Assuming blame for damage shipping

[nickna3299]

I have a huge  problem with the concept that a seller is responsible for damage occurred during shipping even when the buyer plainly states there is visible damage to the box.  I dont feel its right to then hang it on the buyer but in the case of a USPS claim the person making the claim will be required to bring the physical package and item in for inspection. So unfortunately that falls on the receiver/buyer.  Second in line, if the sellers listing states "accepts no returns", should make it fall on ebay and their money back guarantee. Why does it seem the seller always ends up with the raw deals, who's moral compass are these decisions aligned with?

[fbusoni]

---

@nickna3299 wrote:

I have a huge  problem with the concept that a seller is responsible for damage occurred during shipping even when the buyer plainly states there is visible damage to the box.  I dont feel its right to then hang it on the buyer but in the case of a USPS claim the person making the claim will be required to bring the physical package and item in for inspection. So unfortunately that falls on the receiver/buyer.  Second in line, if the sellers listing states "accepts no returns", should make it fall on ebay and their money back guarantee. Why does it seem the seller always ends up with the raw deals, who's moral compass are these decisions aligned with?

---

@nickna3299 

eBay is not the place to look for a moral compass, especially these days, when artificial intelligence is running the joint.

You as seller made the contract with the shipping agent to deliver the parcel.

Thus, to my mind it only makes sense that you as seller are responsible for dealing with consequences of damage during shipping.

As I see it, asking the buyer to file a claim is a non-starter and bad business.   

You can send the buyer a return label and have them ship the box and its contents back to you.  Then you can take the box to your local post office for inspection.  

Did you get a return request?  If so, how did you respond? 

As for the seller declaration of "no returns," that's always a foolish hill to die on, because refunds will occur 99.999% of the time in the absence of a return if a buyer wishes.  

The "money" in the eBay "money back guarantee" comes from the seller most of the time; there are cases in which eBay will foot the bill... for example, under the terms of the EIS program.

[toysaver]

I don't know what happened in this particular case but shipping anything of a fragile nature requires double boxing with no void space in the box.   You have to stuff thick stiff paper or shredded cardboard in the crevices making a solid dense interior.  That lessens the likelihood of damage to the box or contents.  The buyer and the shipper have no ability to do this packing.  It rests solely on the seller.  

[inhawaii]

In my humble opinion...

Damaged contents with visible damage to the package = Sellers responsibility.

Damaged contents without visible damage to the package = Sellers responsibility.

[powell-collectibles]

Put yourself in the buyers shoes. If you receive the damage item, would you want to be told that you’re only recourse is to fight a government bureaucracy? Or, would you want for the seller to make it right?

[aeparts1]

When you are selling vintage pottery you have to assume there is going to be breakage in shipment, no matter how well you pack the items. You  have to factor this breakage into your selling costs.

Triple box, multiple layers of bubble wrap & cardboard, you will still have items arrive damaged.

[frodobagginskennedy]

@fbusoni you do not want the buyer to reship the damaged item back to you.  The USPS does not want it back in the system.  How do they know it wasn't damaged on the way back. 

At least this is what I have always understood to be true.  

[fbusoni]

---

@frodobagginskennedy wrote:

@fbusoni you do not want the buyer to reship the damaged item back to you.  The USPS does not want it back in the system.  How do they know it wasn't damaged on the way back. 

At least this is what I have always understood to be true.  

---

@frodobagginskennedy 

Thanks... I originally had in my post above an anecdote about my own experience with a damaged item.  USPS asked that I regain possession of the box after I told them that I was not going put the burden on the buyer of filing a claim.

But I can certainly see the logic of not shipping a damaged box back to the seller. 

Unfortunately USPS does not make this easy, unless the item is $20 or less. 

Yeah, I know, what a surprise.

[nickna3299]

THANK YOU!! I believe you are the only one that has caught on to that little nugget. It appears everyone has completely glossed over the fact that I was not making a blanket statement of how responsibility should be delved out in every case and more importantly, and I made a point to be clear about this, I'm not saying that I think the buyer should be held liable. But if USPS, notorious for finding ways not to honor their various coverages, requires the item and original packing to be brought up for a in person inspection yet I have the buyer send it all back to me. I'm mean what do I say when I take it to the location I've shipped it from. 

Listen, I was just venting, I never expected to get a sympathetic ear on here I'm just glad you see one of the many issues with my particular situation that just frustrates the hell out of me about selling through this platform. The sellers always end up getting dumped on at every turn. The only recourse that I see is every single package is 100% insured going forward , yet another obstacle for the seller to overcome in the quest to remain profitable in this particular business model. Crazy man

[nickna3299]

I'm gonna assume tou meant to say if the package shows obvious damage it should fall on the buyer and if not then it falls to the sellers. If that's what you meant then you and I are in 100% agreement and that is exactly what happened in this case as per the buyer's initial  statement. The first guy that responded to this just went on about how to pack and just drooling his opinion and assumptions like if anyone else saw any other way then they are most certainly wrong when he didn't ask one specific about the situation. I can't take people like that seriously but I do appreciate your input, thanks

[dbfolks166mt]

@fbusoni you do not want the buyer to reship the damaged item back to you.  The USPS does not want it back in the system.  How do they know it wasn't damaged on the way back. 

At least this is what I have always understood to be true.  

     You would be correct if the receiver returns it it voids the insurance coverage. 

[dbfolks166mt]

     If USPS blindly paid out for insurance claims they would probably be inundated with claims some valid some maybe not so valid. People tend to find any number of ways to scam. The seller is not necessarily "responsible for damage" but what they are responsible for is adequately packing and labeling the item to prevent possible damage in transit. 

     I have filed a number of damage claims with USPS over the years both as a sender and as a receiver. It is much easier to do so as the receiver since as you noted often the USPS will require the package and the original packing to the local post office for inspection. If the post master approves the claim they will usually keep the item and the packing. The only time I have prevailed with a damage claim as the sender is when I had cooperation from the buyer. If the buyer is not willing to assist you are probably going to loose the claim. The one exception was a package received by a  buyer that had a damaged notification from USPS on the package and a tire track across the box. The buyer sent me several pictures, I fully refunded them and filed the claim. USPS approved that claim based solely on the pictures. Damage claims are tough to with with USPS but it is possible. 

     With regards to your "seller does not accept returns" you need to re-read the eBay MBG and fully understand what that means and realize not accepting returns does not translate to no refunds. 

[nickna3299]

Put yourself in my shoes and read your response. You and a couple other folks on here are either quick to judge a person or a situation without very much information or you have bought in to the long disproved notion that the customer is always right to the point you didn't think it was important to know my particular situation before you knew how to feel about it.

So since you didn't ask I'll fill you in and then you can make the same wrong judgment call.

I'm still learning the online vintage reseller business and make no claims that I'm an expert. 85% of my sales are early 20th century Arts & Crafts pottery with my average individual sale being right around $435 and my weekly sales vary between 3-6 pieces right now and I also do direct sales. I've been at this for 3 years but only have gotten serious in the past 10 months. This incident will be my 3rd request for a refund due to shipping damage. The other 2 came about in February and March and were both minor and only required partial refunds and were obviously due to my greenness which i immediately recognized and released the returns. So for one i promise i am a pro at packing my chosen inventory and two I have first hand knowledge whats involved in getting USPS to pay up on their covered items. I get a notice yesterday that a customer is claiming damage. I read the statement which clearly state the package is "partially crushed" and he opened this claim 4 days after the package was delivered and included no photos and made an off the wall statement about matte glazes on pottery making them damage easily. And like I said I, unlike other sellers on here, don't know everything about ebay that there is to know so I let my first post on here to vent so I didn't give nearly enough information for anyone to feel justified in telling me how I am feeling about this situation is wrong. But now you have more than enough info to do just that, so knock yourself out bud

[nickna3299]

You should just stopped after your first sentence and maybe asked a question or two because the rest of your response only solidified your first sentence and had absolutely nothing to do with this particular situation. But I did take the time to fill in that missing info in one of my responses here. If you happen to bring yourself up to speed and still had an opinion I would seriously consider what you had to say as opposed to this one

[fern*wood]

First of all, I want to say that is a stunning collection of pottery.  My brother collects these and would be blown away.  Anyway, for some reason I thought ebay now required a buyer to submit photos in some claims and I would think this one would, but without their cooperation in taking it the post office I'm not hopeful about the insurance claim success. 

Just a thought, I had a damage claim last year and the buyer had included photos to support this, but I hadn't scrolled down far enough within the return to see them at first.