|
 |
| | | Author: | hTristan  | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 07:41 | | Subject: | Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 366 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 08:07 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
+1
I've raised the issue many times. Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear
to care.
IMO terms should be abolished and a simple series of allowed multiple choice
options together with a shipping table should be all a seller enters, just like
on BrickOwl.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyipp | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 08:55 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear to care.
|
Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 08:59 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| I think you missed out a word ... 
Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
even
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Macaronis | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 09:20 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:
| | I think you missed out a word ...
Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
even
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.
|
Less from Nothing... you can not divide by zero in the first place...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 09:55 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, randyipp writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear to care.
|
Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.
|
Well, if they remove the whole terms system (as far as you can call it a "system"
at all.. it's just an empty textbox without any form of restriction), there
wouldn't be any need to do so. BrickOwl doesn't have this problem and
they have even fewer people working on it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyipp | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 10:42 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | Well, if they remove the whole terms system (as far as you can call it a "system"
at all.. it's just an empty textbox without any form of restriction), there
wouldn't be any need to do so. BrickOwl doesn't have this problem and
they have even fewer people working on it.
|
The only thing I don't like about Brick Owl is there is not real terms.
Even just for finding out things like how often a seller ships, or their policy
on missing items.
I'd rather have a non-policed terms section than to go without one completely,
I think that is a really poor solution.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, randyipp writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | Well, if they remove the whole terms system (as far as you can call it a "system"
at all.. it's just an empty textbox without any form of restriction), there
wouldn't be any need to do so. BrickOwl doesn't have this problem and
they have even fewer people working on it.
|
The only thing I don't like about Brick Owl is there is not real terms.
Even just for finding out things like how often a seller ships, or their policy
on missing items.
I'd rather have a non-policed terms section than to go without one completely,
I think that is a really poor solution.
|
I guess it comes down to: How many people actually shy away from Bricklink because
of it. And my estimation is that it's really a lot, and that Bricklink is
severely underestimating this problem. For hobbyists, who have patience for it,
it's of course better to have all these options - that's a no-brainer.
But my guess is that we could really see a lot more business here if Bricklink
became more accessible to the mainstream market if they simply set 1 standard
for all stores, a standard that people are already familiar with.
That may go at the expense of some hobbyists who like to set exotic terms (let's
assume for a moment they don't break the law), but in my experience, talking
to hobby sellers with strange terms, they are often actually quite willing to
adapt and are still learning the ropes. So for some of them, Bricklink forcing
them to have different terms is a help more than a limitation.
Anyway - personally I don't mind that Bricklink is the way it is... it is
in my personal interest  Many customers in my webshop are people who are uncomfortable
buying on Bricklink. There's actually a physical Lego shop here in the country
that is referring their customers to my webshop for missing pieces, purely because
of the fact that Bricklink's terms are so erratic.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | […]
I guess it comes down to: How many people actually shy away from Bricklink because
of it. And my estimation is that it's really a lot, and that Bricklink is
severely underestimating this problem. For hobbyists, who have patience for it,
it's of course better to have all these options - that's a no-brainer.
But my guess is that we could really see a lot more business here if Bricklink
became more accessible to the mainstream market if they simply set 1 standard
for all stores, a standard that people are already familiar with.
|
I think BL is mostly aware of the first part… but their solution was XP & EasyBuy:
hide everything and then leave the buyer confused when they realize there’s actually
lots of sellers and they are all different and not policed/standardized.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Llewyn | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, SylvainLS writes:
| | I think BL is mostly aware of the first part… but their solution was XP & EasyBuy:
hide everything and then leave the buyer confused when they realize there’s actually
lots of sellers and they are all different and not policed/standardized.
|
I suppose, from what I've seen of it, that XP could be seen as a partial
solution to the "there's actually lots of sellers" problem by driving some
away 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 14:17 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| | |
I guess it comes down to: How many people actually shy away from Bricklink because
of it. And my estimation is that it's really a lot, and that Bricklink is
severely underestimating this problem. For hobbyists, who have patience for it,
it's of course better to have all these options - that's a no-brainer.
But my guess is that we could really see a lot more business here if Bricklink
became more accessible to the mainstream market if they simply set 1 standard
for all stores, a standard that people are already familiar with.
That may go at the expense of some hobbyists who like to set exotic terms (let's
assume for a moment they don't break the law), but in my experience, talking
to hobby sellers with strange terms, they are often actually quite willing to
adapt and are still learning the ropes. So for some of them, Bricklink forcing
them to have different terms is a help more than a limitation.
|
From talking to quite a few other AFOLs, both ones that use and don't use
BL, I don't think seller terms here are that much of a turn off. I think
these are all more important:
Out of date design,
difficult to use search / hard to find parts,
hard to use catalogue (similar to above),
a high learning barrier to place an order, especially if wants lists are needed,
difficulty in finding one seller with all the parts they want (wants lists again!),
so many unnecessary clicks to do something, such as having to select your own
country every time you search instead of being able to simply save this, ...
Imagine a new buyer wants to buy Drax's head. Wouldn't it be great to
be able to search for "Drax head" instead of knowing that they need to search
for (for example) "head red tattoos" (and definitely not "red tattoos head",
as that is different). Or find the minifigure then dig down into the inventory
to find it.
BL has a lot of great functionality when you know how to use it but is very difficult
to use if you just want to search for a few parts, get them from one seller
and be able to buy within 10 minutes. I think that is a far bigger turn off than
dodgy terms (from both hobbyist and professional sellers, it is not just hobby
sellers that have long, confusing or dodgy terms).
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LeeGo73 | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 08:39 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
Perhaps the difference between C2C and B2C? Many sellers on Bricklink do this
as a hobby.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, LeeGo73 writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
Perhaps the difference between C2C and B2C? Many sellers on Bricklink do this
as a hobby.
|
The common misconception is that it's the "C2" and "B2" part that matters
- when in reality it's the "2C" part Because we're talking about rights
that consumers have, and not obligations that businesses have. Bricklink even
asks all sellers specifically to respect consumer rights in the terms, but then
it doesn't do anything to check whether they do or not.
The fact that Bricklink acts immediately if a US based seller charges PayPal
fees, but doesn't act at all if someone from another country violates the
regional PayPal terms is very telling. Bricklink only acts when an external party
is pressuring them to do it. And us demanding Bricklink to act fair and in accordance
with the law simply isn't enough pressure for them.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 08:45 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
The same consumer rights do not apply everywhere in the world. Even in the small
country of Blokjeskoning, which is located in Europe, the rules are different
from those in the rest of Europe.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TempleOfBricks | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 10:12 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Just don't order from these stores..
Seller is always responsible
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| Are you sure? I'm betting there are several legal loopholes, at least in
the USA.
How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.
BTW: I'm not claiming that it is a good selling practice.
In Terms and Policies, TempleOfBricks writes:
| | Just don't order from these stores..
Seller is always responsible
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, tEoS writes:
| | How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.
|
You don't really want to open that can of worms, do you ?
The hard truth is, we need them more than they need us. They also have a much
better legal department, and they have rules that will be enforced.
A seller is eventually responsible (to some extent). If the seller can prove
that they shipped the correct item, and to the correct address, the payment service
might cover it. Some of that may also have to do with how often the seller has
claims against them.
Many sellers, and mostly involving international packages, lost claims during
2020, because shipping went kaboom during the pandemic. Right now, a small number
of countries are blocking arrivals from a few other countries. If that continues
to propagate outwards, then it will affect the number of airline flights, which
will impact air-cargo and mail. The next 30 days will be an interesting moment
in time.
As far as legal coverage, the two terms that are typically used are Force
Majure and FOB seller. The first speaks to unexpected and reasonably
unpredictable circumstances, while the second suggests that title transfers
to the buyer when it leaves the shipper's hands. Both could be overruled
by the payment service.
It's a mad mad mad mad world out there.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, tEoS writes:
| | How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.
|
Fishy perhaps, but it is the truth. A courier does not have a legal obligation
there, sellers do. When you pick insured shipping, they do have this responsibility.
(IMO postal services should at least always pay back the shipping cost if they
lose it though, since no service was provided)
Look at it from another perspective: Thanks to the availability of uninsured
postal products at all, sellers are able to save lots of money. It's always
better to insure it out of your own pocket than to buy insurance, since that
is a product, and on products they make profit after all.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 11:27 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
If you don't get your items, complain to PayPal instead of the seller if
seller's terms deny any responsibility.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
The wording seems to be an attempt to thread-the-needle, awkwardly.
If a seller chooses to indemnify themselves in a transaction, it’s should be
at their own cost. If the buyer wishes to further indemnify the transaction,
the onus is on them. In other words, whichever party requires the added
peace-of-mind that is insurance, bears the cost of that added service.
Neither should be coerced.
-popsicle
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
Big stores and companies are liable in some countries. Every store and company
are liable in other countries. Some sellers here are just people selling extra
bricks. Paypal holds all sellers accountable for delivery up to a point.
If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.
My point is that every circumstance is not the same here.
Good luck,
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2021 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:
| | If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.
|
I feel you are getting this the wrong way round because the buyer has already
helped the seller out by choosing to place an order in their store over other
stores. Coercing a buyer in with appealing prices only to then expect a buyer
to be responsible for further additional insurance on top regular shipping charges
should not be assumed/expected. The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.
If a sellers happy to win an order using enticing pricing tactics then they need
to also take responsibility for ensuring the customer receives what they ordered.
Sellers can't have it both ways!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:
| | If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.
|
I feel you are getting this the wrong way round because the buyer has already
helped the seller out by choosing to place an order in their store over other
stores. Coercing a buyer in with appealing prices only to then expect a buyer
to be responsible for further additional insurance on top regular shipping charges
should not be assumed/expected. The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.
|
It is impossible to factor in the cost of insurance and lost packages for a small
shop with small orders. How much do you add to the cost of $.05 brick to off-set
this? If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.
It's mostly a personal treat-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated kind
of thing. I am not alone in this either, there are plenty of people like me!
That's why I offered up another opinion about this matter.
Jen
| |
If a sellers happy to win an order using enticing pricing tactics then they need
to also take responsibility for ensuring the customer receives what they ordered.
Sellers can't have it both ways!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:
| | If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.
|
I feel you are getting this the wrong way round because the buyer has already
helped the seller out by choosing to place an order in their store over other
stores. Coercing a buyer in with appealing prices only to then expect a buyer
to be responsible for further additional insurance on top regular shipping charges
should not be assumed/expected. The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.
|
It is impossible to factor in the cost of insurance and lost packages for a small
shop with small orders. How much do you add to the cost of $.05 brick to off-set
this? If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.
It's mostly a personal treat-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated kind
of thing. I am not alone in this either, there are plenty of people like me!
That's why I offered up another opinion about this matter.
Jen
|
Well said!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| | | If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.
|
Why would a buyer need to worry about a package arriving?
If it is packaged adequately (seller's responsibility) it won't get damaged,
if it is addressed properly (seller's responsibility) and sent by a reputable
carrier (seller's responsibility) with any necessary documentation attached
(seller's responsibility) then it should arrive.
Especially when paypal tells buyers that paypal will refund the buyer if the
buyer doesn't get what they ordered, there is little incentive for a buyer
to choose to pay more for an unnecessary service when the seller doesn't
require them to.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bricksinbins | | Posted: | Dec 1, 2021 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:
| | If it is packaged adequately (seller's responsibility) it won't get damaged,
if it is addressed properly (seller's responsibility) and sent by a reputable
carrier (seller's responsibility) with any necessary documentation attached
(seller's responsibility) then it should arrive.
|
Yes it *should*. But don't tell me you are so naive as to believe it always
does. The Postal service lose mail, sometimes even deliberately. There have been
cases where the mail man has simply just dumped the mail load into the trash
somewhere. And don't forget that they don't give much guarantee that
your mail will be delivered.
With that said, yes the seller is ultimately responsible for the buyer receiveing
the goods they paid for.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 1, 2021 10:16 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, bricksinbins writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:
| | If it is packaged adequately (seller's responsibility) it won't get damaged,
if it is addressed properly (seller's responsibility) and sent by a reputable
carrier (seller's responsibility) with any necessary documentation attached
(seller's responsibility) then it should arrive.
|
Yes it *should*. But don't tell me you are so naive as to believe it always
does. The Postal service lose mail, sometimes even deliberately. There have been
cases where the mail man has simply just dumped the mail load into the trash
somewhere. And don't forget that they don't give much guarantee that
your mail will be delivered.
With that said, yes the seller is ultimately responsible for the buyer receiveing
the goods they paid for.
|
Of course I am not naive to believe every piece of mail gets there. But I know
almost all does, and that I would not pay about an extra 5-10% of the cost of
goods being sent each time I order for insurance for something that happens way
under 1% of the times. Especially for smaller orders, when (here in UK) a seller
can get a free proof of posting that allows them to claim for any losses up to
£20.
It wouldn't surprise me if sellers not sending orders or making mistakes
in addressing them occurs more frequently than the item not arriving if correctly
addressed and posted.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 20:28 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:
| | It is impossible to factor in the cost of insurance and lost packages for a small
shop with small orders. How much do you add to the cost of $.05 brick to off-set
this? If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.
It's mostly a personal treat-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated kind
of thing. I am not alone in this either, there are plenty of people like me!
That's why I offered up another opinion about this matter.
Jen
|
Whether your a big corp or not makes no difference. The moment you decide to
sell an item to a member of the public you have a duty of care to make sure that
buyer receives what they paid for and its as simple as that. It is of no concern
to the buyer whether the seller makes a huge profit, a small profit or nothing
at all?
After all it is the seller that chooses to put something up for sale and beleive
me they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart they do it to make
money and the volume of sales and profit made is down to the seller making the
right choices.... a balancing act of charging the right prices for their items/service
whilst at the same time accepting a certain degree of risk/responsibility that
comes with shipping those items
Putting the onus back on the customer by insisting that on top of shipping they
should also pay additional insurance just to receive what they ordered is always
going to be a somewhat flawed way of doing things and does'nt give out the
right message!
Either way presumably the seller will only need to insure their high value orders
anyway and in which case surely the seller is already making good profit margins
on that particular order? enough to cover the insurance cost perhaps?? If they're
not making enough profit on high value orders then they are doing something wrong
which goes back to my suggestion of pricing your items appropriately in the first
place and not pricing yourself out the market just to get the sale!
So yes my comment regarding increasing overall prices to help cover the cost
of insurance was meant in relative terms in the sense that if increasing item
prices means a small hobby seller makes an extra £50 each month perhaps that
might be enough to cover the cost of the 5 or so transactions they feel the need
to insure each month?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:
| | The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.
|
To be clear, a seller must cover their costs of doing business, and turn a sufficient
profit, or they will cease to be in business. No matter how you slice baloney,
it's still baloney. The question that arises is, what is the typical loss
ratio and how does the seller deal with that. Some shipping methods (in the USA,
Priority Mail) come with limited indemnity coverage built in. I've heard
of some ePostage sites (e.g. Pirate Ship) offering a 3rd party insurance solution
that may be more affordable. You price your parts at what the market will bear.
Then you look at what it costs to ship a given order, and how often you will
experience claims. There is nothing to be ashamed of, with having to bundle a
small increase in shipping, to cover your losses. This is different than buying
insurance per package shipped. This is self insurance, and spreading the cost
of it across all orders.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2021 21:34 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | To be clear, a seller must cover their costs of doing business, and turn a sufficient
profit, or they will cease to be in business. The question that arises is, what is the typical loss ratio and how does the seller deal with that.
|
and yet this is my point exactly.... It is not for the buyer to be responsible
for proping up the seller so as to ensure they make sufficent profits. It is
down to the seller to make the right choices and look at what needs to be done
to ensure their selling venture is profitable!
| | There is nothing to be ashamed of, with having to bundle a
small increase in shipping, to cover your losses. This is different than buying
insurance per package shipped. This is self insurance, and spreading the cost
of it across all orders.
Nita Rae
|
Yes and thats fine but I feel it pays to be as transaparent and forthcoming with
the buyer from the start wherever possible and by that I mean if two orders for
the exact same goods both cost £100 total
Its a much better overall experience for the buyer if their combined goods total
cost £90 and then £10 is added for shipping at checkout
Compared to paying £80 for the goods but then paying £10 shipping and then an
additonal £10 Insurance at checkout
The buyer is still paying £100 for their insured order its just one order has
a bigger unexpected surprise awaiting them at checkout!
Therefore I feel its better to try and incorporate any anticipated losses into
the sale price of your items rather than spreading it accross shipping/insurance
at the end but for many sellers position in the price guide is of more importance
than buyer transparency!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Poncke | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 09:33 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
Started an identical thread bout this 2 weeks ago. The shipping terms are in
conflict with EU directive for consumers. Thats why BL should take ownership
of this.
Refunds, shipping, all consumer rights, are often set by laws, stores on here
cannot invent their own terms. Better terms yes, lesser/worse terms no.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 09:59 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, Poncke writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:
| | I just came across the following:
"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."
This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.
|
Started an identical thread bout this 2 weeks ago. The shipping terms are in
conflict with EU directive for consumers. Thats why BL should take ownership
of this.
Refunds, shipping, all consumer rights, are often set by laws, stores on here
cannot invent their own terms. Better terms yes, lesser/worse terms no.
|
+1
I think posts about these kinds of things from completely new users like you
guys need to be taken extra seriously. Long term users represent the traditional
AFOL community, while new users represent today's consumer market - and that's
much bigger. The complaints that new users have such as these is exactly what
I hear from non-Bricklinkers in real life - and there are many of those. For
every one user that posts their frustrations in the forum, I for one am pretty
sure there's a whole bunch of others who did not even bother to do it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 30, 2021 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| | |
Started an identical thread bout this 2 weeks ago. The shipping terms are in
conflict with EU directive for consumers. Thats why BL should take ownership
of this.
|
BL already partly do, since all users must comply with local laws.
| | Refunds, shipping, all consumer rights, are often set by laws, stores on here
cannot invent their own terms. Better terms yes, lesser/worse terms no.
|
Sellers can invent whatever terms they like, but whether they are enforceable
is another matter (usually they are not).
|
|
|
|
|
Australia, Australian Capital Territory
Netherlands, Utrecht
USA, New Hampshire
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Luxembourg
Finland, Pohjanmaa
Ireland, Meath