good and well that I got the camera" and so on. Now he's aware that Paypal has him by the short-n-curlies, so he is digging out the confirmation card he got from the Post Office. Not that it will DO ANYTHING, though - so what's the point?
It's the seller who should have bought the insurance, to protect himself against possible loss to his merchandise in transit to you. (If he wanted you to reimburse him for the cost of the insurance, that's for the two of you to negotiate.)
It is just as likely that I am lying to the seller as that the seller is lying to me - or the Post Office lying to both of us, or someone stole it off my front porch - etc. So why would the liability end with the seller?
Since you received nothing from him, he's obligated to return your money, and then it's up to him to proceed against USPS to try to get his property back.
You may be right - but they have only my word to confirm that I never got the packages - I could be lying, just like they could be lying about having sent them.
Personally, I insure shipping on anything valuable that I sell over eBay, whether the buyer requests it or not. I do it for my own protection, not the buyer's.
All it protects is money. The Post Office wants you to believe - and many here do, just listen to them - that the insurance you buy actually helps it to arrive as it should have all along. If true, that's extortion. If not true, a vile canard.
The term 'best effort' covers a lot. The Post Office appears to be saying "If you buy postage, we promise our best effort to deliver it. However, if you buy insurance, we promise to try even harder." That's impossible. Either they gave their best effort in the first place or they didn't. They can't promise to do all they can do - and then redouble their efforts in return for more money. Deliver it faster, yes. Deliver it with more aplomb or polish, sure. Deliver it in a limo and escorted by armed guards, fine. Charge extra for all those 'services'. But paying more for the basic delivery they've already contracted to provide their 'best effort' for? No. I'm not being to hard on the Post Office, they're being crooks and getting away with it.
But in the end, you are right about one thing - if you want your package to arrive, buy the bloody insurance. Like the Mafia. If you don't want your business to burn down mysteriously, pay them when they ask nicely.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
