Forum Feedback Behavior of TE Members (Gyan Ahead, You have been warned!)
- Thread starter Slayer88
- Start date
- Status
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree
I've asked this with my local DTDC guy years back and he had no idea. I'm not sure if it covers used product. May be someone with actual experience can help. I'll send an email to see if they do provide insurance for a used product.
This may be the case for Shiprocket as they are specifically targeting commerce delivery. But in case of DTDC, Bluedart etc., a sale transaction is not necessary. I might be shipping for any other reason as well. For instance, let's say I'm sending a GPU for RMA to their service center.
I went through their terms and conditions. They do not mention sale anywhere, nor any mention of used/new items. The only parts worth noting are the following:
In reality however, there's a high chance of insurance being denied since consumer protection in India is pretty weak and all companies take advantage of this fact.
enthusiast29
Juggernaut
This is a moral choice and totally depends on both the parties mutually agreeing to split the loss. This is the only fair choice here. No one party should bear all the loss unless they want to take the high moral ground.
That said, you or anyone can't force your thoughts and morals on others.
There will be people who don't care about others and you can do nothing about it except choose not to do business with them here.
That's what I do, usually skip the threads that mention these terms.
Let me be clear I'm not questioning anyone's morality here nor am I not willing to transact with them because it's not in line with my morality.
If a reputed seller were to offer a product at really, really good price and i need it then I'd message them and gladly deal.
B
BullettuPaandi
After 2 pages and a self-proclaimed wisdom on this topic...
Morality sounds like a big word here. It's too personal of a thing to be relevant in a deal/transaction. I think it is simply a question of etiquette.
"4. You are taking responsibility of the sale even if you are selling it on behalf of someone else. You will be held responsible for smooth completion of the deal." - This is from Market Guidelines. While I don't know whether the staffs had this particular issue in their minds, I feel it's safe to assume so. Not that the seller is always responsible for damage-in-transit, but it is in seller's best interest that the deal goes smoothly. So, I'd argue that it is seller's responsibility to communicate the terms before accepting money and it is buyer's to assess the risk and decide for themselves. There cannot be a single term, because things can be nuanced and situational with things like value of the product, how prone it is to get damaged while shipping, etc. Even in my little experience, recently had a conversation with a potential buyer, who wanted me to check with travels agencies to ship the product. Because a quote from a courier service I chose was too high for the buyer. I wasn't comfortable with this, but didn't ended up selling to this buyer anyway. However, had it come to this, I'd have wanted to let them know that they'd be bearing the risk. It'd have been the buyer's call.
Ultimately, since all this relies on a feedback system, the point is to have none in the bad, if the unfortunate happens. So, communicating the terms and sharing images of package to check if it is satisfactory should do. The default, I think, is still the seller being responsible, as long as they pack the product and choose how it is shipped.
Not twisting your words, but this simply sounds like assuming/thinking/pretending that the seller has the leverage in this situation.
Morality sounds like a big word here. It's too personal of a thing to be relevant in a deal/transaction. I think it is simply a question of etiquette.
"4. You are taking responsibility of the sale even if you are selling it on behalf of someone else. You will be held responsible for smooth completion of the deal." - This is from Market Guidelines. While I don't know whether the staffs had this particular issue in their minds, I feel it's safe to assume so. Not that the seller is always responsible for damage-in-transit, but it is in seller's best interest that the deal goes smoothly. So, I'd argue that it is seller's responsibility to communicate the terms before accepting money and it is buyer's to assess the risk and decide for themselves. There cannot be a single term, because things can be nuanced and situational with things like value of the product, how prone it is to get damaged while shipping, etc. Even in my little experience, recently had a conversation with a potential buyer, who wanted me to check with travels agencies to ship the product. Because a quote from a courier service I chose was too high for the buyer. I wasn't comfortable with this, but didn't ended up selling to this buyer anyway. However, had it come to this, I'd have wanted to let them know that they'd be bearing the risk. It'd have been the buyer's call.
Ultimately, since all this relies on a feedback system, the point is to have none in the bad, if the unfortunate happens. So, communicating the terms and sharing images of package to check if it is satisfactory should do. The default, I think, is still the seller being responsible, as long as they pack the product and choose how it is shipped.
This doesn't make sense. Because, neither is "local sale" part of "damage-in-transit" issue, nor would this issue be in a local sale. If anything, it'd only increase the "seller's best interest" factor, if they prefer local sale and come out of their way to ship the product.
Not twisting your words, but this simply sounds like assuming/thinking/pretending that the seller has the leverage in this situation.
As I mentioned before, as a seller I am allowed to set my preferences as per my convenience as long as it is within the rules. As such I do have the leverage to set all the terms I want. I have absolutely no issues with any buyer ignoring my sale thread if they are not finding the terms attractive. But I do have issues with any buyer calling out sellers for expecting some service which is not even mandated in the rules. I am not doing anyone any favour nor running a business. I am looking to offload stuff not in use in the most hassle free way. If it does not get sold because a buyer is not willing to bear the 100% transit risk, it is ok. There are other buyers who are ready.
Even then, I will always set my terms to strongly encourage a local sale -
So do I want to bear the 100% transit risk ? No.
Can I share the risk ? No, again.
Can I ship ? Yes, but only if it is feasible cost wise, based on the nature of the product (if it involves glass I wont even ship) and buyer agrees to the terms I set.
Now, do you want to bear the 100% transit risk, which, by the way, is an additional service, even the courier charges for ? It's your choice since you, as the seller, set the terms. If you feel it is in your best interest then bear it. I am not going to complain as a buyer on any of your terms as long as you are within the rules set.
Last edited:
B
BullettuPaandi
I think you don't understand. I don't dispute that the seller can set the terms at all.
This is basically the gist of what I said.
I specifically quoted this to add that preferring local sale and not bearing transit risk are two different things. One has nothing to do with the other. It doesn't make sense to not bear the risk when you ship just BECAUSE you'd prefer not to ship. You are free to not bear the risk because of any reason or none at all.
The sellers always have the "leverage" to set the terms of sale.
Yes and I agree that the terms of sale should be made clear which I always do.
If I do not prefer / encourage / prioritize a local sale then the question of bearing the transit risk will always be there. If I can "always" get a local sale completed, the buyer and seller do not need to even be concerned with any transit risk. However it is not always possible, then the option for me is to ship at buyer's risk unless they pay to the courier to cover the risk (which I strongly encourage as well in the terms of sale).
Last edited:
B
BullettuPaandi
That is not what leverage means bro. What I meant there seems to have completely gone over your head.
You mean, you prefer this option.
This pretty much sums it and I have nothing further to add.
It is ok for you to not understand now. You will need to spend some more time here.
It is OK if the terms are spelt out clearly. Seller not accepting the risk of lost/damage packages is quite normal and have seen in many sales posts not only in this forum but camera specific forums like JJ Mehta. In one of the sale, the buyer insisted on sending a camera lens worth of 22K only by India post and ready to accept the risk of loss/damage.
raf1988
Contributor
I believe this belongs here for unethical behaviour.
My thread link - https://techenclave.com/threads/cor...d-netgear-asus-routers-blu-ray-movies.212861/
Need a Mod to send out a Warning or better, a Ban!
My thread link - https://techenclave.com/threads/cor...d-netgear-asus-routers-blu-ray-movies.212861/
Need a Mod to send out a Warning or better, a Ban!
Last edited by a moderator:
cattynip
Explorer
Please stop with this @raf1988. I know you've had 3-4 bad experiences with buyers that ask payment details and ghost you. You can personally message a moderator if you're not satisfied with a fellow members behaviour. Don't go and post pictures of your chats in public. You can ignore the buyer if they try to low ball you or just outright say NO and leave the conversation if you aren't ready to negotiate. If they still persist and you find it troublesome, instead of calling them out, report them to the mods. They will take necessary actions.
to both @raf1988 & @Adithya_babu, please chill and relax and move on. Look back at what both of you have done and please dont repeat it again.
Rezep
Herald
Just ignore him if he irritates you that much, he hasn't done anything wrong that goes against the bst rules afaik. Hell posting your chats with him, naming and then insulting him is more liable to be a violation of the sites rules lmao. Everyone else on this page would discuss anonymously about annoying members on here, you're not supposed to actually say who they are if I'm not wrong. The audacity to ask for a ban for lowballing lmao
raf1988
Contributor
Not for that reason. He kept on begging, I politely told him ‘sorry, price is fixed‘. But then next day again he messaged with a 1200 offer. Again I said sorry, price is fixed as I told you. Then he gave a snarky reply “keep it broo”, along with laughing emotes. For this behaviour I called him out on my thread and told him to learn to respect other people's time, their price listings and to stop begging. Then he replied on my thread I have mental issues I left it at that and didn’t reply to him. Whoever read the thread knows what kind of person he is.
This is about another user writing unethical stuff on my thread and impolite behaviour in my chat, begging etc. Read above.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
Last edited:
- Status