(update) USPS Lost my Rolex

[toph]

Originally Posted by gregmoeck

god after reading this I am glad I got a sea dweller and never need to buy another Rolex

[77T]

Originally Posted by daniel7172

I would like to respond.

1. I do not believe I ever mentioned Dale Arnold by name when I posted the thread about it not going through, I do not take pleasure out of throwing people under the bus. Plus, whatever I said was the truth.

I certainly believe you're truthful Daniel, but the entire thread on that deal had his name in the title and you started that thread. So take a look as I did - no foul for a minor informality and scrivner's error.

As I said in my PM - sorry this has become a bad deal but I also said I'd be stating all the facts as a cautionary tale for the readers.

[sherwin]

But if USPS insist it is delivered, all they need to do is show the signature of the recipient, and their responsibility will be resolved. am i not correct?

right now, *imo* both buyer/seller is protecting their pockets, and should be actively going after USPS for both signature/watch or insurance money to cover their mistake.

[gregmoeck]

does mail normally get delivered to this office building on saturdays and if so, what is the process?

[77T]

If not delivered = theft by taking by a USPS employee.

If delivered = theft by taking by a person at that office building.

USPS won't pay until they complete investigation. It'll be a bad beat for the USPS Route Carrier regardless - he's in a tough spot. Did he deliver without securing proof of recipient for signature? Or did he "lose" a package insured for thousands?

Either way, Buyer and Seller are stuck in no mans land.

[Yoda]

I do not see what this thread has to do with Rolex watches. If the buyer and seller have issues it needs to be dealt with. I am sure the US legal system will sort it out along with the insurance company involved. These posts have dominated TFR for days and I think it needs to be closed. We are not in a position to decide who is right. Now let's see some pictures of a sub c, I hear the ceramic bezel cracks if you have a cold that turns into a dry cough.

[landroverking]

Some things don't add up. Buyer out money seller out watch refunds to both should come from USPS. ???? Buyer out of town no web no email. Come on every hear of a smart phone?

[(DMB)]

I'm not going to speculate on what really happened or who is right or who is wrong. All I know is the time and energy devoted to this thread (and the last one) is wasted. If I were the seller, I would make up my own mind as to my course of action, and no amount of pressuring by a bunch of internet watch nerds (term of endearment folks, we're all watch nerds) would force my hand. IMO this thread serves one purpose only at this point. It shows what can happen when you buy expensive stuff from a stranger, over the internet, where shipping is involved. If you do, you accept some degree of risk whether it be a scam, incompetence from the post office, or a natural disaster that occurs just as your watch is being delivered. Bad $hit happens every day. I see a lot of guys here saying that they would refund the money post haste, yada yada. I'd love to see what would happen if the shoe was on their foot and they had to cut a check for 4K with no real proof of anything. And that is my point. At this juncture, there is no proof of anything ... yet.

[gwozhog]

Originally Posted by gregmoeck

god after reading this I am glad I got a sea dweller and never need to buy another Rolex

[hdrazor251]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Not sure if anyone else shares my sentiment.... But my opinion is that the USPS is at fault, neither the buy nor the sender. Their OWN rules state that anything insured over $200 REQUIRES a signature as proof of delivery. They do not have one. Therefore, it is their responsability.

Anyone else think this?

Yip

[sherwin]

Originally Posted by landroverking

Some things don't add up. Buyer out money seller out watch refunds to both should come from USPS. ???? Buyer out of town no web no email. Come on every hear of a smart phone?

lets not be too touchy here, i know of very successful businessmans who still use a nokia 8800 for their daily phone calls. emails/powerpoints/blackberries/iphone is non existent.

i even know of one businessman in indonesia, who asked me to find an old 8800 just so that he doesnt have to learn the functions of the phone all over again. that is how used to the phone he was. paid a bloody premium for it too!

[daniel7172]

Originally Posted by sherwin

lets not be too touchy here, i know of very successful businessmans who still use a nokia 8800 for their daily phone calls. emails/powerpoints/blackberries/iphone is non existent.

i even know of one businessman in indonesia, who asked me to find an old 8800 just so that he doesnt have to learn the functions of the phone all over again. that is how used to the phone he was. paid a bloody premium for it too!

I will have access to email via my BlackBerry

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

From what I've read so far... he's not going to issue a refund until he gets paid. Bottom line. Very unfair to the buyer but we all know that no one will buy from him ever again. Bottom line.

I would never buy from a seller that ships priority.

What a joke.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by MonBK

I would never buy from a seller that ships priority.

What a joke.

Shipping method and arrival date are definitely two of the things that *should* have been discussed up front. I would have insisted on overnight with all bells and whistles, which is what the big boys do in the sales forum anyway...and I would have known the arrival date and been there to receive it as well. Mistakes were definitely made on both sides of the fence here.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by (DMB)

I'm not going to speculate on what really happened or who is right or who is wrong. All I know is the time and energy devoted to this thread (and the last one) is wasted. If I were the seller, I would make up my own mind as to my course of action, and no amount of pressuring by a bunch of internet watch nerds (term of endearment folks, we're all watch nerds) would force my hand. IMO this thread serves one purpose only at this point. It shows what can happen when you buy expensive stuff from a stranger, over the internet, where shipping is involved. If you do, you accept some degree of risk whether it be a scam, incompetence from the post office, or a natural disaster that occurs just as your watch is being delivered. Bad $hit happens every day. I see a lot of guys here saying that they would refund the money post haste, yada yada. I'd love to see what would happen if the shoe was on their foot and they had to cut a check for 4K with no real proof of anything. And that is my point. At this juncture, there is no proof of anything ... yet.

Amen.

[JACBMW]

This should be an easy case to resolve for the postal inspectors. The regular mail carrrier was off that day. The substitute carrier remembers not delivering the package to that office building because he nevers delivers to that building on Saturdays (this is according to the OP letter to the USPS).

Suspect #1- Person that scanned the package as delivered.
Suspect #2- Mail carrier for that day

This will require a good old fashion interview/interrogation on both suspects. If they are one of the same, even easier. The key person is the one that scanned Delivered. This will determine whether it was lost or stolen. The burden of proof is on the USPS that they deliver the package (hard to do without signature). Easier for them to say delivered so they dont have to pay the claim. I wish both the seller and buyer all the luck.

[hsfrank]

Originally Posted by arabesque

The buyer can just wait until the whole thing is resolved to get his money back or he can sue the Seller.

If it ever comes to a court hearing, the Judge will tell the Seller, you have to prove that you sent the watch and the watch was received. The document will show the watch was sent but was not received. That is a fact.

Guess who will pay for a lawyer or if filed in small claims court, for court fees and other what nots in filing a case after the Judge renders his decision?

Is this all worth it for the Seller?

Sorry, but I must disagree with your analysis. First of all the issue is non delivery. all agree the watch was sent? Next the seller and the court can rely on the Post Offices statement that it was delivered . I am still not clear that a signature IS REQUIRED by the Post Office. If it is the the Post Office will eventually pay the seller or produce a signature. If it not then the seller and the court will rely on that. Lastly, I have rarely seen lawyers fee awarded. Their are exceptions such as willfully bring a suit without any merit. You are correct as to court fees ( if state laws allow.)

Notwithstanding that and any previous posts, as I buyer I would have a very hard time accepting the sellers position. As a seller, I would take the same position that until the Post Office admitted non delivery no refund. once they did I wire the funds immediately.

By the way, were I a lawyer( with preferably or without the sellers cooperation) I would immediately start a law suit in order to compell the Post Office to prove delivery.

[hsfrank]

Just a note since prior posts have brought up lawsuits. Since there was no contract other than oral ( I believe their would be no agreement as to delivery in that oral contract) unless the seller was a merchant , under the UCC the risk of loss is on the buyer.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:
Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls
Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.
Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations
If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller.
If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer.
If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1]

Whether the seller is a merchant of course is debatable.

n the United States, "merchant" is defined (under the Uniform Commercial Code) as any person while engaged in a business or profession or a seller who deals regularly in the type of goods sold. Under the common law and the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, merchants are held to a higher standard in the selling of products than those who are not engaged in the sale of goods as a profession.

[Rolex Junky]

Originally Posted by (DMB)

I'm not going to speculate on what really happened or who is right or who is wrong. All I know is the time and energy devoted to this thread (and the last one) is wasted. If I were the seller, I would make up my own mind as to my course of action, and no amount of pressuring by a bunch of internet watch nerds (term of endearment folks, we're all watch nerds) would force my hand. IMO this thread serves one purpose only at this point. It shows what can happen when you buy expensive stuff from a stranger, over the internet, where shipping is involved. If you do, you accept some degree of risk whether it be a scam, incompetence from the post office, or a natural disaster that occurs just as your watch is being delivered. Bad $hit happens every day. I see a lot of guys here saying that they would refund the money post haste, yada yada. I'd love to see what would happen if the shoe was on their foot and they had to cut a check for 4K with no real proof of anything. And that is my point. At this juncture, there is no proof of anything ... yet.

This thread does serve another purpose. Its to save face. The seller is understandably trying to save his good name and reputation as a trader. That is as if not even more inportant than just a watch gone missing.

[Grissom]

Originally Posted by hsfrank

Just a note since prior posts have brought up lawsuits. Since there was no contract other than oral ( I believe their would be no agreement as to delivery in that oral contract) unless the seller was a merchant , under the UCC the risk of loss is on the buyer.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:
Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls
Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.
Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations
If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller.
If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer.
If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1]

Whether the seller is a merchant of course is debatable.

In the United States, "merchant" is defined (under the Uniform Commercial Code) as any person while engaged in a business or profession or a seller who deals regularly in the type of goods sold. Under the common law and the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, merchants are held to a higher standard in the selling of products than those who are not engaged in the sale of goods as a profession.

Herbert, great information, great post! Thanks for sharing. And, information like what Herbert has shared above, educating all of us, is (in my opinion) what a thread like this is for......sharing information, in a constructive manner, to help us all learn how to become better buyers and sellers, thus working to reduce the risk involved (for all parties), in these "non" face-to-face transactions that have exploded in frequency, thanks to the internet!

While it is certainly nice to provide empathy to the parties involved, and to attempt to provide constructive guidance, towards a resolution that would be acceptable to all parties involved, and yes, perhaps even to attempt to "save face", I think educating those of us who want to learn how to become more effective collectors, buyers, and sellers is one of the more tangible benefits of belonging to a forum such as TRF. While we can't undo the past, hopefully, from threads such as these (which discuss inadvertent problems such as this one, miscommunication issues, outright scams, and the like), we can become better at avoiding the pitfalls inherent in the collecting world today. I now know better what I would and wouldn't do, and ask for, as either a buyer or seller, in the future!

Thanks, Herbert, all the folks who take their time to contribute, and Steve, TRF and the Mods, for making this forum what it is today!

And again, good luck to the parties involved......hoping for a speedy resolution!

[JACBMW]

Originally Posted by Grissom

Herbert, great information, great post! Thanks for sharing. And, information like what Herbert has shared above, educating all of us, is (in my opinion) what a thread like this is for......sharing information, in a constructive manner, to help us all learn how to become better buyers and sellers, thus working to reduce the risk involved (for all parties), in these "non" face-to-face transactions that have exploded in frequency, thanks to the internet!

While it is certainly nice to provide empathy to the parties involved, and to attempt to provide constructive guidance, towards a resolution that would be acceptable to all parties involved, and yes, perhaps even to attempt to "save face", I think educating those of us who want to learn how to become more effective collectors, buyers, and sellers is one of the more tangible benefits of belonging to a forum such as TRF. While we can't undo the past, hopefully, from threads such as these (which discuss inadvertent problems such as this one, miscommunication issues, outright scams, and the like), we can become better at avoiding the pitfalls inherent in the collecting world today. I now know better what I would and wouldn't do, and ask for, as either a buyer or seller, in the future!

Thanks, Herbert, all the folks who take their time to contribute, and Steve, TRF and the Mods, for making this forum what it is today!

And again, good luck to the parties involved......hoping for a speedy resolution!

Agree , Thanks Herbert.

[widdler1977]

The Parcel was not signed for but shows delivered on the report. Before making all these assumptions and accusations maybe you should have some education on USPS policy for insured packages over $200 THEY REQUIRE A SIGNATURE!!!!! Again as soon as confirmation is made he will get his money back.