Risk of Loss - Poker chips lost in transit (1 Viewer)

[Pgheddie]

Hypothetically speaking, of course, but let's just say 1000+ chips are purchased on PCF and seller puts all chips in a MFRB. The box arrives at buyer's house clearly damaged with only 162 chips in the box. Cost of shipping was on seller, and seller did not purchase insurance.

Discuss.

P.S., the hypothetical buyer worked it out with the hypothetical seller. But still worthy of discussion I think for future guidance.

 

[JMC9389]

That sounds like a lot of chips to be packed into a MFRB. Typically when I last sold a set I could fit no more than 600 chips in a MFRB with comfortable insulation.

Are you suspecting theft or the seller shorting you? I'm not sure I'm clear about what exactly is going on here.

 

[Cynamon]

Hopefully the package was insured for the value the person paid. USPS is damn slow with claims but with persistence the money should be restored.

As for the chips, the buyer will most likely have to re-order/buy elsewhere.

 

[lewan]

this is not the thing u wanna hear when u have lots of chips on the way

sorry this happened

 

[Pgheddie]

No, I don't think the seller shorted me, er, the buyer (we are hypothetical here, right?), but I think packing more than 1000 chips in a mfrb invites a blow out and the buyer shouldn't be left holding the bag.

 

[Eloe2000]

These weren’t my Taj chips I sent you were they? Those arrived a while ago I think. Just want to make sure.

 

[Pgheddie]

These weren’t my Taj chips I sent you were they? Those arrived a while ago I think. Just want to make sure.

Nope

 

[upNdown]

I’ve always felt that legally, the seller is on the hook until the chips are in the buyer’s hand. (Which seems to run contrary to the general attitudes here.)

I’ve also always felt that the gentlemanly thing for PCFers to do in a situation where the carrier screws up is to split the difference - each assume half the loss.

In a case where the there was negligence on the seller’s part (improperly packed chips for example,) I’d be inclined to say the seller should assume the entire loss, and give the buyer the choice of shipping them back for a full refund, or keep what’s in the box and receive a prorated refund. But I guess I’d want to know exact facts before passing that kind of judgement.

Edit: unless of course the buyer requested the medium box to save a few bucks on shipping.

 

[Pgheddie]

I’ve always felt that legally, the seller is on the hook until the chips are in the buyer’s hand. (Which seems to run contrary to the general attitudes here.)

I’ve also always felt that the gentlemanly thing for PCFers to do in a situation where the carrier screws up is to split the difference - each assume half the loss.

In a case where the there was negligence on the seller’s part (improperly packed chips for example,) I’d be inclined to say the seller should assume the entire loss, and give the buyer the choice of shipping them back for a full refund, or keep what’s in the box and receive a prorated refund. But I guess I’d want to know exact facts before passing that kind of judgement.

Edit: unless of course the buyer requested the medium box to save a few bucks on shipping.

No judgment, we are speaking hypothetically here.

Let me know what facts are missing - I've updated the OP with some additional detail.

 

[upNdown]

No judgment, we are speaking hypothetically here.

Let me know what facts are missing - I've updated the OP with some additional detail.

I just haven’t shipped large quantities in a while, so I don’t remember how many chips is reasonable for a medium size box, or if we have any generally agreed upon standards.

 

[Pgheddie]

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/usps-flat-rate-boxes-how-many-chips-in-each.59124/

 

[Eloe2000]

I just haven’t shipped large quantities in a while, so I don’t remember how many chips is reasonable for a medium size box, or if we have any generally agreed upon standards.

I have shipped large quantities tightly packed in an MFRB. Actually I sent a cards mold set to OP last month this way. You can fit 200 chips in double barrels (40x5rows) in an SFRB. The SFRBs then slide comfortably into the MFRB. The chips themselves are tightly packed and padded in a way that they are not at much risk from breaking. But the limit one must be concerned about is the integrity of the outer box. However if the box breaks then entire SFRBs would fall out, not loose chips. And you can further mitigate loss by putting the address on these inner SFRBs. In my instance I think it was only 800 chips in the MFRB. I taped the hell out of the box. I wouldn’t have done this with more valuable type chips. But if that box broke due to overpacking in a way that compromised the standard integrity of the box then as the seller I would have felt responsible.

Sorry to hear about this bad situation. @Pgheddie

 

[Thomacetti]

1040 chips in a MFRB is an accident in the making...if the seller opted for the MFRB, then that is on him/her (600-800 max)
Packaging the chips loose in the box is strike 2 for me.

Under 'normal' circumstances, I would suggest 50/50
These boxes a very sturdy (more so then UPS/DHL/FEDEX) and don't rip like it's nothing....

 

[Rieguy]

If chips are not packaged properly, that is on the seller. The exception is if the buyer demanded the shipper send chips a certain way, which the seller obliged, resulting in the issue.

Cost of shipping was on seller, and seller did not purchase insurance.

This is worth pointing out in this instance. Buyers have to decide whether or not they want to do things via G&S and/or purchase insurance. I doubt a seller would refuse offering these as an option, but if they did, that's an easy deal-breaker regardless of whether or not I wanted either or both of them. If a seller does everything right and the buyer opts to not purchase insurance etc., is it fair for them to take the hit? I'm not stating it is or is not either way, just worth pondering.

In this situation, it seems like questionable packaging by the seller and no insurance requested by the buyer; therefore, I would probably recommend trying to work something out between the two parties. It does appear the seller is more at fault here, but ultimately, there are two sides to every story so without hearing from the other party I don't want to say anything too definitive.

 

[Cynamon]

I’ve also always felt that the gentlemanly thing for PCFers to do in a situation where the carrier screws up is to split the difference - each assume half the loss.

In a case where the there was negligence on the seller’s part (improperly packed chips for example,) I’d be inclined to say the seller should assume the entire loss, and give the buyer the choice of shipping them back for a full refund, or keep what’s in the box and receive a

The point of insurance is to make sure no one has the eat the loss in the case the carrier messes up and the carriers mess up a lot.


Going back the hypothetical where the seller did not purchase insurance and the buyer did not realize that insurance was not purchased, I would expect the seller to perform a full refund if what they recieved is returned or a prorated refund just like upndown said.

 

[Pgheddie]

I insure many packages when not requested by my buyer, at my cost, based on how heavy the package feels.

A buyer of 1,000 chips may be willing to take the risk of properly packaged chips being lost, but not the risk that improperly packaged chips will be lost. When seller covers the cost shipping, buyer has no way of insuring or knowing if the chips are improperly packaged.

Also, will the post office even let the buyer make a claim on the insurance purchased by the seller? Not sure it works that way.

 

[Nanook]

I just shipped 1150 Cards mold chips and I used 2 x mfrb rather than 1 lfrb. I paid for shipping and I did it knowing full well that I would be spending an extra $10. Of the last 5 lfrb that I have received all 5 have been broken to some extent. Luckily none were missing more than a small % of the total chips.

As for mfrb, I have never sent or received one that got broken, but at the same time I never send more than 700 or maybe 800 at the absolute limit

 

[Rieguy]

A buyer of 1,000 chips may be willing to take the risk of properly packaged chips being lost, but not the risk that improperly packaged chips will be lost. When seller covers the cost shipping, buyer has no way of insuring or knowing if the chips are improperly packaged.

Yeah, I agree with this and fully believe that poorly packaged chips are on the seller regardless.

My comments on insurance were more so addressing the implication that insurance is a decision for the seller to make. Buyers should be the ones deciding whether or not they want to pay extra for insurance and/or G&S.

You have more pics of the box? It looks like USPS re-taped the box after noticing an issue?

 

[Pgheddie]

You have more pics of the box? It looks like USPS re-tapped the box after noticing an issue?

There is little doubt that the box broke open during shipping and USPS retaped with whatever contents were left inside I don't suspect for a minute that seller shorted the box.

 

[MrCatPants]

There is little doubt that the box broke open during shipping and USPS retaped with whatever contents were left inside I don't suspect for a minute that seller shorted the box.

That's what USPS seems to do in these situations. I got a letter with mine when this happened to me to say what facility it was damaged at and was given a number to call that no one ever picked up.

 

[upNdown]

Buyers should be the ones deciding whether or not they want to pay extra for insurance and/or G&S.

I disagree with this. And I guess it gets back to who you think bears the risk, under normal circumstances.
I say it’s the seller’s responsibility to get the chips into the hands of the buyer. And since the seller has the risk, the seller should be the one deciding on insurance. And whether he wants to build that cost into the price of the chips or pay out of his pocket, that’s up to him.

 

[Pgheddie]

I disagree with this. And I guess it gets back to who you think bears the risk, under normal circumstances.
I say it’s the seller’s responsibility to get the chips into the hands of the buyer. And since the seller has the risk, the seller should be the one deciding on insurance. And whether he wants to build that cost into the price of the chips or pay out of his pocket, that’s up to him.

Does anyone know: can a buyer even make a claim under insurance purchased by Seller?

 

[allforcharity]

Does anyone know: can a buyer even make a claim under insurance purchased by Seller?

No.

 

[Pgheddie]

That's dispositive for me, and why I generally insure packages I send whether I pass the cost of the insurance on to the buyer or not. USPS provides the insurance and they view it as seller's insurance. Why, as buyer, would I buy insurance I can't make a claim under?

 

[Rieguy]

I disagree with this. And I guess it gets back to who you think bears the risk, under normal circumstances.
I say it’s the seller’s responsibility to get the chips into the hands of the buyer. And since the seller has the risk, the seller should be the one deciding on insurance. And whether he wants to build that cost into the price of the chips or pay out of his pocket, that’s up to him.

I agree with this fully in business-to-customer sales, but with person-to-person here it seems like almost everyone is on the side of not bearing responsibility once the (let's assume properly packaged) chips are sent out. Most sales here will specify "insurance optional at buyer's expense" etc. If they do not and I want insurance, I'm asking for it. I'm certainly not going to assume or hope the seller will purchase extra insurance if not specified.

A seller should obviously try and work things out though in any situation though.

Why, as buyer, would I buy insurance I can't make a claim under?

You're not. You are paying the seller to buy the insurance and they would then file a claim if there is an issue.

 

[dennis63]

The issue should have been decided between the parties prior to shipment, even prior to the sale.

My opinion only: The buyer should always have the option to take insurance (or decline it) for up to the full value of the shipment.

 

[Pgheddie]

I agree with this fully in business-to-customer sales, but with person-to-person here it seems like almost everyone is on the side of not bearing responsibility once the (let's assume properly packaged) chips are sent out.

No, no, my thread, my assumptions.

Is it proper to package over 1,000 chips in a mfrb? Threshold inquiry.

If no, who bears the risk of loss?

If yes, where seller says free shipping, who is responsible for buying insurance?

If seller, who bears risk of loss if insurance isn't purchased?

Most sales here will specify "insurance optional at buyer's expense" etc. If they do not and I want insurance, I'm asking for it. I'm certainly not going to assume or hope the seller will purchase extra insurance if not specified.

I think most do not.

And noone assumed or hoped, but do you not think how chips are packaged bears a direct relationship to the need for insurance?

If yes, who controls that? Does buyer even know how chips are packaged until they arrive?

You're not. You are paying the seller to buy the insurance and they would then file a claim if there is an issue.

So seller would get my purchase funds AND the insurance funds, while I have neither - and no chips?

Your
position
makes
no
sense.

 

[Rieguy]

No, no, my thread, my assumptions.

Is it proper to package over 1,000 chips in a mfrb? Threshold inquiry.

If no, who bears the risk of loss?

If yes, where seller says free shipping, who is responsible for buying insurance?

If seller, who bears risk of loss if insurance isn't purchased?




I think most do not.

And noone assumed or hoped, but do you not think how chips are packaged bears a direct relationship to the need for insurance?

If yes, who controls that? Does buyer even know how chips are packaged until they arrive?



So seller would get my purchase funds AND the insurance funds, while I have neither - and no chips?

Your
position
makes
no
sense.

Um, first off, I was speaking in general in that last post not as to your specific situation. I think I've been very clear in each post when referring to your situation and in general, specifically stating that poor packaging is on the seller in each instance. It is, full stop. I hesitated to comment on your situation beyond that due to there always being two sides to a story. I simply added that I believe buyers should be the ones to decide if they are paying extra for G&S and/or insurance.

Second, these are person-to-person sales. The person would turn over whatever is paid back by insurance in a situation involving a claim. We deal in good faith here, well most of us. I would also like to think we converse in good faith here too.

 

[JMC9389]

The issue should have been decided between the parties prior to shipment, even prior to the sale.

My opinion only: The buyer should always have the option to take insurance (or decline it) for up to the full value of the shipment.

In a case where if I ever sell anything of value again (>$100), there will be mandatory insurance added to the cost if the total value is very high to the price of the sale. If the cost is minimal ($5 or so) I'll just include it free of charge.

 

[Pgheddie]

The issue should have been decided between the parties prior to shipment, even prior to the sale.

What issue? Whether a medium flat rate box was packed in excess of what is almost universally recognized on this forum as greater than its capacity?

The specific instance here is whether in excess of 1,000 chips should be packed in a mfrb and if not, and the package explodes in transit as a result, who should bear the risk of loss.

Secondarily, whether it is a buyers responsibility to insure a package when (1) the buyer can't determine whether additional insurance may be necessary because of poor packaging by seller, (2) the buyer can't purchase the insurance him or herself, (3) the buyer has no control over whether the seller will actually use the additional funds to insure the package as opposed to pocketing the extra funds and sending uninsured (most times the package will show up fine so windfall for the unscrupulous seller), (4) if the seller purchases the insurance and the package is lost, the buyer can't make a claim under the insurance, only the seller can, and (5) if the seller successfully submits a claim and is paid, seller can pocket both the buyer's purchase funds and the funds received from the insurance claim.

Clearly, the USPS views it as seller's insurance, not buyer's. The fact that some on this forum have turned this into a buyer obligation in spite of the above seems to me to be very pro seller and anti buyer - to an obnoxious degree.