Curious sold me a broken ipod!

[Tinkerton]

Drop the bloody iPod in the bog and get yourself a new one on your contents insurance.

 

So insurance fraud isn't against the law then?

[pronteer]

thankyou Sherlok! someone is finally talking some sense [minus the last line....lol]

 

this is what ive been saying from the start, instead, i am left to pick up the pieces, whatever happens, i will be getting my full £50 refund, either from RM or Curious.

 

thanks

[Curious]

Firstly, I would like to quote a PM Pronteer sent me:

 

ive been on the RM sit and it seems that only i can claim anyway because they may want to inspect the item and the packaging themselves.

 

This is what I was sent, and this is what I followed through with. So:

 

1. Please don't tell me that it is the sellers responsibility to claim when the buyer says it is his own responsibility after checking the RM site.

 

2. Pronteer, please dont act like a puppy dog saying "I am left to pick up the pieces," this is the course of action we chose, I am currently down: a) A Fully working iPod nano, and £30.

 

I am currently talking to a lawyer regarding the "laws" you have cited Sherlock, as the iPod was damaged, in an area far beyond my control, under a postage service that the buyer chose.

 

Thanks,

 

Dom

[Sherlock]

1. Please don't tell me that it is the sellers responsibility to claim when the buyer says it is his own responsibility after checking the RM site.

 

The buyer is wrong in this case. Save your money on lawyers and phone Royal mail. Since you were the person who paid for the postage you are the person who entered a contract with Royal Mail to have it delivered safely. It is effectively a contract you enter when posting. It is with you that there has been a breach of contract.

 

Hopefully all packaging has been kept. They will require it.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally on the fence in this one. There's plenty of holes in both sides of the arguement.

[Sherlock]

Here's an example of how it's supposed to work.

 

Click.

[pronteer]

thanks sherlock

 

on the claim forms, it impies that both the sender and receiver can claim.

[bRydeR]

Regardless of what the buyer asks for it is the sellers responsibility to get the goods to the seller as described. Should it require extra cover then the seller should include this in the sale cost. It is the sellers problem. This is the law. You can all theorise but for now the law is as it is. It is in favour of the buyer not the seller. That is why we aren't being scammed every 5 minutes. The law protects us as the buyer.

This isn't even entirely true of law in the UK even for purchases from a company, which are mainly covered by the Sales of Goods Act and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Act and give the consumer some very clear statutory rights and protection. It's even less so for a private sale, in which neither act applies.

 

In the event of a claim it is also the person whom sent the item who has to claim. I've just done so myself. Again this is not supposed to be left to the buyer.

 

Depends on the subtleties of the "contract".

 

While no means definative, as a general guide if no "consideration" is given for carriage (ie the buyer is not knowingly paying for postage and/or is not consulted), the sender is assumes responsibility for delivery and it is they entering in a contract with their chosen carrier. If the transaction includes a postage element which is visible to the buyer, then it is assumed they are buying the service from the carrier, with the seller merely acting as an agent and collecting the cost and arranging delivery on behalf of the buyer.

 

Wording as subtle as "£75 including delivery" or "£70 + 5 delivery" can be significant.

 

Royal Mail consider the addressee to be the customer. As was said above the sender *can* start the claims process (I'd consider it good customer care for a company to do so) but Royal Mail will still require the addressee to involved to pretty much the same extent whoever instigates the claim.

 

It's a sad state of afairs when people want to stuff their reputation over such trivial matters.

This is the one point of your post I can agree with.

 

Drop the bloody iPod in the bog and get yourself a new one on your contents insurance.

You claim to know the law but encourage the OP the fragrantly break it by committing fraud?

 

I am currently talking to a lawyer regarding the "laws" you have cited Sherlock, as the iPod was damaged, ....

Please don't tell us you guys are going to line the pockets of lawyers to beat out a stupid argument over what amounts to be about £30 either way!?

 

If you two really want to slug this out then Smalls Claims Court is where it belong and needs no lawyers but I would expect the experience wouldn't be a satisfactory one for either party given the relatively small sums involved.

 

......in an area far beyond my control, under a postage service that the buyer chose.

In any event, I trust you can prove Pronteer *chose* the delivery method? It materially effects your level of liability.

[Curious]

Ahh you have both misunderstood me, the lawyer is a good friend of mine, I was merely asking him about any "laws" that Sherlock seems so insistant on exisiting.

 

They dont.

 

Pronteer asked for recorded delivery, I sent it recorded delivery. But it isnt the insurance value that is the problem it seems, on the back of the form, the lady at the post office put a line through "value of item" on the back, I was not told of this at point of sale, I was not asked of any value either. Apparently, this means that the item is worthless, and here is where the dispute lies.

 

If it transpires that the line does indeed mean that the ipod has been listed as worthless, then pronteer would like me to send the remaining £20 of his "fix the ipod" fee as RM may not pay the claim. I do not see why I am responsible in any way for that, in fact, I feel that the partial refund which was more than half of fixing fees was more than fair. Especially as by claiming with royal mail, he was losing nothing in the first place.

 

I say again, As neither of us are responsible, we must both take responsibility. Me paying you the full amount would be me accepting fault as though I sent a broken Ipod, I did not do this. I have split the responsiblity.

 

I am not attempting in any way to "stuff my reputation," pronteer saw to that for me. I am merely apply relevant damage control.

 

Thanks,

 

Dom

[pronteer]

you should be fully liable because CLEARLY the packaging was not appropriate, if it had been, the ipod would not have "broken" in transit...pretty straight forward if you ask me

 

also, if RM rejects my claim, then you should also be liable for the extra £20 because you did not put a value on slip. you should tell the the teller at the post office what the value is, this is common practise, you shouldnt rely on them. this should be especially apparent to someone who claims to do a lot of deals on here.

[Polski Ben]

Come on Curious, buck up and do the honourable thing and tell this chancer to *fruitcage* off.

 

You've presented yourself well and offered a fair and reasonable compromise but pronteer just seems to be taking the mick. He decides the settlement is okay, then not okay, then wants the moon on a stick.

 

Pronteer, you have come across very poorly and im sure plenty of people have been put off doing business with you thanks to your outbursts of insults.

 

What are you going to do next, take a day off work and take it to small claims court and loose a days wages, you daft peenarse.

 

Polski Ben out (awaiting sin bin)

[sirrith]

Fact: There is a contract of sale between Curious (seller) and Pronteer (buyer) as stated by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA).

Fact: There is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality (directly taken from the SGA).

Fact: The iPod was sent via Royal Mail recorded delivery, with no value marked.

Fact: The iPod is CLAIMED to be malfuctional. (we have no proof of this, though let us assume it is the truth).

Supposition: The iPod was functional when it left Curious.

Supposition: Pronteer didn't damage the iPod himself (if it is indeed damaged).

Supposition: Repair costs are £50 (no proof without details from shop).

Supposition: The iPod was damaged by the carrier (RM).

 

So, now that we have this little list (if i missed anything out, please tell me), we can go about analysing the problem.

Now, the terms of the contract were this as I understand them:

The iPod is in good condition, but second hand.

The buyer would pay £75 for the item, and delivery as specified by the buyer.

The seller would properly pack the item, and dispatch it via specified carrier.

 

The buyer did pay £75 and specified delivery method, the second term is completed. Seeing as how the iPod was in its plastic case, AND with bubble wrap, in a form packaging which the carrier is expected to treat with care, the third term is completed.

Now the first term is where we are having problems. SGA s32(2):

Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier

on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other

circumstances of the case; and if the seller omits to do so, and the goods are lost or damaged in

course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself

or may hold the seller responsible in damages.

Seeing as the seller did take reasonable care when packing the goods, and the goods were still damaged, the seller may not be held responsible under this section of the act.

 

SGA s33:

Where the seller of goods agrees to deliver them at his own risk at a place other than that where

they are when sold, the buyer must nevertheless (unless otherwise agreed) take any risk of

deterioration in the goods necessarily incident to the course of transit.

Speaks for itself.

 

The buyer would have recourse to part 5A of the SGA, which allows full compensation or replacement of the goods, were it not for SGA s48A(4)(

its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of

conformity.

(highlighted by me)

The lack of conformity of the goods to the implied terms of the contract in this case are deemed to be caused by the carrier, with the seller having taken the necessary precautions when transferring the goods to the carrier.

 

All this means that, if the iPod really was in working condition when it was sent out by Curious, which we cannot be sure of, and if it wasn't damaged by Pronteer, which we also cannot be sure of, then unfortunately for him, Pronteer has no right to ask Curious to refund or pay for the repairs of the iPod. However, Curious has shown good character by offering £30 to repair the iPod, and my advice to Pronteer is to accept that offer and pay the rest of the costs himself.

 

p.s. If there are any people out there more adept at reading the law than I am (which I am certain there are) please feel free to point out any mistakes I have made, or any omissions. I am afterall, only a law student, not a qualified lawyer.

 

 

edit: response to the post by the buyer while i was typing this. as i mentioned above, if the ipod was in its original plastic case and in bubble wrap, then it WAS properly packaged. What more would you want? armour plating? it already had a layer (if not more) of bubble wrap to protect from falls and drops, and a layer of hard plastic to protect from weight.

[sirrith]

edit: silly internet

[bRydeR]

Ahh you have both misunderstood me, the lawyer is a good friend of mine, I was merely asking him about any "laws" that Sherlock seems so insistant on exisiting.

 

They dont.

He correct is that the law grants the consumer clearly defined statutory rights in commercial transactions and does tend to favour the buyer, although I'd question his "interpretation" of the law. However, this is a private sale anyway so there is less legal protection and bias.

 

Pronteer asked for recorded delivery, I sent it recorded delivery. But it isnt the insurance value that is the problem it seems, on the back of the form, the lady at the post office put a line through "value of item" on the back, I was not told of this at point of sale, I was not asked of any value either. Apparently, this means that the item is worthless, and here is where the dispute lies.

Quite frankly, as the sender you have a duty of care to ensure the shipping is carried out in accordance with the buyers wishes and the carriers terms.

 

If pronteer is unable to claim because you failed to package and/or mark the goods correctly (it seems at least the later might be true) I'd suggest you are liable for the compensation but your maximum liability is the amount he could have claimed from Royal Mail. If he chose or agreed to Recorded Delivery the most he'd have been able to claim is £34.

 

I gather you've already sent him £30 - so you have a residual liability of £4. It would also mean the damage has been split (approximately) evenly between both parties, which is likely to be similar to a any resolution arrived at by going through Smalls Claims Court. Anything more or less can be negotiated between you but it'd be a goodwill gesture from either side and really doesn't belong on this forum as a dispute.

 

You both entered into a private transaction which carries a risk. If pronteer ever wanted full compensation not only should he have insisted on an appropiate delivery method with insurance but also perhaps private sales are not really appropriate. If you want this level of protection stick to dealing with shops, and pay the price premium for the privledge.

[Curious]

Pronteer has no right to ask Curious to refund or pay for the repairs of the iPod. However, Curious has shown good character by offering £30 to repair the iPod, and my advice to Pronteer is to accept that offer and pay the rest of the costs himself..

 

I gather you've already sent him £30 - so you have a residual liability of £4. It would also mean the damage has been split (approximately) evenly between both parties,

 

Taking into account both statements, I'm willing to send the remaining £4 if the claim is unsuccessful, as although not *technically* my fault, it was my responsibility to see the value box not get a line a through it.

 

You both entered into a private transaction which carries a risk. If pronteer ever wanted full compensation not only should he have insisted on an appropiate delivery method with insurance but also perhaps private sales are not really appropriate. If you want this level of protection stick to dealing with shops, and pay the price premium for the privledge.

 

Sound advice there.

 

Thanks to all,

 

Dom

[TheBauer]

After reading this thread, and NOT taking sides, i just wana say something;

 

I have posted many items recorded through RM, and the value has gone up to £34 insurance cover.

Ive found that its hit and miss if they ask you the value of the contents. my little local post office always asks, but the ones in town dont bother and just put a line through.

 

To me this is wrong, i would expect that it is the maximum value unless you SAY it is NOT. so unless you say its only worth £15 the strike through indicates that its the full £34.

 

I now always say its worth £34 even if it is not.

[pronteer]

turns out that the whole logic board is broken! rendering the whole thing completely worthless! thanks!

[creepingfear]

Is the logic board something that could have been broken in transit or is it pretty well protected by the ipod's exterior casing? If so (or not) then that could determine the condition of the ipod WHEN it was posted out.

[sirrith]

If the store has already given you the quote for the repair costs, does it really matter what is broken? Its going to be repaired anyway, correct?

 

Or did you conjure up the repair costs without any factual basis, and now you've taken it to be fixed, you found the actual price?

[r.ocelot]

Completely worthless....but only the center button is broken according to you?

[joeking27]

Can everyone keep the comments useful and relevant to the topic please, there's a lot of posts that don't add much to overall picture.

 

It would be useful to know what is happening with:

• The state of the iPod, and whats steps can be taken to repair it.
• The claim to RM for damage in transit.

[Warhog Driver!!!]

iv delt with Curious and iv always had good dealings, and this thread is all to familier to that thing a few months ago with some other people... it does scare me some times that this can happen so often, and pronteer just because Curious was on some top- secret mission to kill osama, which resulted in his lack of contact, there was no need to threaten him...

[dannyboy]

Can everyone keep the comments useful and relevant to the topic please