|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:03 | | Subject: | Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 565 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Implemented | |
|
| Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | akunthita | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| This is a great idea! I voted yes!
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BrickInstruct | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Brilliant! This way the buyer is forced to choose and the seller knows directly
wether or not insurance has to be included.
Can't see anything wrong with it at this moment.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
I also want the option for the seller to mandate insurance, ie. no opt-out possibility
for a buyer.
Tony
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:45 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_191932 | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
I think it's good for buyers to have that option: No surprise of insure shipping
on the invoice when they don't want to pay for it, and no discution when the
order dissapears if they didn't take insuranced shipping
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_191932 | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
I think it's good for buyers to have that option: No surprise of insure shipping
on the invoice when they don't want to pay for it, and no discution when the
order dissapears if they didn't take insuranced shipping
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
Like it.
Although as buyer by not checking "Insure" I've choosen already at checkout.
Dutch TNT shipping method "signed for" is insured for damage/loss to €50.
Shipping "Insured" is much more expensive, both are trackable.
If "no insurance" is checked I should use untrackable "priority" or "standard"
shipping.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:50 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | Like it.
Although as buyer by not checking "Insure" I've choosen already at checkout.
|
That's the issue therobo raised. By not checking the insurance box currently
shown, is the buyer really making a conscious choice not to insure (and to accept
responsibility for that decision)? Therobo's point was that this is not so clear.
This option would clarify the deliberateness of the buyer's choice and give the
seller an opportunity to better inform the buyer of the consequences of their
choice.
Foster
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | Like it.
Although as buyer by not checking "Insure" I've choosen already at checkout.
|
That's the issue therobo raised. By not checking the insurance box currently
shown, is the buyer really making a conscious choice not to insure (and to accept
responsibility for that decision)? Therobo's point was that this is not so clear.
This option would clarify the deliberateness of the buyer's choice and give the
seller an opportunity to better inform the buyer of the consequences of their
choice.
Foster
|
At checkout a buyer is committing himself consciously to an agreement.
Why would not checking "Insurance" suddenly become an unconscious choice?
I like this suggestion.
In practice when paypal as payment method is choosen I'll need to think twice
about how I'll ship. Therefore it isn't a solution against PP claims.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LEtgomyeGO | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | Like it.
Although as buyer by not checking "Insure" I've choosen already at checkout.
|
That's the issue therobo raised. By not checking the insurance box currently
shown, is the buyer really making a conscious choice not to insure (and to accept
responsibility for that decision)? Therobo's point was that this is not so clear.
This option would clarify the deliberateness of the buyer's choice and give the
seller an opportunity to better inform the buyer of the consequences of their
choice.
Foster
|
At checkout a buyer is committing himself consciously to an agreement.
Why would not checking "Insurance" suddenly become an unconscious choice?
|
Because a buyer doesn't have to consciously make a choice to "not" check off
an item - but they have to consciously choose to check the box for an item.
David
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Darth_Smithy | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Great idea! Voted yes.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LEtgomyeGO | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:01 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted "Yes" big time on this one. The more a person has to actively choose something
as opposed to passively allowing or not allowing - the more responsible they
become. (And by "the more responsible" - I mean that they have less room to
say, "I didn't know..." or "I didn't see...")
David
LEtgomyeGO/MiniFig Newton
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mhn1957 | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:09 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
Excellent idea.
I also like the idea where sellers could require insurance, and grey the no insurance
box.
I think it should be clear if a seller is collecting a fee and self-insuring
or requiring the buyer to pay insurance to the shipper.
This doesn't have to be part of the option.
BUT, I can see abuse potential where everyone is paying insurance and the seller
is using it to cover himself in case he loses a paypal charge-back, in which
case, the buyer is really only paying extra for a guaranteed no bad feedback
on a charge-back.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LEtgomyeGO | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mhn1957 writes:
| | Excellent idea.
I also like the idea where sellers could require insurance, and grey the no insurance
box.
I think it should be clear if a seller is collecting a fee and self-insuring
or requiring the buyer to pay insurance to the shipper.
This doesn't have to be part of the option.
BUT, I can see abuse potential where everyone is paying insurance and the seller
is using it to cover himself in case he loses a paypal charge-back, in which
case, the buyer is really only paying extra for a guaranteed no bad feedback
on a charge-back.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
I'm having a hard time seeing the need for this idea. What difference would
it make if the insurance fee is paid to the shipper, to a different third party
or to the store if they choose to self insure?
David
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LEtgomyeGO writes:
| | In Suggestions, mhn1957 writes:
| | Excellent idea.
I also like the idea where sellers could require insurance, and grey the no insurance
box.
I think it should be clear if a seller is collecting a fee and self-insuring
or requiring the buyer to pay insurance to the shipper.
This doesn't have to be part of the option.
BUT, I can see abuse potential where everyone is paying insurance and the seller
is using it to cover himself in case he loses a paypal charge-back, in which
case, the buyer is really only paying extra for a guaranteed no bad feedback
on a charge-back.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
I'm having a hard time seeing the need for this idea. What difference would
it make if the insurance fee is paid to the shipper, to a different third party
or to the store if they choose to self insure?
David
|
This is probably going off on a tangent, but if a seller chooses to self-insure
I think buyers should know this important fact. Buyers who choose insurance do
so because they do not want to risk losing the value of their order, which can
be quite substantial for some buyers who routinely place orders for hundreds
or thousands of dollars worth of goods. Insurance provided by a national postal
service, shipping company or corporation with millions of dollars in reserves
offers much more assurance of actually being paid for a loss than self-insurance
provided by a single person operating Joe's BrickLink Store. If I request and
PURCHASE insurance for a large order I place as a buyer, I want it to be from
a legitimate established LICENSED insurer with sufficient reserves, not an unlicensed
anonymous individual selling Lego part-time out of their basement or garage.
Foster
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LEtgomyeGO | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:29 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | | | I'm having a hard time seeing the need for this idea. What difference would
it make if the insurance fee is paid to the shipper, to a different third party
or to the store if they choose to self insure?
David
|
This is probably going off on a tangent, but if a seller chooses to self-insure
I think buyers should know this important fact. Buyers who choose insurance do
so because they do not want to risk losing the value of their order, which can
be quite substantial for some buyers who routinely place orders for hundreds
or thousands of dollars worth of goods. Insurance provided by a national postal
service, shipping company or corporation with millions of dollars in reserves
offers much more assurance of actually being paid for a loss than self-insurance
provided by a single person operating Joe's BrickLink Store. If I request and
PURCHASE insurance for a large order I place as a buyer, I want it to be from
a legitimate established LICENSED insurer with sufficient reserves, not an unlicensed
anonymous individual selling Lego part-time out of their basement or garage.
Foster
|
Makes sense when you put it that way. Thanks.
David
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Bricks.of.Fury | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| What if the system defaulted to include insurance at check out. The buyer would
have to opt out and a warning could pop-out explaining the ramifications if the
package is lost and/or limitations of liablity on the seller along the lines
of some of the suggestions in your earlier post.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ozlbkilo writes:
| | What if the system defaulted to include insurance at check out. The buyer would
have to opt out and a warning could pop-out explaining the ramifications if the
package is lost and/or limitations of liablity on the seller along the lines
of some of the suggestions in your earlier post.
|
Insurance checked or unchecked makes no difference for paypal reversals.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | InanimateReason | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, ozlbkilo writes:
| | What if the system defaulted to include insurance at check out. The buyer would
have to opt out and a warning could pop-out explaining the ramifications if the
package is lost and/or limitations of liablity on the seller along the lines
of some of the suggestions in your earlier post.
|
This is another option which would work for me. I just want buyers to better
understand their agreement and the consequences of choosing not to insure their
order. And if buyers are worried, this is an excellent opportunity for them to
reconsider adding insurance coverage.
Foster
|
I think this might be much ado about nothing. If you want to optionally require
insurance, then state so in your terms. It doesn't matter if the buyer selects
it or not, if you require it, say so and charge it when you invoice. I would
strongly recommend having very well defined criteria for when it will be required
(e.g. specific countries, orders exceeding a certain value, etc.).
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
Thanks to everyone who participated in the sale and give-away!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, InanimateReason writes:
| | I think this might be much ado about nothing. If you want to optionally require
insurance, then state so in your terms. It doesn't matter if the buyer selects
it or not, if you require it, say so and charge it when you invoice.
|
And what if sellers don't want to "require" all orders to be insured, but prefer
instead that their customers make a more knowing and informed conscious choice?
This suggestion is NOT about requiring insurance. It is about helping buyers
make a more deliberate conscious choice with more knowledge of the availability
of insurance and the risks and consequences of not insuring their orders. Right
now, buyers have to read long shop terms to find out the seller's terms about
insurance, terms which are often not read. And insurance is offered only via
a single optional checkbox which can be easily missed during the order submittal
process. Requiring the buyer to make a deliberate knowing choice before submitting
their order is a definite improvement over the current system. And again, this
would be an OPTION which sellers could decide for themselves to use or not. You
may not opt to use it, but many others would.
Foster
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2015 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, InanimateReason writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, ozlbkilo writes:
| | What if the system defaulted to include insurance at check out. The buyer would
have to opt out and a warning could pop-out explaining the ramifications if the
package is lost and/or limitations of liablity on the seller along the lines
of some of the suggestions in your earlier post.
|
This is another option which would work for me. I just want buyers to better
understand their agreement and the consequences of choosing not to insure their
order. And if buyers are worried, this is an excellent opportunity for them to
reconsider adding insurance coverage.
Foster
|
I think this might be much ado about nothing. If you want to optionally require
insurance, then state so in your terms. It doesn't matter if the buyer selects
it or not, if you require it, say so and charge it when you invoice. I would
strongly recommend having very well defined criteria for when it will be required
(e.g. specific countries, orders exceeding a certain value, etc.).
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
Thanks to everyone who participated in the sale and give-away!
|
If I made all customers take insurance, my sales would go to almost zero because
of the cost of insurance in Canada
But at the same time, I don't want customers to not get the choice of having
insurance if they want to pay for it.
What I don't want is customers that say "I don't need no stinking insurance,
I paid with paypal, that's my insurance"
Those people I'd like to identify because those are the people that need
to be required to pay insurance.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
|
1) PayPal mainly WON'T care of your 'contract' with the buyer.
So the Buyer can check "I swear I will NEVER sure you", and the next day... start
a claim.
Because PayPal terms are a contract, that you HAVE to follow, or you have to
face claims you'll (generally) loose.
In this, I don't see what that could change (and won't discuss more).
2) You can add a "Lick my boots" check box, and as the "Insurance" one right
now, an important part of non-English speakers of your buyers will check or not
check for no reason, without reasoning: because they simply don't understand.
I'm not for an extra check box due to above and other reasons.
I'd prefer a simple "Yes I've read the terms" check box, but Admin or members
doesn't want - it has been proposed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
|
1) PayPal mainly WON'T care of your 'contract' with the buyer.
So the Buyer can check "I swear I will NEVER sure you", and the next day... start
a claim.
|
The purpose of this suggestion is NOT to help defend against PayPal claims. It
is to help prevent those claims from being made in the first place, and to better
inform buyers of the risks and consequences of uninsured orders. The existence
of these optional checkboxes would also make buyers more aware of the availability
and need for insurance so they can make a more informed conscious choice of whether
or not to purchase such protection.
| | Because PayPal terms are a contract, that you HAVE to follow, or you have to
face claims you'll (generally) loose.
In this, I don't see what that could change (and won't discuss more).
|
PayPal's terms are binding only between you and PayPal. There is absolutely nothing
in PayPal's terms saying that it is an agreement between the seller and buyer.
The ONLY agreement between the seller and buyer is the BrickLink order (to which
PayPal is not a party). PayPal will not honor that agreement (because it is not
a party to it), but that does NOT void the separate subsequent agreement between
the seller and buyer.
| | 2) You can add a "Lick my boots" check box, and as the "Insurance" one right
now, an important part of non-English speakers of your buyers will check or not
check for no reason, without reasoning: because they simply don't understand.
|
This has absolutely no legal or contractual relevance. There is no legal precedent
supporting the claim that one is not bound by entering into a contract they did
not read or understand. Submitting the order is by itself an irrevocable admission
that the seller's terms were read, understood, accepted and agreed to.
| | I'm not for an extra check box due to above and other reasons.
I'd prefer a simple "Yes I've read the terms" check box, but Admin or members
doesn't want - it has been proposed.
|
Fine. Then don't use this OPTION yourself. But please don't deny it to those
sellers who do want to use it.
Foster
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:15 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | | | I'm not for an extra check box due to above and other reasons.
I'd prefer a simple "Yes I've read the terms" check box, but Admin or members
doesn't want - it has been proposed.
|
Fine. Then don't use this OPTION yourself. But please don't deny it to those
sellers who do want to use it.
|
I mean, I would prefer that IF a change could be done there, that it's a more
generic change, like a "I read the terms and agrees" check box.
Just a question of energy. Or next time we'll talk about the shipping, and think
the buyer should check a "No I don't wish tracking" check box.
Etc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:22 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | I'm not for an extra check box due to above and other reasons.
I'd prefer a simple "Yes I've read the terms" check box, but Admin or members
doesn't want - it has been proposed.
|
Fine. Then don't use this OPTION yourself. But please don't deny it to those
sellers who do want to use it.
|
I mean, I would prefer that IF a change could be done there, that it's a more
generic change, like a "I read the terms and agrees" check box.
Just a question of energy. Or next time we'll talk about the shipping, and think
the buyer should check a "No I don't wish tracking" check box.
Etc.
|
Good one.
In Holland "no tracking" is the same as no insurance.
Trackable mail is insured for damage/loss.
Extra insurance is much more expensive and only usefull above €50.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:47 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
Having read the thread thus far, perhaps I miss something, but, I personally
think there is no harm in it morally, having the moral upper hand when buyer
actively declines insurance (as opposed to passively as is done when its written
in terms and ignored) is great for the notion of feeling that as a seller one
may be in the right, but, ultimately, in a paypal chargeback it is completely
meaningless.
So, beyond my thoughts below, is there a meaningful purpose?, unless you wish
to start litigating against those who ignore the fact they actively did not request
insurance and subsequently file a paypal chargeback.
HOWEVER: as much as I dislike the probability that it will encourage sellers
to circumvent the legal rights of the consumer and/or responsibilities of the
seller in some countries....
I DO think that to ask the buyer to consider more actively whether or not they
wish to have insurance is a good idea if nothing else as a basis for clear communication
on the insurance issue, one cant claim they wanted insurance and forgot to ask
for it if they tick the no box for example. But I dont personally think it appropriate
to allow additional seller defined comments against the insure/not insure option.
As it would be an opt in feature, any terms relating to insurance should remain
where they are now, in terms, for consistency.
Perhaps a little permanant note along the lines (as similarly suggested upthread
somewhere I think) of Please read sellers terms and shipping policy to ensure
you understand the cost and benefits of requesting insurance.
Gareth
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Deepwoods | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2010 10:31 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| How would you handle the case where certain shippings are not insurable, the
buyer may not be aware of this & select to include (& pay for) insurance assuming
that their package is insured when it actually can't be. for example Canada
Post no longer permits insurance on letter mail (bubble pack envelopes under
2cm thickness) or shippings to excluded countries such as Italy? for these it
would be best if the option didn't show up at all to avoid confusion for the
buyer or an additional communication from the seller having to explain that it's
not even available & then wait for a reply before processing the order.
gotta kinda wonder what the point is anyway, I would think most buyers would
assume ALL packages are insured at the sellers expense anyway since that in the
event of any issues ultimately the buyer will nearly always get his full money
back when paid by paypal through the claims process (very heavily weighted against
the seller).
sure it might work in defence in small claims court after a paypal decision as
part of the contract, but would the percentage of sellers willing or even able
to make use of that route be above %0 especially with international orders.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2010 10:51 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Darth_Smithy | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2010 10:56 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Darth_Smithy | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2010 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Your posts are so text heavy that they probably cause the purge routine to crash.
 Just teasing. I voted yes on this one too, a long time ago.
Chris
Reposted for typos.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped before being purged. Interestingly, this suggestion and all replies in
this thread (except this bump) are SEVEN months old - all dating from March 18th
and 19th. Forum posts are purged after six months and there are posts and threads
AFTER this suggestion which have already been purged. But not this thread. I
wonder why? Does Admin have the option to NOT purge certain posts and threads?
Thor
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2011 17:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Bricktrain | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2011 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped... Posted 11 months ago and still not purged. 
|
Probably because the last post was only 4 months ago. And dont they have to be
manually purged so can be anytime after six months, sure that was the explanation
I read once before.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 11:32 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance. I added this comment:
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk. For the vast majority of buyers, insurance is optional.
If you choose not to insure your package, you do so at your own risk. We ship
all orders FOB (or FCA) Shipping Point. This means once we take your package
to the post office, it belongs to you and you are thereafter responsible for
any loss or damage during transit not covered by insurance. We give you the option
to accept this risk yourself in return for giving you substantial savings on
shipping."
Thank you Admin, this helps. But I would still like to see an option where sellers
could ask buyers to specifically accept or decline insurance.
Thor
P.S. Let's not get into yet another tired debate about PayPal's terms. I will
honor PayPal's terms ON PAYPAL. However, if a buyer agrees with me ON BRICKLINK
not to assert their PayPal rights in return for getting substantially reduced
shipping from me, and then renegs on that promise, I reserve my right not to
be happy about it, to leave that buyer non-positive feedback, to file an NPB,
to stoplist that buyer, require that they pay fully insured trackable shipping
on all future orders, and/or warn other sellers that such buyer's promise cannot
be relied upon.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped... Posted 11 months ago and still not purged.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance.
|
I didn't realize it was new, as I just recently implemented a policy regarding
insurance. It was there last week when I did so, anyway.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance. I added this comment:
|
do you mean the bit that states "Insurance Note:"?
thats been there for months, if not years or am I missing something newer?
G
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 11:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance. I added this comment:
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk. For the vast majority of buyers, insurance is optional.
If you choose not to insure your package, you do so at your own risk. We ship
all orders FOB (or FCA) Shipping Point. This means once we take your package
to the post office, it belongs to you and you are thereafter responsible for
any loss or damage during transit not covered by insurance. We give you the option
to accept this risk yourself in return for giving you substantial savings on
shipping."
Thank you Admin, this helps. But I would still like to see an option where sellers
could ask buyers to specifically accept or decline insurance.
|
I'm not getting into the debate about Paypal terms versus sellers here on BL
who don't want to honour them and appreciate that what you suggest above may
be fine in the USA but..
Just want to point out that this would be an illegal contract term for businesses
selling to consumers in the EU under the "distance selling regulations" which
clearly state that the goods belong to the seller until the point they are accepted
by the buyer.
Under these regualtions you cannot claim that the buyer is responsible for them
until he has accepted them. I think Paypal's terms are in line with this legislation.
Please note the emphasis on this being Business to Consumer law, it would not
apply to private individuals selling their own Lego nor B2B transactions if specifically
stated in terms.
Robert
| | Thor
P.S. Let's not get into yet another tired debate about PayPal's terms. I will
honor PayPal's terms ON PAYPAL. However, if a buyer agrees with me ON BRICKLINK
not to assert their PayPal rights in return for getting substantially reduced
shipping from me, and then renegs on that promise, I reserve my right not to
be happy about it, to leave that buyer non-positive feedback, to file an NPB,
to stoplist that buyer, require that they pay fully insured trackable shipping
on all future orders, and/or warn other sellers that such buyer's promise cannot
be relied upon.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped... Posted 11 months ago and still not purged.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance. I added this comment:
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk. For the vast majority of buyers, insurance is optional.
If you choose not to insure your package, you do so at your own risk. We ship
all orders FOB (or FCA) Shipping Point. This means once we take your package
to the post office, it belongs to you and you are thereafter responsible for
any loss or damage during transit not covered by insurance. We give you the option
to accept this risk yourself in return for giving you substantial savings on
shipping."
Thank you Admin, this helps. But I would still like to see an option where sellers
could ask buyers to specifically accept or decline insurance.
|
I'm not getting into the debate about Paypal terms versus sellers here on BL
who don't want to honour them and appreciate that what you suggest above may
be fine in the USA but..
Just want to point out that this would be an illegal contract term for businesses
selling to consumers in the EU under the "distance selling regulations" which
clearly state that the goods belong to the seller until the point they are accepted
by the buyer.
Under these regualtions you cannot claim that the buyer is responsible for them
until he has accepted them. I think Paypal's terms are in line with this legislation.
Please note the emphasis on this being Business to Consumer law, it would not
apply to private individuals selling their own Lego nor B2B transactions if specifically
stated in terms.
Robert
| | Thor
P.S. Let's not get into yet another tired debate about PayPal's terms. I will
honor PayPal's terms ON PAYPAL. However, if a buyer agrees with me ON BRICKLINK
not to assert their PayPal rights in return for getting substantially reduced
shipping from me, and then renegs on that promise, I reserve my right not to
be happy about it, to leave that buyer non-positive feedback, to file an NPB,
to stoplist that buyer, require that they pay fully insured trackable shipping
on all future orders, and/or warn other sellers that such buyer's promise cannot
be relied upon.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped... Posted 11 months ago and still not purged.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but AFAIK businesses in EU "have
to comply" with the distance selling regualtions. It is an interesting point
you make about a consumer "voluntarily" waiving their rights but I suspect a
business could still be in breach of the regulations by "advertising" or "offering"
this in their terms (and could be prosecuted). I'm not a lawyer but obviously
am keen to have my business operate within the law. We have an organisation here
in the UK (Businesslink) set up to help small businesses with such matters as
the laws are a minefield and change constantly, they are very good, next time
I speak with them I will seek some more advice on this. Separately, feedback,
NPB's of course have nothing to do with this, you can do what you like with those
if a transaction does not go according to what was agreed, I'm not aware of any
consumer laws covering that. Please don't shoot the messenger, I just pointed
out the legislation that needs to be considered. I will find a link (UK relevent
at least) and post it for those interested.
Robert
| |
In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Although this suggestion does not appear to have been implemented, I just noticed
a new box on MyStoreSettings page:
http://www.bricklink.com/pref_seller.asp
where I can add some comments which will be displayed to buyers upon checkout
right under the option to choose insurance. I added this comment:
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk. For the vast majority of buyers, insurance is optional.
If you choose not to insure your package, you do so at your own risk. We ship
all orders FOB (or FCA) Shipping Point. This means once we take your package
to the post office, it belongs to you and you are thereafter responsible for
any loss or damage during transit not covered by insurance. We give you the option
to accept this risk yourself in return for giving you substantial savings on
shipping."
Thank you Admin, this helps. But I would still like to see an option where sellers
could ask buyers to specifically accept or decline insurance.
|
I'm not getting into the debate about Paypal terms versus sellers here on BL
who don't want to honour them and appreciate that what you suggest above may
be fine in the USA but..
Just want to point out that this would be an illegal contract term for businesses
selling to consumers in the EU under the "distance selling regulations" which
clearly state that the goods belong to the seller until the point they are accepted
by the buyer.
Under these regualtions you cannot claim that the buyer is responsible for them
until he has accepted them. I think Paypal's terms are in line with this legislation.
Please note the emphasis on this being Business to Consumer law, it would not
apply to private individuals selling their own Lego nor B2B transactions if specifically
stated in terms.
Robert
| | Thor
P.S. Let's not get into yet another tired debate about PayPal's terms. I will
honor PayPal's terms ON PAYPAL. However, if a buyer agrees with me ON BRICKLINK
not to assert their PayPal rights in return for getting substantially reduced
shipping from me, and then renegs on that promise, I reserve my right not to
be happy about it, to leave that buyer non-positive feedback, to file an NPB,
to stoplist that buyer, require that they pay fully insured trackable shipping
on all future orders, and/or warn other sellers that such buyer's promise cannot
be relied upon.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Bumped... Posted 11 months ago and still not purged.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but AFAIK businesses in EU "have
to comply" with the distance selling regualtions.
|
And compy they will. To the extent any such regs apply to them. As a US citizen,
they certainly don't apply to me.
| | It is an interesting point
you make about a consumer "voluntarily" waiving their rights but I suspect a
business could still be in breach of the regulations by "advertising" or "offering"
this in their terms (and could be prosecuted).
|
You "suspect" they "could" violate the law??? I need more than mere suspicion
that something might the law before I take it as gospel and act on it.
| | I'm not a lawyer but obviously
am keen to have my business operate within the law. We have an organisation here
in the UK (Businesslink) set up to help small businesses with such matters as
the laws are a minefield and change constantly, they are very good, next time
I speak with them I will seek some more advice on this.
|
Please do so. And ask them if any such laws have extra-territorial application
to non-EU entitities.
| | Separately, feedback,
NPB's of course have nothing to do with this, you can do what you like with those
if a transaction does not go according to what was agreed, I'm not aware of any
consumer laws covering that. Please don't shoot the messenger, I just pointed
out the legislation that needs to be considered. I will find a link (UK relevent
at least) and post it for those interested.
|
I'm not shooting you Robert. I just need something more solid than you suspecting
that terms such as mine might violate some foreign law. Laws are like religious
scripture. They can often be interpretted several different ways to support the
conscious or unconscious desires of those reading them.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but AFAIK businesses in EU "have
to comply" with the distance selling regualtions.
|
And compy they will. To the extent any such regs apply to them. As a US citizen,
they certainly don't apply to me.
| | It is an interesting point
you make about a consumer "voluntarily" waiving their rights but I suspect a
business could still be in breach of the regulations by "advertising" or "offering"
this in their terms (and could be prosecuted).
|
You "suspect" they "could" violate the law??? I need more than mere suspicion
that something might the law before I take it as gospel and act on it.
| | I'm not a lawyer but obviously
am keen to have my business operate within the law. We have an organisation here
in the UK (Businesslink) set up to help small businesses with such matters as
the laws are a minefield and change constantly, they are very good, next time
I speak with them I will seek some more advice on this.
|
Please do so. And ask them if any such laws have extra-territorial application
to non-EU entitities.
| | Separately, feedback,
NPB's of course have nothing to do with this, you can do what you like with those
if a transaction does not go according to what was agreed, I'm not aware of any
consumer laws covering that. Please don't shoot the messenger, I just pointed
out the legislation that needs to be considered. I will find a link (UK relevent
at least) and post it for those interested.
|
I'm not shooting you Robert. I just need something more solid than you suspecting
that terms such as mine might violate some foreign law. Laws are like religious
scripture. They can often be interpretted several different ways to support the
conscious or unconscious desires of those reading them.
Thor
|
Hey Foster, why the hostility. I said in my 1st post that this was only EU related.
I did not suggest that YOUR terms were breaking any laws in YOUR country.
I posted a link, to the best of my knowledge this is very relevent for sellers
in UK (and similar in EU). As I said I will loke into this some more, OK?
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but AFAIK businesses in EU "have
to comply" with the distance selling regualtions.
|
And compy they will. To the extent any such regs apply to them. As a US citizen,
they certainly don't apply to me.
| | It is an interesting point
you make about a consumer "voluntarily" waiving their rights but I suspect a
business could still be in breach of the regulations by "advertising" or "offering"
this in their terms (and could be prosecuted).
|
You "suspect" they "could" violate the law??? I need more than mere suspicion
that something might the law before I take it as gospel and act on it.
| | I'm not a lawyer but obviously
am keen to have my business operate within the law. We have an organisation here
in the UK (Businesslink) set up to help small businesses with such matters as
the laws are a minefield and change constantly, they are very good, next time
I speak with them I will seek some more advice on this.
|
Please do so. And ask them if any such laws have extra-territorial application
to non-EU entitities.
| | Separately, feedback,
NPB's of course have nothing to do with this, you can do what you like with those
if a transaction does not go according to what was agreed, I'm not aware of any
consumer laws covering that. Please don't shoot the messenger, I just pointed
out the legislation that needs to be considered. I will find a link (UK relevent
at least) and post it for those interested.
|
I'm not shooting you Robert. I just need something more solid than you suspecting
that terms such as mine might violate some foreign law. Laws are like religious
scripture. They can often be interpretted several different ways to support the
conscious or unconscious desires of those reading them.
Thor
|
Hey Foster, why the hostility.
|
Hey Robert, why are you imagining something that isn't there? There is no hostility
on my end. Please don't read your assumptions or imagination into my words. Unless
the hostility is a reflection on your end?
| | I said in my 1st post that this was only EU related.
I did not suggest that YOUR terms were breaking any laws in YOUR country.
I posted a link, to the best of my knowledge this is very relevent for sellers
in UK (and similar in EU). As I said I will loke into this some more, OK?
|
Thank you for that link. And Gareth's too. They seem to confirm that EU sellers
cannot disclaim liability for SOME uninsured BL orders. I say SOME because they
don't apply to all BL orders. And they obviously don't apply to me or anyone
else outside the EU. Moreover, they say nothing about posting non-positive feedback
for, stoplisting or warning other sellers about buyers who file reversals for
"lost" uninsured parcels.
Yes, I know you commented about my specific terms and whether they can be used
in the EU. But this thread was never about my terms. It was about asking buyers
to make a more informed decision in choosing whether or not to insure their orders.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
And despite your statement to the contrary, you tipped your hand with your comment
about sellers who "don't want to honour" PayPal's terms. Sellers have no choice.
So what they "want" is irrelevant. Sellers WILL honor PayPal's terms whether
they want to or not. My point was that PayPal's terms are separate from a seller's
BL shop terms and the rights a seller has on BrickLink. PayPal will not enforce
a seller's BL shop terms. However, I break no laws in the UK, Europe, the USA
or anywhere else if I post non-positive feedback for, file an NPB, stoplist,
require insurance on all their future orders, or caution others about buyers
who agree to waive their PayPal and/or legal rights and then reneg on that promise
to me after I have relied on their word by taking a risk and giving them substantial
savings on shipping. I can't stop any PayPal reversal, but don't expect me to
be happy about it.
I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but AFAIK businesses in EU "have
to comply" with the distance selling regualtions.
|
And compy they will. To the extent any such regs apply to them. As a US citizen,
they certainly don't apply to me.
| | It is an interesting point
you make about a consumer "voluntarily" waiving their rights but I suspect a
business could still be in breach of the regulations by "advertising" or "offering"
this in their terms (and could be prosecuted).
|
You "suspect" they "could" violate the law??? I need more than mere suspicion
that something might the law before I take it as gospel and act on it.
| | I'm not a lawyer but obviously
am keen to have my business operate within the law. We have an organisation here
in the UK (Businesslink) set up to help small businesses with such matters as
the laws are a minefield and change constantly, they are very good, next time
I speak with them I will seek some more advice on this.
|
Please do so. And ask them if any such laws have extra-territorial application
to non-EU entitities.
| | Separately, feedback,
NPB's of course have nothing to do with this, you can do what you like with those
if a transaction does not go according to what was agreed, I'm not aware of any
consumer laws covering that. Please don't shoot the messenger, I just pointed
out the legislation that needs to be considered. I will find a link (UK relevent
at least) and post it for those interested.
|
I'm not shooting you Robert. I just need something more solid than you suspecting
that terms such as mine might violate some foreign law. Laws are like religious
scripture. They can often be interpretted several different ways to support the
conscious or unconscious desires of those reading them.
Thor
|
Hey Foster, why the hostility.
|
Hey Robert, why are you imagining something that isn't there? There is no hostility
on my end. Please don't read your assumptions or imagination into my words. Unless
the hostility is a reflection on your end?
|
none intended at this end, confirmed.
| | | | I said in my 1st post that this was only EU related.
I did not suggest that YOUR terms were breaking any laws in YOUR country.
I posted a link, to the best of my knowledge this is very relevent for sellers
in UK (and similar in EU). As I said I will loke into this some more, OK?
|
Thank you for that link. And Gareth's too. They seem to confirm that EU sellers
cannot disclaim liability for SOME uninsured BL orders. I say SOME because they
don't apply to all BL orders. And they obviously don't apply to me or anyone
else outside the EU. Moreover, they say nothing about posting non-positive feedback
for, stoplisting or warning other sellers about buyers who file reversals for
"lost" uninsured parcels.
|
That is what I said in my 2nd post back I think.
| | Yes, I know you commented about my specific terms and whether they can be used
in the EU. But this thread was never about my terms. It was about asking buyers
to make a more informed decision in choosing whether or not to insure their orders.
|
Fair enough, I did not (intend at least) to challenge that. The information I
provided should help that informed decision for EU/UK buyers and sellers too
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | If you are going to quote specific laws and claim that they are being broken,
please provide a cite or link to the actual law, preferrably the entire law and
not just tidbits taken out of context. Very often, laypersons who paraphrase
portions of a law without understanding the entirety of the law misinterpret
the applicability of such laws.
|
Which is why those of us who need to understand the relevant laws to our trade
should read the documentary support put out by law firms and statutory bodies.
Yes, I have read the legislation Rob refers to and several documents relating
to it published by government departments, law firms and my local chamber of
commerce.
`The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling)(Amendment) Regulations 2005` would
presumably be the citation you request?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/689/contents/made
for your perusal
| | I understand about rights. But most rights, unless explicitly provided otherwise
by law or contract, can be voluntarily and knowingly waived. Thus, for example,
one can waive their constitution right to a jury trial or any trial at all. Likewise,
here on BrickLink each member waives their constitutional right of free speech
- insofar as it relates to speaking about politics or religion. If people can
waive their most fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and freedom or
speech, why is it so hard for some here to believe that people can also waive
their lesser consumer or economic rights?
Thor
|
As Rob stated, that may be the case in the USA, but in the UK at least consumer
law is pretty clear in that certain statutory rights cannot be revoked by terms
of contract and there is also set up within contract law provisions to make the
arguement in court that the terms of a contract are unfair.
You will probably find elements of what can and cant be included/excluded/exempted
when you read through the law yourself Foster, but alot of it comes through caselaw
and beyond what I hear about through the media and friends my caselaw knowledge
is inadequate to make specific citations beyond the generic points I take on
board from related published documents.
Gareth
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| |
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk....
|
As a buyer I would be quite pissed off if someone I don't know (and who doesn't
know me!) considers me to be high risk. If I came across such terms I'd move
along to another store.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 15:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| |
"We reserve the right to require insurance per our shop terms for buyers or orders
we deem more high risk....
|
As a buyer I would be quite pissed off if someone I don't know (and who doesn't
know me!) considers me to be high risk. If I came across such terms I'd move
along to another store.
|
Sorry for my second reply, but after looking at your own shop terms I don't understand
how you could claim to be pissed off if a seller required you to pay insurance
or that such terms would make you move along to another store. Don't you do the
exact same thing? Your terms REQUIRE insurance on all orders over $50 and those
costs are passed along to buyers whether they like it or not. You also "reserve
the right to include delivery/signature confirmation on orders". Does this mean
you consider ALL buyers who place orders over $50 to be high risk? Seriously,
I don't get it. How can you publicly bash my terms when they are not so different
than your own?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | toontexas | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 17:24 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Sorry for my second reply, but after looking at your own shop terms I don't understand
how you could claim to be pissed off if a seller required you to pay insurance
or that such terms would make you move along to another store. Don't you do the
exact same thing? Your terms REQUIRE insurance on all orders over $50 and those
costs are passed along to buyers whether they like it or not. You also "reserve
the right to include delivery/signature confirmation on orders". Does this mean
you consider ALL buyers who place orders over $50 to be high risk? Seriously,
I don't get it. How can you publicly bash my terms when they are not so different
than your own?
Thor
|
Your terms make it personal, because you are talking about high risk buyers.
My terms don't.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 17:46 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2011 18:06 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, toontexas writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Sorry for my second reply, but after looking at your own shop terms I don't understand
how you could claim to be pissed off if a seller required you to pay insurance
or that such terms would make you move along to another store. Don't you do the
exact same thing? Your terms REQUIRE insurance on all orders over $50 and those
costs are passed along to buyers whether they like it or not. You also "reserve
the right to include delivery/signature confirmation on orders". Does this mean
you consider ALL buyers who place orders over $50 to be high risk? Seriously,
I don't get it. How can you publicly bash my terms when they are not so different
than your own?
Thor
|
Your terms make it personal, because you are talking about high risk buyers.
My terms don't.
|
Actually, my terms mention buyers *OR ORDERS* which I feel might be more risky.
But you keep focusing only on the buyer part. And while your terms don't specifically
mention risk, they effectively treat ALL of your buyers who place orders over
$50 as being more risky. Personally, I find it more off-putting to be automatically
treated as being a greater risk without having my feedback profile and reputation
considered when determining when I must pay insurance. As I said earlier, 99%
of my buyers are not required to pay for insurance. That is because I look at
their feedback reputation and my own past dealings with them when deciding whether
or not insurance should be required. For those few buyers with a history of
past problems, I don't care if they take it personally. They have only themselves
to blame.
Thor
|
I just state that, "I reserve the right to require insurance and/or tracking
or change the shipping method on any order but buyers will only pay the exact
cost of that service and may cancel or modify their order because of the requirement."
It may have nothing to do with the buyer or even the order but a particular country's
postal system or customs practices.
Giving the buyer the right to cancel the order if I require tracking/insurance
means they can't be harmed if I require it.
-Ash
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2015 16:24 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
Bumped...
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 14, 2016 22:53 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Wow! This nearly six year old suggestion of mine was implemented. Yay! Thanks
Admin.
Thor
In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 14, 2016 23:03 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Wow! This nearly six year old suggestion of mine was implemented. Yay! Thanks
Admin.
Thor
|
I'm not seeing a change. I see the same checkbox in other stores, and I don't
see a new option in the store settings. What changed?
--
Marc.
| |
In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 14, 2016 23:28 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I'm not seeing a change. I see the same checkbox in other stores, and I don't
see a new option in the store settings. What changed?
|
Meanwhile, it looks like about 65 suggestions were discarded in three or four
days last month! A bit disappointing that we can't see what the suggestions
were.
http://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?ID=8&status=2&v=c&viewSort=Y&max=100
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Belgium, Antwerpen
Netherlands, Gelderland
Canada, Ontario
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
United Kingdom, England
New Zealand, Canterbury
