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]

Before there is a law, there is an intent and desire to enact particular policies.

Legislation is one of the policy instruments of the government of the day.

[*crikey*mate*]

I don't know the words to say what I want to say on that one Cats, I guess we just have a different understanding of how the law is formed, eh? So maybe we just need to agree to disagree on this point and move on to the next bit...

I still don't even know if it's legal to take back a letter/parcel once you've posted it. Is the PO obliged to hand it over if you ask?

[thecatspjs]

Government policy determines new laws. Governments make laws. Governments change laws. Governments repeal laws.

The courts and legal system interpret and apply the laws the Government makes.

[thecatspjs]

---

I still don't even know if it's legal to take back a letter/parcel once you've posted it. Is the PO obliged to hand it over if you ask?

---

why does it even matter ??

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

---

I still don't even know if it's legal to take back a letter/parcel once you've posted it. Is the PO obliged to hand it over if you ask?

---

why does it even matter ??

---

It was one of the two questions I asked in the OP.  I was hoping that the reps from Aust Post would answer the question as they do other postal questions, or that someone knew the actual ruling.

eBay transactions are largely based around the postal service, so it is not only a relevant topic for all traders, but also relevant to these discussion boards.

Amongst other areas, It is relevant to sellers who accidentally post items before payment is received (or reversed through PayPal after the item is in the mail) and also to buyers who return goods for refund before the refund is issued.

Plus, I just want to know, so that really ought to be enough.

[digital*ghost]

Perhaps it's not a matter of who owns the contents of a parcel, but who the contract with Australia Post is between - a missing parcel investigation is perhaps based not on "you lost my item", but "you didn't fulfil my contract", since if the parcel is found during an investigation, it doesn't get returned to sender; the contract is fulfilled (and the fact that if a parcel is uninsured, often it is only the postage that is offered as reimbursement, i.e. the contract price). The seller may be the agent of the buyer, but seller is the one who contracts AP. If the contents of a parcel are damaged, then that is specifically about the contents and therefore possession / ownership has significantly more bearing.

Not all parcels contain goods purchased by the recipient, either (and I'm not entering a discussion about when ownership of gifts in transit passes some items are even sent with the specific understanding that they will be ultimately returned to the sender) - what would be the state of AP if they did not have uniform policies in these matters? (and yes, I'm aware that often their policies are not applied in a uniform way).

[*crikey*mate*]

Thanks Digi, something for me to think about with regards to question 2

Now, once I post a letter/parcel, can I get it back?

that's kinda all I want to know now.

[digital*ghost]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

so, once I post a letter/parcel, can I get it back?

that's kinda all I want to know.

---

If it has no form of tracking, no, if it does then it can be located and yes - for a stated fee plus any other costs incurred (like phone calls to sorting centres etc).

[digital*ghost]

Sorry if this seems a bit convoluted or is not applicable, but something I remembered got me pondering so I'm just putting up some extra thoughts on this issue... 

When someone posted a thread recently on the buying board about eBay charging FVF on postage in the UK, I went and had a look at member reactions on the UK forums. The main thread I read contained a lot of outrage, and many claims of it being illegal etc, but towards the end, someone explained why it wasn't illegal, and it's now got me thinking (not presuming UK and AU laws are the same, of course, but it came down to a couple of things that piqued my interest because we do have some similarities).

I can't remember the post verbatim, but the poster in question explained that when a seller lists on eBay, there is also a service being offered (sometimes in addition to, sometimes as a part of, the purchase), but it is not offered separately and directly by the carrier, it is offered by the seller. That is, the service of packaging the item and contracting a third party to deliver it. The buyer pays for that service, and presumably part of the cost of that service is the price charged by the carrier, but the buyer is purchasing the seller's service, just like a person who pays a personal shopper is paying for the service (which obviously includes the price of any goods purchased, and - at least to my non-legally trained mind - price of goods purchased for that person could be comparable to material cost on handmade items, IYKWIM - you're purchasing a complete package which includes service components). Thus, the conclusion was that eBay can legally charge FVF on a service that sellers utilise eBay to offer - but that's a bit beside the point. 

If it works the same way in Aus (P&H is a service offered by the seller), then would it be fair to say that the buyer is not party to the contract between AP and the seller, and therefore needs to be authorised by the seller / contract holder, to lay claim to any compensation for non-fulfillment of that contract (as it stands, the recipient can make enquiries, but opening an investigation is an official process with a claim attached, and if the buyer is not party to the contract, how can they make such a claim unless authorised by the original contractor?)

Edit: Oh, and could retreiving a posted article be deemed as cancellation of the contract, rather than reclaiming ownership of the parcel contents, since it only changes posession of the contents, not ownership? 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

Edit: Oh, and could retreiving a posted article be deemed as cancellation of the contract, rather than reclaiming ownership of the parcel contents, since it only changes posession of the contents, not ownership? 

---

This first part is a definite no. The contract remains on foot. , failure to supply the item falls under non performance of the contract. The contract can only be cancelled by mutual agreeance or court order. Ownership still rests with the purchaser.

I don't understand the rest