Lost Packages

[Nivenj]

You would still be defrauding an insurance company I'm afraid - by not telling them that it is a counterfeit item.

Im no lawyer, but i dont think that is correct (although i guess this is going to be dependent on carrier and country), but certainaly, as far as I can tell reading through Royal Mail's T&C, there is no mention of counterfeit goods in their T&C's of carraige or Claim for loss. There are Exclusions for claim of loss with anything that is prohibited to be sent, however, and interestingly...there is no mention of counterfeit goods being prohibited (Counterfeit currency is there though). So as far as I can tell, making a claim for loss with Royal Mail in the UK would not be fraudulent as you are making a lawful claim based on actual loss.

[enduser]

Well spotted for the Royal Mail - an interesting loophole. Most of the international couriers (eg DHL, UPS etc) will, however, have restrictions in place and anything booked through comparison websites such as Parcel2Go will also have a tickbox asking you to confirm that the item is not a restricted item.

An alternative solution as to who takes the risk on shipping - if you believe the insurance is effective - is to get the buyer to arrange the shipping. The onus is then on the seller to pack it correctly and get a receipt from the collection courier, and at that point the risk passes to the buyer (and the buyer has the hassle of tracking down lost packages and making insurance claims). Of course, this gets harder to organise in far flung places.

Note that insurance is typically 5% of the value of the item when booked through the international couriers. It's cheaper if you have a commercial marine shipping policy of course, but I doubt these would cover counterfeit goods. I'm assuming the TDs all self-insure. - sending out replacement watches is just a line in their P&L account.

[C Master]

The transportation of illegal goods always bears risk and there is no hard and fast rule from an RWI perspective governing this event.

There exists a tradition of a gentleman's agreement that the seller and the buyer split the loss as both people are at a loss. Although staff are called a lot to rule on such an event there is nothing that we will enforce in a situation like this. We have to assume both buyer and seller are of good standing and are well capable of making adult decisions between themselves.

[Nivenj]

The transportation of illegal goods always bears risk and there is no hard and fast rule from an RWI perspective governing this event.

There exists a tradition of a gentleman's agreement that the seller and the buyer split the loss as both people are at a loss. Although staff are called a lot to rule on such an event there is nothing that we will enforce in a situation like this. We have to assume both buyer and seller are of good standing and are well capable of making adult decisions between themselves.

As I said...the original question was a question on loss, not really a question on seizure. I think we can all agree, seizure is a very different situation. This question is just on lost packages. There are quite a few Gens being sold these days, here and over the road. So lets assume its a gen thats been lost. Does that change peoples thinking here, or is it still buyer risk?

[micksmith1987]

There exists a tradition of a gentleman's agreement that the seller and the buyer split the loss as both people are at a loss

Generally speaking, I agree 100% that it makes sense for both the seller and the buyer to split the loss.

On the other hand, argument no. 1: don't we all use a standard disclaimer in M2M sales that it is the buyer who takes all the risk and the moment when the package leaves the seller's hands it is on the buyer? If the buyer doesn't like such condition, then does not have to buy.
Argument no. 2: there is a no profiteering rule, that's why M2M watches are cheaper than TD, often by more than 30-40 usd (shipping costs from TDs!). If I recall correctly from economics 101; higher risk=bigger gain; lower risk=higher price. So in other words, you are paying less for a watch, which often is already within the EU (or CONUS), so the custom risk is lower; but on the other hand, if something happens with the parcel, you are screwed. One can always buy from a TD, pay more, but be safe that if anything goes bad, then the TD will figure it out.
And this comes from someone, who stopped buying from TDs and now uses M2M only

[Tucker]

As I said...the original question was a question on loss, not really a question on seizure. I think we can all agree, seizure is a very different situation. This question is just on lost packages. There are quite a few Gens being sold these days, here and over the road. So lets assume its a gen thats been lost. Does that change peoples thinking here, or is it still buyer risk?

He didn’t mention seizure. Did you have a watch lost in a M2M transaction?

[Nivenj]

He didn’t mention seizure. Did you have a watch lost in a M2M transaction?

No but almost everyone is basing their answers on risk of sending/receiving a rep watch, which isn't really the question i was asking.

[Tucker]

No but almost everyone is basing their answers on risk of sending/receiving a rep watch, which isn't really the question i was asking.

Did you have a package lost in a M2M transaction?

[yodog]

Halfsies in case it was indeed "lost" as long as there are no shenanigans from both parties

Buyer eats if it was seized by customs in receiving country.

[trailboss99]

You would still be defrauding an insurance company I'm afraid - by not telling them that it is a counterfeit item.

Only if they ask you up front.
You lost an item, you are entitled to insurance if you paid for it.

[Muskandar]

Who ships reps with insurance? I can’t imagine a claim actually working out.


Sent from my iPhone using RWI

[stufuse]

Generally speaking, I agree 100% that it makes sense for both the seller and the buyer to split the loss.

On the other hand, argument no. 1: don't we all use a standard disclaimer in M2M sales that it is the buyer who takes all the risk and the moment when the package leaves the seller's hands it is on the buyer? If the buyer doesn't like such condition, then does not have to buy.
Argument no. 2: there is a no profiteering rule, that's why M2M watches are cheaper than TD, often by more than 30-40 usd (shipping costs from TDs!). If I recall correctly from economics 101; higher risk=bigger gain; lower risk=higher price. So in other words, you are paying less for a watch, which often is already within the EU (or CONUS), so the custom risk is lower; but on the other hand, if something happens with the parcel, you are screwed. One can always buy from a TD, pay more, but be safe that if anything goes bad, then the TD will figure it out.
And this comes from someone, who stopped buying from TDs and now uses M2M only

If I’m not mistaken You’ll find That disclaimer is worthless though used a lot. There was a thread about it some time back.

Alot of the time if the watch is new and C&R you seen them listed for the same as TD price with you pay your shipping on top as you would with TD. if shipping is more local that may be slightly cheaper but a TD will cover the loss if they are China based.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nivenj]

Who ships reps with insurance? I can’t imagine a claim actually working out.


Sent from my iPhone using RWI

Me. Its irrelevant if it’s a rep that’s lost with Royal Mail.

[C Master]

loss

This can and oftentimes means stolen within the postal system. You will find this happens to Gens as much as Reps. I never mentioned seizure by the way that is totally different event.

[Nivenj]

I never mentioned seizure by the way that is totally different event.

Ok, my mistake then. It was just that you started your comment talking about illegal goods. Illegal or legal in respect of loss is irrelevant i think in the context of the question, hence why I assumed you were referring to seizure, Sorry.