Re: Postage query
- From: Peter Parry <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:07:33 +0000
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:39:25 GMT, "Sid" <simonjenkins@blue<no spam
thanks>yonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Humbug" <humbug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> It's *your* responsibility to deliver your tat to your buyer in one
>> piece.
>his last statement seems reasonable enough:
>"I cannot be held responsible for goods returned by the courier
>if no-one is in to sign for them. Likewise I cannot be held responsible
>if I am given an incorrect delivery address"
>
>how does that square to SOGA and DSR ?
I'm assuming the seller is trading (If it is a private sale much of
what is written still applies but via different bits of legislation).
The latter sentence about delivery address is perfectly correct.
The former about no one being in is both incorrect and completely
worthless.
If delivery is attempted (most couriers make two attempts) and the
buyer notified by card then if they fail to make arrangements for
collecting it or re-delivery that is really their problem.
However, couriers are notorious for claiming to have tried to deliver
something when they have done nothing of the sort. This is
especially common if the delivery address is some way off the
delivery route. The recipient obviously doesn't know delivery has
been attempted as their address has never been visited and if the
parcel is returned to the seller the buyer will, quite reasonably,
expect it to be re-delivered at the sellers cost. In such a case the
seller is obliged to re-deliver at their own cost, they cannot tell
the buyer it is not their problem and to deal with the courier
directly. The courier was acting as agent for the seller.
Situations are rarely so clear cut though and what happens after
non-delivery is partly a commercial and partly a legal problem. If
delivery was not attempted (and especially if the buyer has
reasonable evidence that this was the case such as someone being in
all that day) the seller is still responsible for delivering the
goods and the statement made does not relieve them of that
responsibility.
The problem though is that hard evidence is usually lacking. "I was
in" sometimes means "I was in except for the hour down at the pub" so
a bit of judgement is needed when dealing with them. It is often
simpler and cheaper to carry the cost of re-delivery rather than
spend hours arguing with an aggrieved customer. One thing is for
sure - in such a case simply saying "not my problem read my T&C's" is
a guaranteed way of turning a slightly annoyed customer into a rabid
court seeking ex-customer.
It is also useful to always use an on-line tracked service and notify
the buyer of the tracking number so they can follow it themselves.
Some suppliers also e-mail customers automatically the day after
delivery should have been made asking if it has - this gives some
opportunity to prod the customer and sort out problems if necessary.
>"I can't be held responsible in any way for damage/losses caused by
>the Post Office or carrier so insurance is advisable"
This is an all too common nonsense. Insurance is a red herring. Its
inclusion in eBays sales is a leftover from eBays American roots
where the rules are different. In the EU the buyer _NEVER_ needs to
purchase insurance if the transaction is a consumer transaction
(seller trading, buyer purchasing as a private individual). The
seller is responsible for ensuring the safe delivery of the item.
There are no caveats and no get-out clauses which can alter this. No
extra insurance payment can be required and the fact that a buyer
declines any extra insurance offered is completely immaterial.
There is nothing to stop a seller offering added insurance and if a
buyer is silly enough to pay for something that is worthless then
that is quite legal. It is illegal for a seller to try to absolve
themselves from delivery liability or claim that the buyer is at risk
if they don't buy insurance.
>...what if a buyer declines insurance and accepts responsibility for
>loss/damage, will the law find in his favour?
In a consumer case - always. In a private sale things are a little
more complex as risk passes to the buyer when the parcel is posted,
however the seller is required to make appropriate provision for safe
delivery
"SOGA Sect 32
(2) "Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make
such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be
reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other
circumstances of the case; and if the seller omits to do so, and the
goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline
to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or may
hold the seller responsible in damages."
This was the situation for all sales (commercial and private) prior
to 2003 and the position taken by courts when disputes went that far
was that in most cases if goods were damaged or not delivered it was
the sellers problem as they were expected to make appropriate
arrangements including insurance (or choosing to carry the risk of
loss/damage themselves). The view taken was that loss or damage to
the consignment was proof that the arrangements were not adequate. It
is unlikely that that stance has altered so in reality the situation
is similar in both consumer and non-consumer cases.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Postage query
- From: sPoNiX
- Re: Postage query
- From: Sid
- Re: Postage query
- References:
- Re: Postage query
- From: sPoNiX
- Re: Postage query
- From: Humbug
- Re: Postage query
- From: Sid
- Re: Postage query
- Prev by Date: Re: Another nitwit :-)
- Next by Date: Re: Great Christmas Gifts
- Previous by thread: Re: Postage query
- Next by thread: Re: Postage query
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
