quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Yeah if something was stolen. It's actually the thief's fault. Seems like if it's your property at the time, you're responsible for getting your money back or calling the cops or whateverthecrap you do in that situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I3Iood:
The post seamed like you were, without saying it, saying it was the other persons fault. So I ask you this question. What do you believe should be done here?

---

All I said that the receipt being 100% at fault was just ridiculous. As for what should be done, exactly what hooskdaddy is doing. The fact that he got BTAed so fast was unfortunate, but a split of the loss seems fair. I had a situation already where the Canadaian post office lost a package, which I could have very easily demanded a full refund, but we agreed to a 50/50 split of the loss.

__________________
MOTL's Most Likely to Play in the Pro Tour - 2007, 2008, and 2009
(My 2008 Nationals)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAB_Rapper:
All I said that the receipt being 100% at fault was just ridiculous.

---

Not ridiculous. Responsible and Accurate. The package was in transit when he got word that he needed to leave. He had the time and responsibility to have his mail held because he knew it was coming. That is a defining circumstance. Aren't there some good law students in the house?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAB_Rapper:
All I said that the receipt being 100% at fault was just ridiculous. As for what should be done, exactly what hooskdaddy is doing. The fact that he got BTAed so fast was unfortunate, but a split of the loss seems fair. I had a situation already where the Canadaian post office lost a package, which I could have very easily demanded a full refund, but we agreed to a 50/50 split of the loss.

---

It was confirmed that the package was delivered. I have no idea how the sender can be at fault at all here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
Not ridiculous. Responsible and Accurate. The package was in transit when he got word that he needed to leave. He had the time and responsibility to have his mail held because he knew it was coming. That is a defining circumstance. Aren't there some good law students in the house?

**edited to add 'Responsible and'**

---

I can say timing is everything. You could go online, put a hold on your mail and do the right thing and if the mail is "in transit" by the post man (already en route delivering the package, just not at your street), putting a hold would do no good. This situation is unfortunate and I do feel for both parties. Glad Hooks split the loss, which I think is the right thing to do.

Bad things are going to happen from time to time. Hopefully the mods will come up with a way to help these scenarios.

I myself, if shipping anything worth value over a $100, insure at my expense or split cost or registered mail. For me it's a little added security in case something happens (cards ran over by a bus). But foolproofing this with a 3rd party (postal carrier of choice) using full on tracking, signing with ID and even having said carrier witness opening package (let me slip you a fiver), can still leave doubt.

I'm not here to play the blame game, there's plenty of people doing that already. However I will point out that myself, as well as probably a ton of others, have a new view regarding online trading.

In all seriousness though, I think the worse part about this particular case, is the fact that it was deemed DC wasn't sufficient evidence of sending. With that being said, what's deemed as sufficient evidence now? Do I have to take a small video of me packing the cards, driving to the post office, paying to have it shipped (and ensure me getting DC, signature required, and insurance is on camera) to be safe? Are we at the point now to where nothing is really considered "evidence?"

You can't technically blame the receiver though, if the cards WERE legitimately stolen. Why should the receiver be at complete fault for having items stolen? Then again, the sender did his part of the deal (with, what most consider, to be legit proof) why should he get boned in this situation?

As I said this is an unfortunate situation, and even though it could have been avoided had either party made a small change of plan, I don't feel like we can place fault on either of them. In my opinion, the biggest lesson(s) here would be:

1. **** happens
2. Go above and beyond to protect your ass

quote:

---

As I said this is an unfortunate situation, and even though it could have been avoided had either party made a small change of plan, I don't feel like we can place fault on either of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nitelite:
What change of plan should the sender have done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadows:
I'd say the most obvious is probably insurance. Call me overly paranoid, but if I'm sending several hundred dollars in goods to someone through the mail (which I've done), I'm insuring it (which I've done). I'd rather front an extra X amount of money (which I've done) over being out several hundred (which has happened).

---

I commented on this in the PFS, but here is essentially my opinion.

Whether this recent issue happened or not, people could still do the "I received an empty package crap." This current issue DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.
I think it's proposterous to think that this is 100% either person's fault.
MAB makes a solid point that "this could have happened even if he was at work that day, not out of town necessarily."
I think splitting the difference seems like a valid thing to do - the sender and receiver can only be responsible for so much - the receiver CAN'T HELP IF IT'S STOLEN, whether he was at work for 8 hours, running errands for 20 minutes, or out of town.
Like other's have said, I believe the "DC is no longer sufficient" is the thing that matters in this case.
People were going to "scam the MOTL system" by saying "I never received, I received empty package, etc." despite this recent ruling. There comes a point where there has to be a level of trust between sender and receiver, which happens during EVERY trade (Hey I Sent out, Hey I received, I just sent out, Hey I received too, THANKS!!! - Anywhere along this line someone can lie - but the point is this SITE WORKS BECAUSE YOU TRUST IN THE OTHER PERSON - THIS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE - THERE STILL IS GOING TO BE SOME LEVEL OF TRUST ENCESSARY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL TRADE.

The thing that matters is DC is no longer enough.
Personally, in my dealings, I find DC to be enough. Even if the MOTL rules change, I'm sure I can manage to talk to the guy/girl I'm trading with and discuss the individual deal - something that happens in Sales/Buys on this site already.

I don't think this is as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be, but yeah, maybe I'm just too nice. On $5 dollar trades I'm still gonna send in PWE...

quote:

---

Originally posted by psrex:
If the sender had insured it he would have gotten no money back because the item was delivered. Delivery ends the responsibility of the USPS.

---

Then I must admit to ignorance on that portion. Well, in that case, I'll go with requiring a signature, or stick to the statement "**** happens."

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
So....the kid sent, has proof that it was delivered, you "went out of town" for some reason and never mentioned it thus some sort of alibi, then you skate on a technicality. Good job, OJ.

EDIT: No matter what showing of grace/gratitude you do unless you send him the 4xVolcanics I personally think you and MOTL Mod's/Rules are in the wrong. I wouldn't care what MOTL rules would state, I'd be taking this to a higher(legal) court than MOTL's rules page if I were him.

---

I 100% agree. I think the fact that the sender held up his end of the agreement he should be entitled to his cards that you agreed to send him. It is not his fault you had to go out of town. You should have had the knowledge that these expensive items are coming and should have made proper arrangements with the post office to hold mail or the apt. complex to keep an eye out for the package or to not leave the package at the door.

Yes he should have insured, but that is my opinion and I normally insure anything over $100.

I would be livid if I was this guy and would be looking into action to recoup the lost he occurred from you.

quote:

---

Couldn't parties agree:

We agree that delivery confirmation to the recipient's address is an acceptable form of proof, and confirmation that the package was delivered by the USPS shall be proof of its receipt. Nothing in this agreement shall cover the contents or condition of said package.

---

Parties can agree on anything. The problem is getting them to agree to it, and getting everyone to agree to it every time you trade with them or sell to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAB_Rapper:
Simple. I'm away anywhere (I'll even make this example a regular day at work) and mail is delivered. How is it my fault if anyone goes through my mailbox while I am at work? Now if you actually read everything I wrote again, I never once said that the sender should be at fault. But you can't blame the receipt for theft, whether it is from their mailbox, door step, or even the darn post office itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
So....the kid sent, has proof that it was delivered, you "went out of town" for some reason and never mentioned it thus some sort of alibi, then you skate on a technicality. Good job, OJ.

EDIT: No matter what showing of grace/gratitude you do unless you send him the 4xVolcanics I personally think you and MOTL Mod's/Rules are in the wrong. I wouldn't care what MOTL rules would state, I'd be taking this to a higher(legal) court than MOTL's rules page if I were him.

---

Do people not realize the precedent that this ruling has just set? Delivery confirmation, even signature confirmation, is now 100% worthless on MOTL as long as this BS ruling stands. ANYONE can now claim that they didn't receive any sort of package that wasn't insured and "win" their case by simply claiming they didn't receive it. Whether or not that's what happened in this particular case is irrelevant - the precedent is now set for this to happen.

The entire foundation of integrity on MOTL has crumbled with this ruling as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to threaten to "quit" or anything, but I can easily say that this makes me question whether I want to sell/trade anything of value here ever again as long as this stands. Am I over reacting with these statements? Perhaps, but I don't think so. What would the reaction be if eBay came out tomorrow and made a similar ruling that required the honest word of the buyer saying that they received the package before it was considered delivered, even if the seller had proof of delivery? Ebay would grind to a halt in a matter of days and scamming would be more rampant than it already is.

Proof of delivery has ALWAYS been accepted as the standard that sellers/traders need in order to cover themselves. Now they need proof of delivery AND the hope that their buyer is going to be honest as well? Isn't that the whole point of getting delivery confirmation in the first place? Delivery confirmation has never protected anyone from post office mistakes. The entire purpose of DC is to protect yourself from untrustworthy buyers who would otherwise claim that they didn't receive what you sent.

As far as the particular case is concerned, you're in the wrong 100% Hooksdaddy. I don't care what the official ruling says. Anything short of you sending your COMPLETE side of the trade is completely and totally wrong. If you were trying this with me, I would not only have BTA'd you faster and less politely than Ryusei did, I would be looking into legal action against you if it was even remotely within my means and made sense to do so. As it is, I hope people blacklist you and stop trading with you / selling to you all together until you make this right. You're not doing the "right thing" by sending him half the trade - you're scamming him out of half of what he is rightfully due.

You can claim "if only he had spent the extra couple bucks to insure / signature confirm it" all you want, but the opposite argument is also true. If only you had been home to accept the package....

It's not your FAULT that you went to go deal with familial matters and the package was "stolen" as you claim, but it's CERTAINLY not the senders fault either. I can sympathize with your situation if it is indeed as you claim, but Ryusei held up his end of the deal in this situation and you have not. Make it right man.

I find it odd that we are still in the day and age of leaving packages out in the open....

Sender should not be held responsible. Package delivered. Hooks lives in an apt with boxes the USPS would just leave a package of that size and weight on top of the mail boxes. Hooks should know this is the usual case.

Receiver should have taken that extra step to ensure he received the package. But receiver did nothing.

What gets me is this in the OBTA

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooksdaddy:
I did get the email it had been delivered. I'm not at home. I won't be back until early next week. I'm not sure who they delivered it to as I live by myself. Hopefully they left it at the apartment complexes main office and not on my doorstep. Did you make it to where someone would have to sign for it?

---

Soon as he got this email he should have called the main office, or a friend, a neighbor. Hoping it was not left on the doorstep to be stolen and question the type of DC he used when its states that it has been delivered is questionable to me.

As a judge would say "Do not quote the law to me young man!" I must say this is in the rules: The sender must make sure the cards reach their destination.

Then there is this:

Things don't get lost in the mail (at least in the U.S.).
Face it, it just doesn't happen anymore. You could label a package with just a name and a zip code and it would still probably get to it's destination. If someone trys to give you the excuse that the cards got lost in the mail, they're probably full of it, plus, they are still responsible for making sure you get your cards. If you think something may have been lost, go to your local post office and have them do a trace on your package. If you want to be absolutely sure that your cards get to their destination, send them by certified mail and the person you're trading with will have to sign for them when they arrive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
Who sent the email to him saying it was delivered? The post office? How'd they get his email address? Someone else? I'm confused again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hooskdaddy:
I did get the email it had been delivered.

---

You sir may be onto something here...but it is possible

Im sure he may have went to Canada post website and added his email to the tracking number. he then would get updates and an email that it had been delivered.

But if this is the case it makes hooskdaddy more reponsible for the package as he would be notified at each post in regards to his package.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:

As a judge would say "Do not quote the law to me young man!" I must say this is in the rules: The sender must make sure the cards reach their destination.

---

The cards did get to their destination. He has delivery confirmation that the cards arrived. After that it becomes Hoosk responsibility. At that point he should be contacting the building management/the police to find out what happened to his stolen property. Ryusei fulfilled his end of the deal and Hoosk should send out his end of the deal.

And as Bagbokk said we are arguing responsibility here. Of course everyone understands that things happen. But at the same time Hoosk had a responsibility to the package. If he would have forgotten to pay his bills or his rent he would still be responsible for them and would be expected to fulfill his obligation (for example any late fees).

Furthermore Ryusei I believe you have enough to go to small claims court with this if you choose to go that route. Of course you should consult with your local court in that scenario.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravidell:
Signature Confirmation does not work either. As unless you spend additional $$ anyone living in the household can sign for the package. So if my wife goes to get the mail at the PO BOX, she can sign for a package with my name as she has the same mailing address. The bum that sleeps on your couch, can get your cards and smoke them. You didn't sign for them so, you can make them send again, cause your roomy thought they would be good for rollin blunts?!?!?!?!?

---