Market Feedback Shipping at buyer's risk, why is it allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gourav

Innovator
When a seller is offering to ship the product, why should it be the buyer's risk? I would understand if the seller didn't want to ship but the buyer insisted, but how can sellers write that by default?

The buyer has paid money. The buyer hasn't even touched the product. Yet, somehow, safe shipping is the buyer's responsibility. Why do sellers think this is justified?
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: Ir0nMerc, MiteshR, bigquads and 5 others
lockhrt999 said:
Imagine if Amazon did that.

Imagine husband telling his wife if she gets pregnant it's her responsibility.

Imagine restaurant telling its customers if they die tomorrow its their responsibility.
Click to expand...
These are horrendous analogies.

A single seller shipping a working product by wrapping it well has 0 control over what happens in transit.

Amazon controls shipping and has insurance; there is no insurance for used products. Even if you get insurance you're not likely to get a full payout.

For the other two, there is no situation where the husband or the restaurant has no control over what happens. If the restaurant serves you food and you fall ill, this is like someone shipping you a non functional product.

The seller sets the terms, either you accept them or you don't. If you're not ok with it, then don't buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ascalon, greekgecko, alekhkhanna and 9 others
So, TE = Amazon
TE = That Husband
TE = That one restaurant, of course
I agree, local F2F sales should only be allowed. It would save everyone - seller, buyer and the TE Mods, a world of trouble.
 
I don't think the whole responsibility is to put it on buyer, based on seller it should be either full refund or as much as possible. TE is not Amazon, it is not business, it the group of supposedly trustable individuals selling stuff there are not using and they should be ready to take loss if the parcel is lost.
 
Buyer wants to buy a product, but does not want to take the shipping risk.

Seller wants to sell a product, but does not want to take the shipping risk.

They are at an impasse. The sale does not happen. That's fine with the seller.

The seller might receive an offer that the buyer will only buy if the seller takes full risk or if they share the risk.

If the seller agrees with this, the sale can happen. If the seller does not agree, the sale doesn't happen and it's fine with them.

In short, the seller has a right to put their terms and conditions when selling. The buyer has the right to negotiate those in their favour. No one is forcing them on anyone. If you stop buying from sellers who do not negotiate on those, their stuff won't sell. If their stuff is selling, then those buyers consider it a good bargain/good offer for taking that risk. They were not at disadvantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentmilo, anikptl, TheGoldenHorde and 11 others
gourav said:
When a seller is offering to ship the product, why should it be the buyer's risk? I would understand if the seller didn't want to ship but the buyer insisted, but how can sellers write that by default?

The buyer has paid money. The buyer hasn't even touched the product. Yet, somehow, safe shipping is the buyer's responsibility. Why do sellers think this is justified?
Click to expand...
  1. Shipping at Buyers Risk
  2. Hiding Original Invoice Price & selling OLD/NEW products at Inflated Price
  3. Seller as buyer first Claim GST Benefits on his purchase/product and after that within 3-4 months selling product at price (Purchase Price - GST Tax Amount = Selling Price), it means sale at price he bought and used same for 3-4 months and after that offer for sale .. isn't it good idea !!! (correct me if I got this Price - GST calculation wrong)
 
  • Like
Reactions: n1r0, _DooMLoRD_, Emrebel and 1 other person
I was surprised at this too but then i saw them being the norm in FB groups and literally everywhere. Transit damage is not under both party's control but if the seller takes the time to pack it well and chooses a reliable courier, the risk is minimal. I'd say avoid purchasing costly used items online, it definitely isn't worth the hassle unless there's a really big discount being offered.
 
santhoshr said:
I don't think the whole responsibility is to put it on buyer, based on seller it should be either full refund or as much as possible. TE is not Amazon, it is not business, it the group of supposedly trustable individuals selling stuff there are not using and they should be ready to take loss if the parcel is lost.
Click to expand...
Not fair to the seller too. In case things go wrong with the package, it is only fair that the damage is split 50-50. I have always stood by this and will continue to stand by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenHorde, enthusiast29 and Emperor
In India, there is no reliable way to insure shipping. Either the seller or buyer has to assume the risk. Which one does is between them to decide. In general, I've seen it end up with the buyer more often.

I've sold and bought a lot online over the years. For high value stuff, video calls are one way to draw comfort as a remote buyer, along with pictures of the packaging. As a seller, I take a lot of extra care in packing and share whatever the buyer requests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentmilo and cinecon
This has been debated earlier also.
If anything, seller at least has touched the item when shipping it to the buyer. Buyer literally has never seen or touched the item.
The risk and the damage if happens should be shared 50-50, period!
jai1611 said:
Either the seller or buyer has to assume the risk. Which one does is between them to decide.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree with this sentiment. It should be a shared responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ir0nMerc
Why would i take responsibility of a item i'm shipping when i have no control over shipping itself? the shipping company could lose it, steal it.. do whatever, So now i would be out of the item itself, the money aswell and dont forget the time and brain evergy i wasted to try and sell the item itself.

this should be a calculated risk by the buyer.. nothing is guranteed.. if the buyer doesnt like it he is more than free to go elsewhere or buy new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ascalon
enc0dex264 said:
Why would i take responsibility of a item i'm shipping when i have no control over shipping itself? the shipping company could lose it, steal it.. do whatever, So now i would be out of the item itself, the money aswell and dont forget the time and brain evergy i wasted to try and sell the item itself.

this should be a calculated risk by the buyer.. nothing is guranteed.. if the buyer doesnt like it he is more than free to go elsewhere or buy new.
Click to expand...
Now think about the buyer.
He parted with the money. Never touched the product.
But now he won't even get the product or the money.

The risk should be taken by both.
You are not wasting your energy. You are trying to get some money for your old product.
Similarly, buyer is trying to buy the product for some price lesser than brand new. Both have greed here and hence both should take the risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentmilo, anikptl, rockstah and 4 others
It depends on how badly the seller wants to get rid of the item. Personally whenever I sell, I prefer a local f2f deal so that there is no risk on me. An outstation buyer is not paying me any more, and in fact I have to take the trouble to find a box and packaging material etc. I personally have had very poor experiences with Indian transporters with my own items when I moved. I certainly am not that desperate to risk that when I know eventually I'll get a local buyer. Personally when I want to buy something high value and fragile, I try to have one of my friends who's staying in that city pick it up, and then get it from them when we visit.

Sites like Amazon etc control the shipping and delivery, and the risk of damages is priced into their and the manufacturers margins. As a private seller I've already taken a hit on depreciation, I have no further room for risk.
anmolkumar10 said:
Now think about the buyer.
He parted with the money. Never touched the product.
But now he won't even get the product or the money.

The risk should be taken by both.
You are not wasting your energy. You are trying to get some money for your old product.
Similarly, buyer is trying to buy the product for some price lesser than brand new. Both have greed here and hence both should take the risk.
Click to expand...
The buyer is the one who took the decision to buy a non local product knowing the risk of damages or loss in transportation. He could have gotten it from a local seller. If not available, he could have waited. The seller has already stated that they would prefer a local sale or local pickup. If the buyer is not willing to accept the risk, I'm sure they're happy to continue waiting for a local buyer.The buyer is the one creating the risk, so they have to bear it. The buyer could have had a local friend pick it up or travel there and go pick it up himself. He's not willing to do any of those things. The seller is in fact doing them a favour by packing and shipping things at all. Why should he get blamed for doing something to help the buyer that they were not comfortable doing in the first place
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: calvin1719
greenhorn said:
The seller has already stated that they would prefer a local sale or local pickup. The buyer is the one creating the risk, so they have to bear it
Click to expand...
No. Seller who have not stated local sale also adds that he is not taking shipping risk.
Seller should clearly state that I need local sale and if someone needs to have it shipped, they should take risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gourav
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom