As the challenge was directed towards the member “who keeps quoting legislation” I assume that member was me.

No I haven’t been avoiding his thread. I’ve simply been away on other matters and this is the first time it has come to my notice.

Firstly I wish to thank both Digital Ghost and Brothers-In-Arms-XXXX for doing the heavy lifting on this one.

Now Phorum-Junkie if you still cling to the outdated notion that Smyth is simply that airplane decision and that eBay and/or PayPal are somehow exempted from the legislation, then here are a few questions you may wish to consider.

Why is there in effect three different legislation covering the same topic.   The state based Sales of Goods Acts and Fair Trading Acts (each state has their own), and the Federal Trade Practices Act?

Do these three Acts conflict with each other or do they complement each other?

If they complement each other, then in the context of all three legislations what is the meaning of the word supply/supplied?  That is, for the purpose of the combined legislations, is the item said to have been supplied when it has been received or is it when delivered, and if it is when delivered, then why would deemed delivery not apply.

To assist you to answer these questions I would recommend you obtain a copy of Australian Mercantile Law. They are available at any University book shop.

Jameshouseofstyle

I understand the sentiment, but I must none the less disagree. 

The choice of the delivery service to be used rests with the buyer, and the legislation clearly imposes an onus on the seller to do as buyer instructs. That is, if in my listings I only provide for regular post, and the buyer says no I want it sent registered, then the seller must do as the buyer instructs, because if they don’t, they may well find themselves at risk until the item is actually received.

Now most buyers chose regular post as it’s cheaper, but at the same time ignoring that it can, and will be, safe dropped.  This means the choice the buyer has made has placed the item at risk of being stolen after it was actually delivered, and one of the reasons why Australia Post has stopped compensating for items sent by regular post is because, since the introduced tracking of all parcels and satchels, their data shows that the vast majority of item asserted as not received actually went missing after they were safe dropped (delivered).

My point is this, call me old fashions but I still believe a person should hold themselves accountable for the decisions they make.  Therefore, if you pay for regular post, as it is you who have place the item at risk of being stolen after it has been delivered, you have no one but yourself to blame if it’s not there when you get home.