Fairness of Tacking on Shipping Ins?
Need some feedback on the practice of offering a $25.00 shipping fee, up in the main part of a GB.com listing where it is clearly visible and then in the "fine print" at the very bottom of the listing (OK it was in red) add the fact that the seller "offers" insurance on the firearm for $1.00 per $100.00 of value.
When browsing several similar firearm listings, most people (I believe, I do anyway) don't take the time to read each and every single thing offered in fine print at the bottom of the listing. I purchased a handgun and the shipping was listed at a plain $25.00. But when I get that automated email from the seller in reaction to my winning bid, it mentions to add $3.00 for the insurance becausse the seller is not responsible for lost or damaged goods. And I go back to the listing and sure enough, in red small print at the bottom of the listing that fact is stated.
So,. here are my questions:
#1, I have always felt that whether I buy in a store, from a friend or over the internet, until that item is safely delivered, undamaged, into my hands, then that item is 100% the responsibility of the seller in case it gets lost or damaged. I don't think I should have to calculate any extra to give that seller for insurance. I know it is a tiny amount, but it is the principal involved.
#2. If people here say it IS fair for the seller to tack on insurance, then why can't I tack on insurance (reduced his payment by $3.00 to pay for it) for the money order I am sending out to him?
#3. For people who say I should have to pay the seller insurance, what about this scenerio? Say I drive to the seller's store, after having sent in the moey order to pay for the gun , to physically pickup the gun. Say after I arrive and a store clerk, (or the seller) is coming from the storeroom with my already paid for gun, the clerk accidently drops the gun and the hammer spur breaks off. What if the seller said, "well, you don't have any insurance on the gun, so you wil have to pay to repair it." Wouldn't everyone agree that would be unfair to me, the buyer? But isn't that very similar to the situation I am already facing? I mean, the seller choses the shipping company, is the one who packs the firearm yet I have to pay the insurance on top of the already listed $25.00 fee? It is a small amount but it doesn't seem fair to me.
Would like to hear some opinions, especially from dealers. Thanks.
When browsing several similar firearm listings, most people (I believe, I do anyway) don't take the time to read each and every single thing offered in fine print at the bottom of the listing. I purchased a handgun and the shipping was listed at a plain $25.00. But when I get that automated email from the seller in reaction to my winning bid, it mentions to add $3.00 for the insurance becausse the seller is not responsible for lost or damaged goods. And I go back to the listing and sure enough, in red small print at the bottom of the listing that fact is stated.
So,. here are my questions:
#1, I have always felt that whether I buy in a store, from a friend or over the internet, until that item is safely delivered, undamaged, into my hands, then that item is 100% the responsibility of the seller in case it gets lost or damaged. I don't think I should have to calculate any extra to give that seller for insurance. I know it is a tiny amount, but it is the principal involved.
#2. If people here say it IS fair for the seller to tack on insurance, then why can't I tack on insurance (reduced his payment by $3.00 to pay for it) for the money order I am sending out to him?
#3. For people who say I should have to pay the seller insurance, what about this scenerio? Say I drive to the seller's store, after having sent in the moey order to pay for the gun , to physically pickup the gun. Say after I arrive and a store clerk, (or the seller) is coming from the storeroom with my already paid for gun, the clerk accidently drops the gun and the hammer spur breaks off. What if the seller said, "well, you don't have any insurance on the gun, so you wil have to pay to repair it." Wouldn't everyone agree that would be unfair to me, the buyer? But isn't that very similar to the situation I am already facing? I mean, the seller choses the shipping company, is the one who packs the firearm yet I have to pay the insurance on top of the already listed $25.00 fee? It is a small amount but it doesn't seem fair to me.
Would like to hear some opinions, especially from dealers. Thanks.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by vicg1
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by vicg1
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
Heh heh heh,
Ya I don't have a clue, How many sales did you say you have?
Oh my god... typical internet respone... "I sell more guns than you" "I have more posts than you"... get over it. The fact is the original post state the seller clearly indicated insurance would be additional if desired and the buyer is wondering what we all thought of it.
(And, if your GB seller name is the same a this forum name, I have many times more sales here than you. And I do many more locally...)
Really, why do you use a diffrent name here on the forum then?
Because there is a seperate sign up for both sides of this thing and when I initially started auctions with GB they used an email address as your ID... then they changed that. And WTH does that matter?
Well, since you checked mine, I figured I would want to see how much experience you have in small package shipping.....0 -
Are you guys done with trying to figure out who's BallPark Frank is bigger?
I happen to agree with Vic on this one...Read the Item Description...You know...the Contract.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Are you guys done with trying to figure out who's BallPark Frank is bigger?
I happen to agree with Vic on this one...Read the Item Description...You know...the Contract.
Your right, we were getting off topic.....
Sorry vic...0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Geez, pickenup, I am not yet complaning. I am asking opinions about this for future reference.
Geez tr fox.
Considering the following, it sure doesn't sound like FUTURE REFERENCE to me.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I purchased a handgun and the shipping was listed at a plain $25.00. But when I get that automated email from the seller in reaction to my winning bid, it mentions to add $3.00 for the insurance becausse the seller is not responsible for lost or damaged goods. And I go back to the listing and sure enough, in red small print at the bottom of the listing that fact is stated.0 -
Twice this yr I had things broken in shipping. I have always insured my items and I feel like until the buyer recieves his item ITS MINE.....so I am insuring MY item when I ship it. What I have to add to this topic is this.....insurance is useless. Both items were insured, and BOTH items were refused the claims I have filed with the USPS. You may as well be buying lottery tickets and pasting them on your packages.
ps....one was a $250 item and the other was a $3,500 item. BOTH with split stocks now. They must be hurling these boxes pretty hard to damage them like this. YES....before it starts...$3,500 item shipped in a padded hard case with extra padding in a cardboard box!0 -
To be honest I think it's rediculous you have to pay a shipping service added money for insurance. You're putting the item into their care while it's being delivered. They should take responability since you're putting it into their care. I bet they wouldn't toss your packages around like they are crap if that was the case. 0 -
OK, I never said that the buyer should never have to pay for insurance. If you offer to sell me something for a listed price of $200.00 AND tell me shipping is $25.00 AND tell me that insurance is my responsibility, then there is no way I can complain about the insurance cost to me if I go ahead and purchase the item.
But, if in the major, upper and most important part of your listing (and remember, I am probably like most buyers and probably looking at and trying to deal with several different listings) all you mention is the selling price and that shipping is a fixed $25.00, then that is about about all I am paying total attention to. That is just human nature. So it can seem like an unfair situation to later, after making a committment to buy the item, I find w-a-y down at the very bottom (I don't care if it is in red.[/red], it is STILL that "fine print" that we all dislike and make jokes about)a statement that insurance is extra and costs me, the buyer.
Another way to view this is the the seller natually devoted the most important (to him) information at the top down to the middle of the listing. So the prospective buyer can quickly asetain what is the deal. Now, a propsective buyer does some mental calucatins and finds that,. say, the item will cost him $200.00 plus the $25.00 shipping fee for a total of $225.00. So in the buyer's mind, he is laying out a total of $225.00 to purchase the item and actually have it laid in his hand. Surely the buyer should not have to think the seller thinks the buyer doesn't care or worry about how that item may be lost or damaged in shipping and a reasonable person would assume that, for the $25.00 shipping mentioned, the seller is going to cover the insurance also.
Or, if the seller doesn't provide insurance, and the item arrives damaged or gets lost, then the seller will willingly send another replacement item. Seeing as how until that item is in the hands of the buyer, the buyer has not gotten what he paid for.
NOw, what about that?0 -
OK, what about this. IN my recent purchase, the seller choose to not make himself voluntarily responsible for the cost of insurance to cover the item if lost or damaaged in shipping.
So why can't I, the buyer take the same stand regarding my payment?
Say I decide to send him cash. I can get a post office "receipt of mailing" for about 60 cents I believe. That will save me the $2.00 or $3.00 for the money order. But for my 60 cents, there will be no insurance. So, if I send my cash to the seller, without insurance, and it gets lost, then why can't I claim that the seller is just out of luck because the post office lost his payment but I still want my item that I attempted to pay for. Just as if I didn't pay for, and get, insurance on the gun I purchased, and it got lost in shipping, the seller would have told me the same thing.
Or, before I send the cash, I can contact the seller and offer him the option of him paying for the insurance for the cash payment I am going to send him(I could deduct the insurance cost from what I pay him.) Of course me making such an offer to a seller would make him mad as he!!, but isn't that pretty much what some sellers do to the buyers?0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Geez, pickenup, I am not yet complaning. I am asking opinions about this for future reference.
Geez tr fox.
Considering the following, it sure doesn't sound like FUTURE REFERENCE to me.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I purchased a handgun and the shipping was listed at a plain $25.00. But when I get that automated email from the seller in reaction to my winning bid, it mentions to add $3.00 for the insurance becausse the seller is not responsible for lost or damaged goods. And I go back to the listing and sure enough, in red small print at the bottom of the listing that fact is stated.
Uh...........in regards to my posting that you quote above Pickenup, where exactly is this "complaint" you are referringn to? All I see is a netural statment of fact which later leads to a request for opinions.0 -
I'll tell you what causes my finger to have an uncontrolable urge to hit the Back button while looking at an auction.
When some Bozo thinks he needs to charge me HANDLING fee's on top of shipping.
Ain't happenin Bubba. Your TIME isn't valueable to me. I'm interested ONLY in buying the gun.
It's not like you don't have a stake in this. You want to sell right. So IMO you can donate a few minutes of your precious time to package and ship it.0 -
tr fox said....."Say I decide to send him cash. I can get a post office "receipt of mailing" for about 60 cents I believe. That will save me the $2.00 or $3.00 for the money order."
Problem #1 Send contents in envelope minus cash. Get "receipt for mailing". Complain that you were defrauded.
Problem #2. Send cash in envelope. Letter is destroyed in canceling machine.
Problem #3. Postal employee steals money.
Problem #4. Letter misdelivered and wrong person opens it and keeps money.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Are you guys done with trying to figure out who's BallPark Frank is bigger?
I happen to agree with Vic on this one...Read the Item Description...You know...the Contract.
Your right, we were getting off topic.....
Sorry vic...
no big deal, discussions on here are sometimes fun when they get heated... I have 250 feedbacks here on GB. Last year I spent about 25k with FedEx Ground alone. So, I stay busy with the shipping stuff!0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, I never said that the buyer should never have to pay for insurance. If you offer to sell me something for a listed price of $200.00 AND tell me shipping is $25.00 AND tell me that insurance is my responsibility, then there is no way I can complain about the insurance cost to me if I go ahead and purchase the item.
Not your responsibility but your option.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, what about this. IN my recent purchase, the seller choose to not make himself voluntarily responsible for the cost of insurance to cover the item if lost or damaaged in shipping.
So why can't I, the buyer take the same stand regarding my payment?
Say I decide to send him cash. I can get a post office "receipt of mailing" for about 60 cents I believe. That will save me the $2.00 or $3.00 for the money order. But for my 60 cents, there will be no insurance. So, if I send my cash to the seller, without insurance, and it gets lost, then why can't I claim that the seller is just out of luck because the post office lost his payment but I still want my item that I attempted to pay for. Just as if I didn't pay for, and get, insurance on the gun I purchased, and it got lost in shipping, the seller would have told me the same thing.
Or, before I send the cash, I can contact the seller and offer him the option of him paying for the insurance for the cash payment I am going to send him(I could deduct the insurance cost from what I pay him.) Of course me making such an offer to a seller would make him mad as he!!, but isn't that pretty much what some sellers do to the buyers?
TR,
Caveat emptor, he stated his terms, you won the auction, you must abide by them. Personally, I would not do business with someone who is not smart enough to make a educated guess as to what shipping with insurance is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, what about this. IN my recent purchase, the seller choose to not make himself voluntarily responsible for the cost of insurance to cover the item if lost or damaaged in shipping.
So why can't I, the buyer take the same stand regarding my payment?
Say I decide to send him cash. I can get a post office "receipt of mailing" for about 60 cents I believe. That will save me the $2.00 or $3.00 for the money order. But for my 60 cents, there will be no insurance. So, if I send my cash to the seller, without insurance, and it gets lost, then why can't I claim that the seller is just out of luck because the post office lost his payment but I still want my item that I attempted to pay for. Just as if I didn't pay for, and get, insurance on the gun I purchased, and it got lost in shipping, the seller would have told me the same thing.
Or, before I send the cash, I can contact the seller and offer him the option of him paying for the insurance for the cash payment I am going to send him(I could deduct the insurance cost from what I pay him.) Of course me making such an offer to a seller would make him mad as he!!, but isn't that pretty much what some sellers do to the buyers?
TR,
Caveat emptor, he stated his terms, you won the auction, you must abide by them. Personally, I would not do business with someone who is not smart enough to make a educated guess as to what shipping with insurance is.
Heck, Don, in my mind there never was any question whether or not I would abide by the seller's insurance practice. From the very start I accept a lot of the responsibiltiy for this situation. (Maybe even 99%). Talking here the "prinicpal" of the situation and not just a measly $3.00, I think sellers (as well as buyers) have a reasponsibility to try and make the "shopping experience" as enjoyable as possible. And sticking in an unexpected charge at the very bottom of a long list of verbage, even though posted in red small print, is not working very hard to try and keep the seller and buyer from accidently having a misunderstanding or even, to a small degree, hard feelings.
I do think that I will suggest to the seller that they post their insurance position in the same line they post their shipping charge. I don't think anybody would consider that unreasonable.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
45 comments