AUD$460+ item Missing.

[s021429]

I bought an $460+ canon lens and the seller post it with regular parcel + tracking no.

The tracking no. shows that it was delivered on 4th Jul, but no one at my place received any parcel.

Someone was present at home at the delivery time. And we are 100% no one drop any parcel on the day.

What can I do? 

The seller show a receipt of postage, but it does not show that he put the right address on the parcel.
How can I be sure he did send the item to my address?
And for such an expensive item. The parcel should require signature on delivery?

I paid $25 for the postage, and the recipt the seller show me only cost him $16.
The postage fee i paid was more than enough to pay the extra cover and signature on delivery.
But he did not do so. And he said he was too rush in he post office.

Is he responsible to the parcel missing?

What can i do...really...

[davewil1964]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

like i said, its your responsibility to ask for sign on delivery if its not offered in the original postage detaila of the listing.

.

---

No it's not. It is the seller's responsibility to include SOD if that is what the item requires, not the buyer's to ask for add-ons at extra expense. In this case insurance would have been the go and the seller should have included that in the price.

---

davidc is (legally) correct. 

If a seller hasn't advertised SOD as part of the service and the buyer requests it, the seller is obliged to provide it - if they don't, they are significantly more liable for things if something goes wrong.

If the buyer accepts the postage service as is, with SOD not advertised as included and it's not used, the liability is actually with the buyer (I'm speaking more specifically about how this scenario would be handled in a court).

That being said, I would follow PJs advice and dispute via PayPal, something isn't quite right here and PP seem to require more evidence for proof of postage than eBay requires for proof of delivery. 

---

No.The buyer agrees, by buying, to the carriage service the seller nominates. But the buyer also has reasonable expectations of the service being commensurate with the payment made for the carriage and the value of the goods.

As has been noted the seller didn't pay for a commensurate service because their time was more valuable than the expectation that the buyer would get their item  and the service they had paid for, albeit not strictly in the contract, but definitely tacitly admitted by the seller.

[digital*ghost]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

No.The buyer agrees, by buying, to the carriage service the seller nominates. But the buyer also has reasonable expectations of the service being commensurate with the payment made for the carriage and the value of the goods.

As has been noted the seller didn't pay for a commensurate service because their time was more valuable than the expectation that the buyer would get their item  and the service they had paid for, albeit not strictly in the contract, but definitely tacitly admitted by the seller.

---

My turn - no.

Postage services on eBay are explicit, not implicit, cost has very little (if anything) to do with it. 

I wouldn't have picked you as one who would suggest that cost means implications, which can = assumptions, then = expectations, then = wrongdoing on another party's behalf if the assumptions are incorrect.  

[i-once-was-bump]

But didn't the seller say they didn't get SOD because they were too busy in the PO, so they had charged enough to cover the cost but didn't have time to do it?

That seems odd to me.

[digital*ghost]

---

@i-once-was-bump wrote:

But didn't the seller say they didn't get SOD because they were too busy in the PO, so they had charged enough to cover the cost but didn't have time to do it?

That seems odd to me.

---

I already said the situation seemed not right, hence my encouragement to open a PP dispute, but that's irrelevant to the actual point I was making, which was that david's original statement was legally correct. Think back to all the other times a similar topic has come up where most respondants have been less empathetic towards the OP's situation...

eg "the seller was charging $15 for postage, so I assumed it was going to be sent express", no one here ever says "yes, that's exactly what you should have assumed", so I don't know why that's being supported / condoned here. Sure, the seller - if genuine - was (at the very least) silly for not using it, but unless the postage service selected was a signature service, it shouldn't have been assumed that's what was being used - if a signature service was advertised, it's an entirely different story. 

But, at this stage all we know from the information in this thread is that the buyer presumed the item was going to be sent SOD, but when it wasn't received and the seller was queried, they responded with that lame excuse. 

[davidc4430]

thank you for supporting my view on this thread.

btw we only have the original posters views on what happened, we dont know in reality what the seller did or didnt do. only that the item was sent 'normal' post not SOD.

ebay does not run on asumptions, if its not in writing then it really doesnt exist. if you want SOD and its not in the listing you have to contact the seller and get an agreement in writing and be ready to pay extra. value of the item including delivery isnt an agreement for anything outside the listing. in my opinion.

on top of that, yes, i would have sent an item valued at nearly $500 with the best postage available.

[abbeyrock3]

Have you tried ring Aust Post as once delivered they will chase up from your side

[collect247]

The seller is the one risking everything if they don't post SOD on expensive items.

No skin off the buyers nose.

Buyers claim item not received,get a refund and seller loses.

Why can't you believe the buyer didn't request SOD?

Why should OP do that,OP isn't risking anything the seller is lol,OP will get their money back

The lesson learn't here is for the seller for **bleep** sakes

[digital*ghost]

---

@scrambler3333 wrote:

The seller is the one risking everything if they don't post SOD on expensive items.

No skin off the buyers nose.

Buyers claim item not received,get a refund and seller loses.

Why can't you believe the buyer didn't request SOD?

Why should OP do that,OP isn't risking anything the seller is lol,OP will get their money back

The lesson learn't here is for the seller for **bleep** sakes

---

Sorry, but none of this is true on an item of this value.

Signature on delivery is only a requirement for seller protection (via eBay or PayPal) on orders where the total value is $750 or more. 

For items valued under that, SOD helps to ensure safe delivery of the item, but in reality it offers no additional protection for the seller in regards to PP or eBay claims (or even chargebacks). Proof of postage to the address (and / or tracked as delivered) is all that a seller needs, and all of that can be gained without SOD. 

It is in both the buyer's and seller's interest that items are safely delivered, but it's more in the buyer's interest if they do not want to risk things like safedropping, and if a buyer wants to ensure that a SOD service is used, yes, it absolutely is their responsibility to request (or confirm) it if it's not already stated. 

[typhoon4u]

As a seller, I sleep better at night with a $3 SOD on items over $200.....

That's just me......

[davewil1964]

I would be spending the $3 on insurance, an actual hedge against problems, but that's just me.