When did the BUYER become responsible for shipping delays?

[reef_ranch]

From everything I know about this (which is probably less than you) venue is actually determined by state law, and is not clear everywhere. In fact, from what I understand, in most states the sellers jurisdiction will be the venue. That seems to be changing according to what research I've done tonight, but most places seemed to agree that it was a state law issue and every state is different, with most stating that sellers jurisdiction is the venue for court. Other than that, I agree with everything else you've said. If you have evidence to the contrary I will defer to your expertise, I just want clarity for anything that may pop up in the future

File it in your home court. There will be no challenge to venue.

 

[JNalley]

I don't disagree with that at all. I thought that was clear from the beginning.

It was definitely not clear... from the majority of your posts in this thread it does sound as if you're saying that the buyer (UMALUM) was responsible for this mistake indirectly by not seeking his own clarity from the buyer. That he is somehow at fault, when the onus was on the seller to provide this clarity.

I don't disagree with that. My only point was that it is ambiguous and part of the problem.

the ambiguity isn't a problem legally though, not for UMALUM, it's a problem for the seller...

 

[BeanAnimal]

That's ridiculous. Why you insist on playing devil's advocate for the seller I'll never know.

I am not playing devil's advocate for the seller. He was not clear in his terms was the point. It has made for a bad transaction.

Stating "standard DOA " and " pictures within a hour of arrival" doesn't dang him I dont know what does.

I still don't know what a "standard doa policy is". That is the ambiguous part, that's all. What are the exact terms? He should have spelled them out is the point.

I understand your just explaining how without reading and understanding the agreement your "SOL" well this guy clearly isn't a big retailer and probably is selling from his mom's basement. He in fact didn't state no compensation due to delivery delays. How you continue to defend this guy is amazing.

I am not defending by any stretch of the imagination. I think the situation is unfortunate and his fault for not being clear. I assume if he would have spelled out that he was not going to be responsible for shipping delays, then the OP would not have purchased.

 

[BeanAnimal]

From everything I know about this (which is probably less than you) venue is actually determined by state law, and is not clear everywhere. In fact, from what I understand, in most states the sellers jurisdiction will be the venue.

That was my understanding in two instances where I had issues large enough to look into taking action on.

But I guess that filing and not having it challenged makes sense. I was never appraised of that option. Learn something useful every day.

 

[OrionN]

I am going to bed. Goodnight everybody

 

[BeanAnimal]

Standard DOA policy means the uniform commercial code rules apply. No question. Any ambiguity goes against the seller.

Most states have venue rules that are designed to protect their residents from unlawful activity. For online sales, absent a written agreement designating another location for actions involving the contract (which is very common for this reason) the place of delivery is where the contract was to be performed. Thus, venue is proper there. To the extent the seller wants to argue otherwise, he needs to make a motion in the court where the action is filed. The cost is high and the chance of success very low.

Thank you for the clarification. So it the ambiguity, not an actual standard. It is whatever the buyer understood it to be.

Yes - we typically place a venue on our terms now that I think about it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am going to bed. Goodnight everybody

Goodnight. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[JNalley]

Thank you for the clarification. So it the ambiguity, not an actual standard. It is whatever the buyer understood it to be.

Haha, not for nothing, but this is precisely what I've been trying to tell you for over 4 hours LOL

On this we agree, all parties should do their due diligence and understand the terms of the contract under which they're operating, but, again, the ambiguity of "We have a standard DOA policy" works in the buyers favor, not the sellers. It's on the seller to clearly inform the buyer of the terms, not the other way around.

Edited to change 2 hours to 4 hours as my first post about DOA policy needing to be clear otherwise it defers to the buyer and not the seller was on page 4, over 4 hours ago...

 

[reef_ranch]

Thank you for the clarification. So it the ambiguity, not an actual standard. It is whatever the buyer understood it to be.

Yes - we typically place a venue on our terms now that I think about it.

More clearly, the law is the standard. If parties want to change it, they must be clear. The failure to do so results in the law being applied -- placing the risk on the seller who is required to deliver conforming goods. Standard DOA cannot reasonably be construed to shift the risk of loss from the Seller to Buyer not only because it is ambiguous, but because in the context it was used, it clearly meant that DOAs with pictures within 1 hour of delivery would be refunded.

 

[ilikefish69]

if at any point in any point you try to build a business, your customers stop feeling like they are getting what they are paying for, a seller is slowly digging their own grave. i dont believe a businesses most important asset is their money (whaat) but their ability to do business. This specific example, im not sure because I dont ship coral. But what I would do as a seller is have a clear, as detailed as possible outline of what happens if A, B, C, D, E. Then honor those A, B, C, D, E options. When F happens, and it will , just do what you would want to do if you were the buyer, add F to the information about the item it is you are selling so you can help your buyers not have to resort to Reef 2 Reef to get any kind of attention. And build your business in a profitable way that still includes this. What this will do is teach people to read, and also to have better transactions

 

[RockRash]

I am not playing devil's advocate for the seller. He was not clear in his terms was the point. It has made for a bad transaction.


I still don't know what a "standard doa policy is". That is the ambiguous part, that's all. What are the exact terms? He should have spelled them out is the point.


I am not defending by any stretch of the imagination. I think the situation is unfortunate and his fault for not being clear. I assume if he would have spelled out that he was not going to be responsible for shipping delays, then the OP would not have purchased.

He stated terms in his post. " standard DOA terms" and " picture within a hour of delivery" that is the policy it means if the coral is DOA and you take a picture within a hour and itd DOA he refunds or replaces it. That's it he stated nothing else. Like I said earlier I respect your opinion but I feel this argument is getting ridiculous. The seller is in the wrong period.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It was definitely not clear... from the majority of your posts in this thread it does sound as if you're saying that the buyer (UMALUM) was responsible for this mistake indirectly by not seeking his own clarity from the buyer. That he is somehow at fault, when the onus was on the seller to provide this clarity.

Apologies for that getting lost. The seller clearly created the problem with his lack of clarity, I thought that was understood from page 1.

More clearly, the law is the standard. If parties want to change it, they must be clear.

Somewhere in this mess that is one of the point that I was attempting to make (the seller can change the terms). Though, it was my misunderstanding of the UCC that the fallback to no agreement would amount to FOB origin.

Standard DOA cannot reasonably be construed to shift the risk of loss from the Seller to Buyer not only because it is ambiguous,

That was not my contention. I think me pointing out the ambiguity caused that to be conflated with the other parts of the conversation.

Thank you again for the response.

 

[BeanAnimal]

He stated terms in his post. " standard DOA terms" and " picture within a hour of delivery" that is the policy it means if the coral is DOA and you take a picture within a hour and itd DOA he refunds or replaces it. That's it he stated nothing else. Like I said earlier I respect your opinion but I feel this argument is getting ridiculous. The seller is in the wrong period.

I have not defended the seller or said he was not not wrong. I simply said his terms were ambiguous in that there is no such thing as a "standard doa terms" to reference. I don't know how many more ways to say it, but I am not defending the seller at all.

 

[RockRash]

I have not defended the seller or said he was not not wrong. I simply said his terms were ambiguous in that there is no such thing as a "standard doa terms" to reference. I don't know how many more ways to say it, but I am not defending the seller at all.

Then he should have stated HIS DOA TERMS in his for sale thread. That's all that matters. Honestly if this was any other forum he would be held accountable and or banned. Your constant argument of ambiguous terms is irrelevant. You can argue about it all you want however 10 pages of replies says you're wasting your time. On that note I'm going to bed, have a good night all.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Then he should have stated HIS DOA TERMS in his for sale thread.

Exactly.

Good night.

 

[Reef.]

How much was the coral that arrived dead?

 

[EliMelly]

He guarantee that the animal get to the buyer and remain alive for 1 hr, or until it leave the bag which ever come first.

His term of sale is the above.

Yep he quite literally by what he wrote made very clear terms. The only term is that DOA upon arrival within an hour. Whether there’s a shipping delay or whatever, it doesn’t matter it’s only based on arrival.

 

[AquaLogic]

I would never buy from anyone that doesn't take the DOA risk. There are too many good real businesses to deal with other hobbyist sellers with sketchy policies.

 

[Daenion]

I am looking forward to ex works origin coral sales.

 

[907_Reefer]

I'll add my $.02 here because I like to live dangerously.

While the seller may not be technically liable under the law, based on loose verbiage, etc, it's bad business to relay shipping issues (contracted by the shipper) on the customer. Some will be hurt during their impending demise, this is unfortunately common. I am positive customer service is the backbone of any successful business. Those with service will prevail, vote with your wallet.

This is a moral situation to me, legality is a mess as usual. These are risks we take.

To comment on the venue of small claims, I have had a situation in the past (for 10K), where venue was dictated by the vendor  state (CA), 3000 miles away. With an open and shut case (NO delivery), multiple lawyers still recommended spending their fees on a vacation instead, as travel + legal + the hassle and/or impossibility of retrieving $ from a dirt bag would surely not exceed the return. Hard lesson for a 20-something at that price, but it was learned. (Not reef related)

Let's end with an anecdote, just be happy FedEx doesn't just tie all of your packages to a tree at the end of your driveway (house is right around the corner)..