So I ordered some parts from Steubrick-qc ...
They didn't come. I messaged him after a month but he did not respond. I
filed an NSS and he responded saying there was no refund for items lost in the
mail. What should I do?
So I ordered some parts from Steubrick-qc ...
They didn't come. I messaged him after a month but he did not respond. I
filed an NSS and he responded saying there was no refund for items lost in the
mail. What should I do?
he was lying (knowingly or not) since sellers are fully liable for the delivery
of the item to the provided address. keep up the NSS and complete it if he doesn't
refund and then file a claim on Paypal or with your bank to get your money back
if he refuses to refund
So I ordered some parts from Steubrick-qc ...
They didn't come. I messaged him after a month but he did not respond. I
filed an NSS and he responded saying there was no refund for items lost in the
mail. What should I do?
So I ordered some parts from Steubrick-qc ...
They didn't come. I messaged him after a month but he did not respond. I
filed an NSS and he responded saying there was no refund for items lost in the
mail. What should I do?
buyers are not responsible for postal issues. either lost packages or damaged
items.
imagine walking into a Mcd's , ordering & then after 4 hours the cashier
says, "it got lost on the counter., too bad"
sellers are responsible for making sure purchases are .. DELIVERED SAFE
not just simply 'shipped'.
Sellers are not responsible for the postal system after they've handed it
to them. Why does BrickLink keep trying to hold sellers accountable for third
parties beyond their control?
This is both annoying and confusing. If I hand a parcel to my postal I'm
entrusting them to be responsible for delivering the package. I could not at
all be physically there to oversee every step of the delivery process, nobody
can do that.
So why is it this way?
Sellers need some way of verifying that they've handed the package to the
postal service in their country, and that the package is on it's way to the
buyer. Until BrickLink can come up with a solution for this, then I am very sorry
to say that I can not and will not be held accountable for third parties beyond
my control, after the package has been handed to them. It's how postal systems
work.
I may consider reopening my store, but I cannot do this unless BrickLink comes
up with an trusted method of ensuring that a package has been sent.
If not, too bad. BrickLink has to reexamine the modern delivery processes and
improve the seller's position so that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the package is in the hands of the postal service, and therefore beyond
their control.
Sellers do have to fulfill the package handover part of the process, and BrickLink
needs to improve the recording of the package handover process. If they do not,
both sellers and buyers will continue to have problems with orders getting lost
or not being shipped to where they are supposed to go.
I really cannot foresee a situation where the seller continues to be held responsible
for third parties they have no control over. It is becoming untenable.
Sellers need some way of verifying that they've handed the package to the
postal service in their country, and that the package is on it's way to the
buyer. Until BrickLink can come up with a solution for this, then I am very sorry
to say that I can not and will not be held accountable for third parties beyond
my control, after the package has been handed to them. It's how postal systems
work.
I may consider reopening my store, but I cannot do this unless BrickLink comes
up with an trusted method of ensuring that a package has been sent.
If not, too bad. BrickLink has to reexamine the modern delivery processes and
improve the seller's position so that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the package is in the hands of the postal service, and therefore beyond
their control.
Bricklink does not run postal services in every country that it operates in so
it cannot come up with a solution for tracking all bricklink parcels. It is up
to the seller to choose a delivery service based on what evidence they want to
keep and the price they are willing to pay.
Looks like Australian consumer affairs holds a different opinion
"If the store or seller still fails to supply the product, the consumer is
entitled to a refund of any money they have paid for the product.
Note: if the seller claims to have posted the product, they are responsible for
resolving any issues with Australia Post or the courier company used to deliver
the product."
Europe has a very similar laws too, and in the US the FCC seems a bit "wishy-washy",
however pay pal is quite clear on delivery of a package. Now the post or shipping
company becomes an agent of the seller when they ship an item. This gives the
seller certain control over the package, they can reroute, make claims etc.
Looks like Australian consumer affairs holds a different opinion
"If the store or seller still fails to supply the product, the consumer is
entitled to a refund of any money they have paid for the product.
Note: if the seller claims to have posted the product, they are responsible for
resolving any issues with Australia Post or the courier company used to deliver
the product."
Europe has a very similar laws too, and in the US the FCC seems a bit "wishy-washy",
however pay pal is quite clear on delivery of a package. Now the post or shipping
company becomes an agent of the seller when they ship an item. This gives the
seller certain control over the package, they can reroute, make claims etc.
Thank you all for your replies, and the discussion regarding gambling math probability
by SylvainLS and others.
It is hard to remember all of these details sometimes. I'll have some links
to keep bookmarked when planning a reopening of my store now.
I sincerely hope that BrickLink conducts a periodic review of information to
ensure that it is both accurate and up-to-date for both buyers and sellers, in
particular regarding their obligations.
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
It's been a while since I tracked down insurance costs. I try to get things
right but that doesn't always happen. I do offer refunds if something went
wrong.
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
not sure if its different in Australia but in general buying insurance is often
a waste of money for lower $ packages as in general most arrive fine (99%+) so
insurance is sometimes best used for only high $ packages (for me if its under
$100 I don't buy insurance)
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
not sure if its different in Australia but in general buying insurance is often
a waste of money for lower $ packages as in general most arrive fine (99%+) so
insurance is sometimes best used for only high $ packages (for me if its under
$100 I don't buy insurance)
So do you expect everyone to have the same view?
I choose insurance because there are situations where loss or damage occurs,
not because of item value.
For me, selling some of my private LEGO collection is a hobby, to get a little
back. Or to sell off excess parts I no longer need. I would like some insurance
against a package that gets lost or damaged in the mail. Do you honestly expect
a seller to eat all of that cost of a $75 order because it was "under $100"?
Significant value is what I'd use to determine if insurance is needed, not
necessarily amount based.
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
not sure if its different in Australia but in general buying insurance is often
a waste of money for lower $ packages as in general most arrive fine (99%+) so
insurance is sometimes best used for only high $ packages (for me if its under
$100 I don't buy insurance)
So do you expect everyone to have the same view?
? nope just saying you'd loose more money overall if you buy insurance for
every package then if you were your own insurance company for lack of better
words the $100 is just my personal cutoff that why i said it in () since its
different for everyone for me in the past it used to be $50 but since anything
happening is extremely rare i changed it and have saved hundreds on insurance
by not buying it in the vast majority of cases (I still buy it for less then
my threshold if certain criteria are met such as item is vulnerable or i don't
trust the buyer/the shipping address is sketchy)
For a shop, yes - for a private seller with a couple orders per month, maybe
not I agree on this.
But, read well:
I would like some insurance against a package that gets lost or damaged in the mail.
First, define "insurance".
We recently lost a 300€ parcel, FULLY insured of course.
When complaining to French Post Colissimo International, they agreed... and refunded
70% of it.
Because it's in their terms, they refund 100% to regular users, and 70% to
Professionals, because they know pro make a margin, so the invoice amount is
not what a pro has lost
Another shipping method said that this wans't covered because bla bla and
bla.
Or the quality of your packaging was improper.
Or the size of the font in your printed address wasn't big enough.
In short; paying for an insurance is one thing, being 100% refunded is another.
Take care of this.
Do you honestly expect a seller to eat all of that cost of a $75 order because it was "under $100"?
Yes, no problem.
Better MAYBE lose $75 than with certitude lose $2 * 50
But yes, again, if you've a couple of orders it may be different.
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
not sure if its different in Australia but in general buying insurance is often
a waste of money for lower $ packages as in general most arrive fine (99%+) so
insurance is sometimes best used for only high $ packages (for me if its under
$100 I don't buy insurance)
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
not sure if its different in Australia but in general buying insurance is often
a waste of money for lower $ packages as in general most arrive fine (99%+) so
insurance is sometimes best used for only high $ packages (for me if its under
$100 I don't buy insurance)
(pretend those are pizza emojis since I'm on PC right now and
didn't feel like finding the emoji online or using my phone to respond but
decided for some reason writing this () would be faster )
[…]
(pretend those are pizza emojis since I'm on PC right now and
didn't feel like finding the emoji online or using my phone to respond but
decided for some reason writing this () would be faster )
🍕🍕🍕🍕
And I’m on a PC and didn’t have to go online, I just used the emoji selector
Oh, there’s one on Windows too: Win + . or Win + ;
[…]
(pretend those are pizza emojis since I'm on PC right now and
didn't feel like finding the emoji online or using my phone to respond but
decided for some reason writing this () would be faster )
🍕🍕🍕🍕
And I’m on a PC and didn’t have to go online, I just used the emoji selector
Oh, there’s one on Windows too: Win + . or Win + ;
I sincerely hope that BrickLink conducts a periodic review of information to
ensure that it is both accurate and up-to-date for both buyers and sellers, in
particular regarding their obligations.
To be clear it's not BrickLink's policy here except insofar as running
a BrickLink store means you have to abide by the laws of your local government
as well as the terms set by the payment processors (PayPal, Stripe) you use.
Thank you all for your replies, and the discussion regarding gambling math probability
by SylvainLS and others.
And other Sylvains you meant?
Insurance seems to be the way to go with Australia Post. It might cost extra,
but if someone isn't willing to buy something with insurance, I'll add
it myself.
You don't have to take this route.
Say you'll lose $100 per year (refunding lost small shipments), then simply
increase all your prices of 0.01% maybe to cover this loss, and that's it.
Or forget it, it's a cost, just like stickers, packaging, printing,
power, water, heat...
Insurances ALWAYS win (like Casinos) because of the maths they use.
Save $2 per insurance, and sometimes refund $50, it's cheaper
Frankly it's not worth insuring below maybe $50 or such.
Sellers are not responsible for the postal system after they've handed it
to them. Why does BrickLink keep trying to hold sellers accountable for third
parties beyond their control?
This is both annoying and confusing. If I hand a parcel to my postal I'm
entrusting them to be responsible for delivering the package. I could not at
all be physically there to oversee every step of the delivery process, nobody
can do that.
So why is it this way?
Because otherwise it'd be a Lottery, not a sale.
Spend $15 and get 95% chances to get what you ordered, and 5% to lose everything.
Whatever the real ratios are, marketplaces would've been Casinos.
Or see it the other way around.
Buyer sends you $15, but 95% chances are you'll get the money, and 5% none
- but seller still has to ship the goods.
I wouldn't accept this game.
In short, a sale isn't a Lottery: seller gets the money, buyer gets the order.
Spend $15 and get 95% chances to get what you ordered, and 5% to lose everything.
Whatever the real ratios are, marketplaces would've been Casinos.
Or see it the other way around.
Buyer sends you $15, but 95% chances are you'll get the money, and 5% none
- but seller still has to ship the goods.
I wouldn't accept this game.
In short, a sale isn't a Lottery: seller gets the money, buyer gets the order.
In a casino, at least in France, the odds have to be certain or at least capped.
It must be mathematically proven¹ that the players get at least or at most X%
of their money back.
(At least 85% for slot machines, at most 85% for sports bets.)
If applied to packages, and depending on how the “game” is classified, that means
the seller’d have to be sure the postal services lose or damage:
1. no more than 15% of the packages. Sellers would be in trouble if it’s more.
2. or no less than 15% of the packages. The sellers would have to “lose or damage”
packages themselves to reach the cap
Totally useless but (I think) funny remarks
¹ Or “proved.” Depending whether you consider it’s used as an adjective or as
a past participle. (Crazy usage rules….)
[…]
you can always trust a Casino that fixes their machines & sporting events to
allow for a minimum 15% win ratio.
85% win.
not sure how can france guarantee this as far a sporting events go... but good
to know the slot machines are rigged .. by law
IINM, the slot machines are checked by, well, I don’t their current name, they
were part of the Ministère des Poids et Mesures at some time. They are the same
who verify commercial balances (that doesn’t prevent the butcher to “accidentaly”
put their thumb on the plate).
They put seals on the machines so they can’t be opened.
There’s also lotteries and scratch games… but then the ratio is more 60%-70%.
Lottery isn’t called “tax on stupid” for no reasons
For sporting events, it’s simple: what is redistributed between the players at
the end is at most 85% of what they gave.
[…]
15% win ratio for owner of machines..
not for person who is betting.
Oh, okay. I’m not a casino owner, so I associate “win” with “players’ win”
the machines are rigged so that 'the House' always wins 15% minimum.
in America that is 100% illegal
'The major Nevada law associated with any possible casino rigging is explained
in NRS 465.085. It is illegal for any casino or manufacturer of casino gaming
equipment to alter or manipulate equipment to an unfair advantage.'
You’re confusing two kinds of rules:
1. The French rules (which I think don’t only exist in France), that fix limits
to the odds in games.
2. Rules against cheating by modifying the “advertised”¹ odds of games.
As I said, machines in French casinos are sealed so they can’t be tempered with.
We also have rules of type 2.
On the other hand, the rules for American roulette give 5.26% to 7.89%² odds
to the house.
Time to go and sue all those criminal casinos in Las Vegas I guess.
––
¹ Quotes because the odds are not directly advertised but easily calculable from
the rules.
² Depending on the bet. You can easily find the numbers and calculations with
a quick search. European roulette gives 2.7% to the house.
In a casino, at least in France, the odds have to be certain or at least capped.
It must be mathematically proven¹ that the players get at least or at most X%
of their money back.
(At least 85% for slot machines, at most 85% for sports bets.)
Why would anyone bet on sports if he or she is only going to get at most 85%
back?
In a casino, at least in France, the odds have to be certain or at least capped.
It must be mathematically proven¹ that the players get at least or at most X%
of their money back.
(At least 85% for slot machines, at most 85% for sports bets.)
Why would anyone bet on sports if he or she is only going to get at most 85%
back?
This is on average, not on an individual bet. You either win or you lose, but
the bookmaker can aim to make profit no matter what the result of the bet by
setting the for and against odds so that they don't add up (and another other
outcomes if needs be). For example, if a head to head match is very even, they
might set the decimal odds at 1.9 for A to win and 1.9 for B to win. If you bet
$1 on A and someone else bets $1 on B, one of you returns with 190% of your stake
and the other loses. But the payout for the bookie was 95%. And of course the
bookie dynamically changes odds based on whether too many people are betting
on one option to aim not to make a loss. If too many people back A, they will
decrease the odds and increase those of B to get people to back the one they
are short on.
In a casino, at least in France, the odds have to be certain or at least capped.
It must be mathematically proven¹ that the players get at least or at most X%
of their money back.
(At least 85% for slot machines, at most 85% for sports bets.)
Why would anyone bet on sports if he or she is only going to get at most 85%
back?
This is on average, not on an individual bet. You either win or you lose, but
the bookmaker can aim to make profit no matter what the result of the bet by
setting the for and against odds so that they don't add up (and another other
outcomes if needs be). For example, if a head to head match is very even, they
might set the decimal odds at 1.9 for A to win and 1.9 for B to win. If you bet
$1 on A and someone else bets $1 on B, one of you returns with 190% of your stake
and the other loses. But the payout for the bookie was 95%. And of course the
bookie dynamically changes odds based on whether too many people are betting
on one option to aim not to make a loss. If too many people back A, they will
decrease the odds and increase those of B to get people to back the one they
are short on.
Yes, better explained than my attempt
The bookmaker has to make money in any case. The law just make it that they
at least make 15% (of which the State gets a good share, as payment for letting
the booky use the State’s monopoly).
In a casino, at least in France, the odds have to be certain or at least capped.
It must be mathematically proven¹ that the players get at least or at most X%
of their money back.
(At least 85% for slot machines, at most 85% for sports bets.)
Why would anyone bet on sports if he or she is only going to get at most 85%
back?
It’s not per player, it’s global.
From the total sum of what players bet, at most 85% can be redistributed.
For some bets (say, horse races), the “house” calculates the odds for each “rank”
of winners (those who got the first 3 horses in order, not in order, only two,
only one, etc.). They also make a table saying “rank 1” winners share 50% of
the wins, “rank 2” 25%, “rank 3” 10%….
Now, say the players bet $10 million, if you win as a rank 1, you get a share
of 0.85*0.5*10 million = $4.25 million.
If you’re the only winner, you get it all. If you bet $10 and another guy bet
$10, you share $2.125 million each. If the other bet $20, they get $2,83 million
and you get $1.42 million.
And so on.
For other bets (“2 to 1”), it’s about the same: the odds/returns are calculated
on 85% of the bets.
It’s just maths.
Sellers are not responsible for the postal system after they've handed it
to them. Why does BrickLink keep trying to hold sellers accountable for third
parties beyond their control?
This is both annoying and confusing. If I hand a parcel to my postal I'm
entrusting them to be responsible for delivering the package. I could not at
all be physically there to oversee every step of the delivery process, nobody
can do that.
So why is it this way?
Because PayPal says so. No proof of delivery = PayPal refund. Not saying this
is fair, but this is how things stand.
The cost of lost packages and crooked buyers should be built into your prices.
I may consider reopening my store, but I cannot do this unless BrickLink comes
up with an trusted method of ensuring that a package has been sent.
The payment service provider sets the rules, not BL.
I really cannot foresee a situation where the seller continues to be held responsible
for third parties they have no control over. It is becoming untenable.
Sellers have always been held responsible, whether it's PayPal, eBay, Amazon,
etsy, etc.
Canada, Manitoba
USA, New Jersey
Australia, Queensland
United Kingdom, England
the $100 is just my personal cutoff that why i said it in () since its
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
