Who is responsible for delivery of an item, the buyer or the seller?

[michael_cullis]

I have sold several hundred records and CDs on eBay and only once has a buyer claimed that he didn't receive the item. In that case I refunded both the purchase price and the postage. It occurs to me that there is nothing to stop an unethical buyer from bidding a hight amount which nobody else can match then, after he has received the item, claiming that it never arrived. Unless the item is sent by registered mail the seller has no means of proving that the item arrived or claiming the cost of the item from the post office.

My auctions carry a notification that the postage is the responsibility of the buyer unless he requests delivery by registered mail and is willing to pay the extra cost. Does eBay have a problem with this?

[michael_cullis]

PS to the above, it seems to me that a seller has a reputation to maintain and is therefore less likely than a buyer to accept a bid and consequent payment and not post the item than a buyer is to falsely claim non-receipt.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@michael_cullis wrote:

My auctions carry a notification that the postage is the responsibility of the buyer unless he requests delivery by registered mail and is willing to pay the extra cost. Does eBay have a problem with this?

---

Regardless of what eBay say about it, registration/SOD (Signature on Delivery) provides an added level of seller protection in the case of a PayPal claim . . . . . . so . . . . . . if buyers are given a choice of posting methods they are likely to choose the cheapest, as they will still have PayPal buyer protection regardless of postage paid.

Why would a buyer choose to gift seller protection to a seller that may prevent them (the buyer) from receiving a refund should the item not arrive?

For low priced/cheap items Registration/SOD is not attractive for buyers, so they wont choose it.  For my higher priced items I do not give buyers a choice, and I list with registration/SOD included in the postage price.  If they want that item they have to pay the listed postage.

[digital*ghost]

---

@michael_cullis wrote:

My auctions carry a notification that the postage is the responsibility of the buyer unless he requests delivery by registered mail and is willing to pay the extra cost. Does eBay have a problem with this?

---

Yes, they do... All other issues surrounding the topic of responsibility aside, eBay do not allow statements in listings to the effect that a seller will not take responsibility for lost / damaged parcels. 

There is nothing stopping an unethical buyer from fraudulently claiming an item hasn't been received, but there are options available to stop them being successful. When it comes to lower-priced letter-rate parcels, I personally think the most practical thing to do is make a choice between sending everything registered and not taking any chances, or allowing for the occasional refund because the majority of buyers will hold sellers responsible no matter what. I think the latter is more cost-effective as the higher P&H will likely affect sales. 

[michael_cullis]

Thanks for  your replies. Whilst I cannot see the logic of eBay's position (why should the seller bear the responsibility of delivery rather than the buyer?) I guess that I must conform. Whilst it is practical to post vinyl albums by registered mail (the extra cost is only two or three dollars more than standard delivery), the cost of sending a CD by registered mail is at least three times the cost of sending it my standard mail which means that the CD must have sold for a very high price to make registered mail worthwhile.

Thanks again for your assistance.

[digital*ghost]

---

@michael_cullis wrote:

... I cannot see the logic of eBay's position (why should the seller bear the responsibility of delivery rather than the buyer?) 

---

Because no one wants to be financially responsible for a loss, but a seller upset about being made financially responsible for a loss will probably continue to sell (and it's probably no skin off eBay's nose if they don't), while a buyer upset about the same thing may curb, or stop, spending money on eBay. There are a lot of arguments from both sides about who should be responsible for what, legally and morally, but I think that's probably the focus of eBay's position, at least in part - while the site is populated with individual sellers, one bad experience (or impression), adds to the overall reputation eBay (and ergo all sellers) have, so keeping a good, consistent reputation (as much as possible) benefits eBay and sellers. 

[foxette-in-sox]

JMO but when I was selling,if an item sold for more than I expected it to or I just got a hinky feeling about the buyer,I sent it via registered post at no extra cost to the buyer.

I don't sell anymore but if I did,I would most likely use the same thought process.

Basically,if you can't afford to cover the loss of an item if it goes MIA for whatever reason,then post using a trackable method.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@michael_cullis wrote:

Whilst I cannot see the logic of eBay's position (why should the seller bear the responsibility of delivery rather than the buyer?)

---

Logic? What has logic got to do with it?  LOL (just kidding)

The way I view it is that the movement of the item is from the seller to the buyer . . . . and until they receive it the buyer has not ever had possession of the item.  If they never get possession then they are entitled to a refund, therefore the seller should take steps to ensure delivery or else risk losing an Item Not Received case (except for low-priced items where registration/SOD makes it too costly for the seller).

When there is a dispute that requires return of an item to the seller, the movement of the item is from the buyer to the seller . . . . . and the buyer bears the responsibility to ensure that it is posted in a way that will provide them (the buyer) with protection, and increase the likelihood that the item will get back to the seller . . . . . regardless of whether such methods were used when it was originally posted to them by the seller.

I read on the boards here once where someone who sold low-priced items put 10cents into a jar for every sale they had rather than paying for registration.  They commented that they got extra sales because they had lower postage prices than those sellers who charged buyers to give them (the seller) PayPal protection, and that with all those 10c deposits into the jar they were more than able to cover (rare) INR claims.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@michael_cullis wrote:

I have sold several hundred records and CDs on eBay and only once has a buyer claimed that he didn't receive the item.

---

So in your case, had you put 10c in a jar for each of those several hundred sales you would have $20 to help cover the cost of an Item Not Received claim (based on 200 sales).  Had you paid registration for each of those 200 sales it would have cost approx $600.  How many of those 200 sales would not have happened had you insisted that buyers pay for the registration that covers you in the case of a PayPal claim?

I feel for those eBayers that depend on eBay for a living as these eBayers are least able to wear the cost of INR claims, or the cost of registration/SOD themselves.

I guess we each need to work out what works best for us.

[phorum_junkie*]

why should the seller bear the responsibility of delivery rather than the buyer

Because the method of delivery is entirely within the control of the seller and the seller is the one handing over the cash to AP for providing the service.

Perhaps a better question would be why would a seller NOT be responsible for the safe dlivery of an item they are sending to somebody who has paid their mney in good faith.