[DeTomaso] Roland Jackel-from the PI board

michael@michaelshortt.com michaelsavga at gmail.com
Mon Jun 21 11:37:18 EDT 2010


I don't want to jump in here willy nilly, the whole who's account #  paid
for shipping /insurance thing is the major problem here.

In 99% of all cases, the shipper is the seller who pays the fees for
shipping through the sellers account and the shipper assumes the risk of the
product(s) getting where it goes or filing a claim if it doesn't.

That didn't happen here and should be a lesson to all, when you try to cut
corners, it can bite you in the ass.

Same thing with payment, why I use PayPal most of the time and them pay
Paypal with a Credit Card, that gives me not one but two recourse actions to
get my money back if the product never arrives or is damaged.

As a mediator, I would point out ( as has been done ) that UPS now owns the
ZF, anybody who wants the remains needs to deal with UPS.

I would also point out that anything that you buy isn't yours until you get
it, that's one of the reasons that you sign for it and why anybody with half
a brain will open up and inspect a fragile item before signing for it when
it is delivered by UPS, FEDEX or a common carrier, sorry, but screw the
driver's time, once you accept the package it's yours!  If it is damaged,
you simply refuse to sign and they take it back.

Then you get a refund.

IMHO.

The buyer is entitled to a full and complete refund at the price/value that
he paid plus any incurred expenses, any taxes and duties can be refunded as
well from whomever they were actually paid to,, since nothing was actually
bought, so that's another issue.

The owner is entitled to the insurance payment because it was their property
that was damaged.

The third party who was caught in the middle of this isn't entitled to
profit or lose and money at all, but the deal went bust and that's the risk
that middlemen take in business.

Having said that, the owner had a deal with the seller, it would be the
right thing to do to give the seller the profit he was expecting, esp if
they valued the relationship and after all, the owner did eventually get
exactly what they were expecting in return, if not more.

Everybody involved and anybody reading this email is entitled to contact UPS
and offer to buy the ZF, it belongs to them, anything other than that is
stealing from UPS.

Michael Shortt

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:14 AM, <JJD1010 at aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/20/2010 7:31:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> pantdino at aol.com writes:
>
> For example, it seems to me:
>
> Jim sold Roland a ZF for  $4000,
> The ZF was not Jim's own property-- he was acting as agent for a  customer
> Roland paid Jim (or the customer?) in full before the box was  shipped.
> The box was damaged in shipment.
> UPS paid Jim $4000 to  compensate for the damaged box.
> Jim sent the money to Roland, refunding him  in full.
>
> Roland still has the box and feels he has the right to keep it  AND the
> refunded money
>
> Are these statements  correct?
>
> If so, I believe that if Roland thinks about it  some more he will realize
> he has the right to keep the box or the $4000, but  not both.
>
> The whole business of whose UPS number was used and therefore who  insured
> the item adds some confusion, but the overall picture is clear.
>
>
> Jim Oddie
>
>
> ______________
>
> I'm not taking sides here but this is really a legal issue as to  when
> title to the goods transferred, which I believe is covered by the UCC,  the
> Uniform Commercial Code. Any lawyers out there want to comment. I may be
>  wrong,
> but I would think that title(ownership) to the ZF transfers when  it is
> paid for, not when it is received, unless there is a bill of sale to the
> contrary.
>
> Theoretically, the insurance is to reimburse Roland for  his cost to repair
> the damage on the ZF that he owns. Therefore, the insurance  money,
> regardless of the actual cost to repair, would go to  Roland since he was
> the
> rightful owner of the ZF at the time of the  damage. The owner has received
> his
> bargained for sale price of $4000 so  he is already whole under the law and
> should not be entitled to the insurance  proceeds.
>
> The fact that the shipper's UPS account was used is a moot point.  Some
> other things to consider that could theoretically help or muddy the
>  argument
> are: 1) did Roland pay Jim for the shipping? 2) for the  insurance? 3) was
> shipping included in the negotiated and agreed sale  price? the insurance?
>
> Lastly, it is conceivable that the seller could take out  a side contract,
> independent of the sale agreement, to insure the value  of the ZF. I'm not
> really sure that this is legal since he no longer owned the  ZF, but in
> that
> case, he would be entitled to those  proceeds.
>
> Jeff
> 6559
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>



-- 







Michael L. Shortt
Savannah, Georgia
www.michaelshortt.com
michael at michaelshortt.com
912-232-9390


This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you
have received this message in error, then delete it.  Thank you



More information about the DeTomaso mailing list