@crikey*mate wrote:
@digital*ghost wrote:
@crikey*mate wrote:
I don't understand the rest
I'll try to put it another way that I hope clarifies how I mean it with purchased and posted items.
Let's say someone approaches a service provider and says I want to purchase X service package. The service provider agrees and a contract is created between the buyer and the initial service provider. The package that the buyer purchased contains something that the original service provider doesn't have the capacity to provide themselves, so they contract that portion of the deal out to a completely different service provider, thereby creating a contract between 2 service providers, but the original buyer does not have a contract between the second service provider, I presume that they could not take the third party to court for failing to provide the service, only the original provider...
Does that make more sense? o_O
nope - ya gonna have to join the dots for me. I got no idea how this relates to my questions.
However, you are correct, the contract is between the sender and initial contracted providor. Any legal action would be through the primary providor, it would be up to the primary providor to seek restitution form whomever they "sublet" the task to.
That's pretty much what I was getting at - the buyer contracts the seller to provide an item, the seller contracts a carrier to deliver the item, therefore the buyer's contract is not with Australia Post and they can not seek restitution from AP (unless authorised) if the seller's (sender's) independent contract is not fulfilled... ?
