Australia Post Legal Question

[*crikey*mate*]

Common Law provides us with a postal rule in Adams v Lindsell which says that once a letter of acceptance is posted that it is deemed accepted and not reliant on the acceptance being communicated to the offerror. (sic) (usually, acceptance must be communicated).

That being, it stands to reason that ownership of the letter must pass from the sender to the receiver at the point of postage.

Two questions arise from this;

1) Once posted (either lodged over counter or placed in a designated mail box), the sender should not be able to retrieve the letter/package, as they no longer own it.

What is the actual ruling on this? Can a sender retrieve a postal item after mailing it?

2) In eBayland, The buyer usually/technically pays for the postage, and the seller is merely the agent charged with performing the act. However, despite the buyer paying for the service to have an item that legally belongs to them delivered, why is it that Australia Post will not allow the buyer to make enquiries about that parcel if, for example, it gets lost in the post?

It is my understanding, that the seller must lodge any complaint/claim (which does make sense as they would have the paperwork), but then the buyer is reliant solely on communication from the seller.

So, why is it that the legal owner of the postal item, who paid for the delivery service is prevented from making enquiries or instigating investigations as to its whereabouts?

[thecatspjs]

I would have thought that the promise to pay does not entitle you to claim ownership of the goods - unless there is some type of payment  arrangement that forms part of the sales contract.  

Surely you gotta pay-up to take possession.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

the immunity quoted only seems to appliy to the letter service including  I suppose when the postie carries a parcel to deliver it. 

The PIO did a review of the "discretionary" compensation and made some recommendations years ago, as it is one of the areas they receive most complaints about. 

it is worth a read as it provides interesting overview and commentary on AP reserved services and its commercial operations generally. Should come in google, or is probably buried on PIO website.

Unfortunately since that time we have seen further large strides towards user pay through the nose approach.

---

it definitely says " n relation to the carriage of a letter or other article by means of the letter service."

so you are right there, because the parcel service is different, isn't it?

but interesting point about the parcels carried by the postman, as since the changeover, they now carry parcels up to 500g.....

I'm thinking that they would still be classified as parcel service rather than letter service, due to the cost - i.e. even though the carrier is the post man, the service agreed upon is still the parcel service.

BUT - even if that is for the letter service only, why the need for Registered Post? They are charging us for insurance that they will do their job, when it is legislated that they owe it anyway.????

This says to me that in order to keep costs down for us, they offer a no frills service, which comes with no guarantee that they will provide the service that we pay them to provide.

Wouldn't that legislation mean they had to supply me with a receipt that provided proof of lodgement?

[thecatspjs]

The parcel service are part of the business or unreserved services provided by AP in competition with other competitors, whilst the letter service are part of its Community Service Obligations (reserved service) under the Act .

Whilst there are alternate services on the market, I imagine AP still do pretty well out of its registered post letter services, ie. legal documents that must be sent by a mail service such as registered post ie. eviction notices etc  I like the product as registered letters still remain one of the post products that has ($100) compensation built into the price for using service.

Who knows, maybe AP will eventually replace registered post letters with more financially lucrative products.

I don't think the legislation is compelling issue of receipts for proof of lodgement. 

[putney32]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

This is interesting (to me anyway LOL)

I wonder if this means that the corner store is not allowed to onsell postage stamps? I know around here, a few do, as do post offices...

29 (3)  Australia Post also has the exclusive right to issue postage stamps within Australia.

How also does this transpose for the Phillatelists who sell and trade on eBay?

---

crikey, the issuing of postage stamps is entirely different to the 'selling' of postage stamps.

the issuing is the printing and distributing, Sort of like the Prince of Hutt River in WA if you remember that saga back in the 1970s/80s, who succeded from Australia and 'issued' his own stamps.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@putney32 wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

This is interesting (to me anyway LOL)

I wonder if this means that the corner store is not allowed to onsell postage stamps? I know around here, a few do, as do post offices...

29 (3)  Australia Post also has the exclusive right to issue postage stamps within Australia.

How also does this transpose for the Phillatelists who sell and trade on eBay?

---

crikey, the issuing of postage stamps is entirely different to the 'selling' of postage stamps.

the issuing is the printing and distributing, Sort of like the Prince of Hutt River in WA if you remember that saga back in the 1970s/80s, who succeded from Australia and 'issued' his own stamps.

---

*sigh* such a fundamental error too.

*smacks self in head*

*does it again for good measure*

Of course, you're right.

Thanks Putney, one less thing to think about, eh?

[thecatspjs]

snort ...

I gave you a kudos for smacking yourself in the head ... twice...

Spoiler

sorry .....  but it made me laugh imaginating it ....

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

I would have thought that the promise to pay does not entitle you to claim ownership of the goods - unless there is some type of payment  arrangement that forms part of the sales contract.  

Surely you gotta pay-up to take possession.

---

NO, you don't.

If the item was unpaid for, then it is up to the seller to sue the buyer for non performance. Just because the buyer breaches a contract, this doesn't give the seller the right to do the same.

"Consideration means that a promise made to you will not necessarily be enforceable in the courts unless you can establish that you have given something for it. Suppose I promise to deliver a ton of gravel to you next week - you get your shovel and barrow ready, and I don't turn up. I probably would not be liable to you in damages, because you haven't given anything in return, and merely getting your barrow ready would not be sufficient reliance to make it enforceable. However, if at the time of making the arrangement, you said that you would pay me $10 per ton for the gravel that would be sufficient consideration. A promise to pay is sufficient to count as giving something, even though the promise is not to be put into effect for some time yet."

http://netk.net.au/Contract/04Consideration.asp

[thecatspjs]

um .. I don't disagree with that in terms of being relevant for considerations of breach of contract...

"ownership" and establishing at what point who owns what is a slightly different matter I think

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

um .. I don't disagree with that in terms of being relevant for considerations of breach of contract...

"ownership" and establishing at what point who owns what is a slightly different matter I think

---

ownership passes when the parties intend it to pass. However, where no mention is made of this in the agreement (and there rarely ever is!), then it will pass at the point at which the contract to buy/sell the item is made (s.18, Rule 1, Sale of Goods Act 1979).

the contract is made when you agree to sell and he agrees to buy. The cash or goods passing over is the performance of the contract, so in theory, title to the item could pass before any payment is actually made. This is why it is important to agree that ownership passes when payment is made.

[thecatspjs]

But isn't this discussion in the context of ebay ??

I am assuming a seller has specified payment terms in their listing.