Jalopnik: UPS 'loses' 4 rotor article
i can tell you are new to this, but if the buyer doesn't pay for the insurance, the seller isn't required to pay out of pocket for the insurance. in the event something happens then it is somehow the sellers fault? sorry bro, it doesn't work that way. i don't know how much additional the insurance and import fees were on $10k but i can wager it is around $300-500, that ain't something that would sit well with me to eat. sounds like they both agreed to gamble that just this situation wouldn't happen, except it did. but it's semantics anyways, because Fedex hasn't even paid a dime of the insurance that WAS PAID FOR.
I'm not saying this guy is one but the article made it sound like the seller under insured it without the buyers knowledge.
i can tell you are new to this, but if the buyer doesn't pay for the insurance, the seller isn't required to pay out of pocket for the insurance. in the event something happens then it is somehow the sellers fault? sorry bro, it doesn't work that way.
i don't know how much additional the insurance and import fees were on $10k but i can wager it is around $300-500, that ain't something that would sit well with me to eat. sounds like they both agreed to gamble that just this situation wouldn't happen, except it did. but it's semantics anyways, because Fedex hasn't even paid a dime of the insurance that WAS PAID FOR.
i don't know how much additional the insurance and import fees were on $10k but i can wager it is around $300-500, that ain't something that would sit well with me to eat. sounds like they both agreed to gamble that just this situation wouldn't happen, except it did. but it's semantics anyways, because Fedex hasn't even paid a dime of the insurance that WAS PAID FOR.
Ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to at least provide an option to guarantee the delivery and or replacement. It is the buyer's responsibility to pay for it. It is that simple.
For example let's say I purchase an engine: and the seller states $4K shipped. That is it, no other wording. Who's responsibility is it to get it to my door? The seller's of course. Why because the seller is the one took the money, chose the shipping method, and worked out the price with the shipping company. In more simplistic terms the seller states that he will get the engine to my door for $4K. I payed the $4k. Engine didn't I arrive. I complied with my end of the bargain the seller didn't not.
Of course it all changes if the seller's states $4k shipped with no insurance and $4.5K with insurance. So if I opt for no insurance and the engine gets lost, then it is on me 100%
Last edited by Montego; Nov 20, 2015 at 12:34 PM.
Insurance in itself does not absolve UPS of the inability to provide adequate customer service and actually find an item this big that's been lost. Truth is that it wasn't lost. It was in their possession the entire time. They failed first to deliver the package. Let's not forget they were paid for that service...
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
Insurance in itself does not absolve UPS of the inability to provide adequate customer service and actually find an item this big that's been lost. Truth is that it wasn't lost. It was in their possession the entire time. They failed first to deliver the package. Let's not forget they were paid for that service...
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
We do not know both sides of the story here but one this is for sure: Who ever opted not to pay for the insurance is an idiot.
Ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to at least provide an option to guarantee the delivery and or replacement. It is the buyer's responsibility to pay for it. It is that simple.
For example let's say I purchase an engine: and the seller states $4K shipped. That is it, no other wording. Who's responsibility is it to get it to my door? The seller's of course. Why because the seller is the one took the money, chose the shipping method, and worked out the price with the shipping company. In more simplistic terms the seller states that he will get the engine to my door for $4K. I payed the $4k. Engine didn't I arrive. I complied with my end of the bargain the seller didn't not.
Of course it all changes if the seller's states $4k shipped with no insurance and $4.5K with insurance. So if I opt for no insurance and the engine gets lost, then it is on me 100%
Ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to at least provide an option to guarantee the delivery and or replacement. It is the buyer's responsibility to pay for it. It is that simple.
For example let's say I purchase an engine: and the seller states $4K shipped. That is it, no other wording. Who's responsibility is it to get it to my door? The seller's of course. Why because the seller is the one took the money, chose the shipping method, and worked out the price with the shipping company. In more simplistic terms the seller states that he will get the engine to my door for $4K. I payed the $4k. Engine didn't I arrive. I complied with my end of the bargain the seller didn't not.
Of course it all changes if the seller's states $4k shipped with no insurance and $4.5K with insurance. So if I opt for no insurance and the engine gets lost, then it is on me 100%
since my reply was to someone who claimed the seller should cover insurance/import fees no matter what.. to which i replied that that is bs.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 30,807
Likes: 648
From: FL-->NJ/NYC again!
Well said Mike.
I plan to never use UPS again...... and I've been requesting that people shipping me parts use Fedex.
As I recall, Chris Carlisi had something in his signature to the effect of:
"Need something lost? UPS can help!"
I remember he was constantly overnighting parts for his Mandeville 20B build, and UPS constantly screwed up, like a dozen times.
I plan to never use UPS again...... and I've been requesting that people shipping me parts use Fedex.
As I recall, Chris Carlisi had something in his signature to the effect of:
"Need something lost? UPS can help!"
I remember he was constantly overnighting parts for his Mandeville 20B build, and UPS constantly screwed up, like a dozen times.
Insurance in itself does not absolve UPS of the inability to provide adequate customer service and actually find an item this big that's been lost. Truth is that it wasn't lost. It was in their possession the entire time. They failed first to deliver the package. Let's not forget they were paid for that service...
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
The even more objectionable part was that they were unwilling or unable to make it right by either launching an effective search/investigation to find the package and finally auctioning it off themselves with no internal checks for thier customers sake.
This leads me to believe it's completely bottom line driven. If he had insurance for $30k of its value it would be in their best interest to keep tabs and or find it when it was lost.
They end up making more money essentially stealing their customers stuff and auctioning it off. Was that their intent or motivation? All I can say is that every company is bottom line driven and if by apathy, just being derelict or at worst sinister in their motives. They still have to answer for it in public opinion.
Insurance is another matter but insurance wasn't really needed in this instance. Just a company that is competent in providing the services they advertise. Now if the truck or plane crashed carrying the cargo, act of God, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of war or grand theft was to blame; then yes we should be looking at the shipper/customer and say you only have yourself to blame for not buying the proper insurance.
Yes theoretically speaking Rob could have sued ups on the premise that they failed to do what they were hired to do. And very likely win in the end. But jeez what a hassle... Therefore in the interest of self preservation, insurance is key.
Don't get wrong, it completely sucks and unfair that the monetary burden lies on us and thus have to pay extra for insurance. Insurance to cover ourselves because of the shipping's company inepness to do what they were hired to do in the first place. Oh no it bites big time. However some hassles are just not worth it.
Last edited by Montego; Nov 21, 2015 at 12:20 PM.
Don't get wrong, it completely sucks and unfair that the monetary burden lies on us and thus have to pay extra for insurance. Insurance to cover ourselves because of the shipping's company ineptness to do what they were hired to do in the first place. Oh no it bites big time.
Why do we have to pay extra to guarantee the service we are already paying for??? Its a total rip off!!! I'll bet UPS makes 80-90% profit on selling insurance for shipped packages.
^^Armchair lawyers ... all of ya. Why don't you ask a real lawyer? Did anybody read the contract? Is there a limited warranty discussed? Was there a provision in the original engine purchase contract discussing who bore the risk of loss and to what point in the transaction? These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered before any legal opinion can be offered.
Last edited by getgone; Nov 24, 2015 at 12:51 PM.
i can understand the need for insurance for poorly packaged delicate items, however they often times will void the insurance due to improper packing. funny how that works... i can certainly see there being easy insurance fraud there but how can you play stupid when they lose a package and then don't even want to pay the insurance when proof is provided? lol
This Whole story is pretty sad
All I have to say is that , I shipped few times from the states (to Canada)
I had very similar problems with CanadaPost/Fedex ( CanadaPost was to blame)
As oppose to everyone , I actually ask to be shipped by UPS , why?
Because , it's an international company , and trust me there is WAYYYY les hassle to deal with just one company when a problem occurs.
All I have to say is that , I shipped few times from the states (to Canada)
I had very similar problems with CanadaPost/Fedex ( CanadaPost was to blame)
As oppose to everyone , I actually ask to be shipped by UPS , why?
Because , it's an international company , and trust me there is WAYYYY les hassle to deal with just one company when a problem occurs.
^^Armchair lawyers ... all of ya. Why don't you ask a real lawyer? Did anybody read the contract? Is there a limited warranty discussed? Was there a provision in the original engine purchase contract discussing who bore the risk of loss and to what point in the transaction? These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered before any legal opinion can be offered.
And they do... Legally binding or not, we all know the law isn't about what we know to be true and it's not even always fair; it's about what we can prove or abiding under what terms binding parties under contractural agreement.
While I don't want to get into the weeds with implied expectations and fine print. We all know what happened in regards to UPS's handling of the package lost in transit. It played out before us and we know UPS did not handle it to our expectations. Even given the opportunity they mishandled the entire process. Their system for finding lost packages was ineffective in this case and it's egregious. If you want a company as big as UPS to make changes to improve thier handling you have to make it an embarrassment that will cause their bottom line to suffer. If that happens and it's high profile enough that it's tied to the mishandling of these situations then they have to answer to their investors.
If nothing else I assure you that change will come if it effects their bottom line. It's not an easy thing to do. UPS knows this and it's exactly why they asked him to pull down the videos.
not really, the intent of these companies now is to make it so aggravating that you simply give up before forcing them to court.
similar to deposits you pay when you rent a house or apartment from a large company, they will take all or a large chunk of it with made up claims well knowing that you won't bother with any legal proceedings. if you put enough pressure on them, eventually they will cave even when they know you were right in the first place.
even with the public display and proof they won't change their practices, because these companies make money by doing as little as possible to help you.
similar to deposits you pay when you rent a house or apartment from a large company, they will take all or a large chunk of it with made up claims well knowing that you won't bother with any legal proceedings. if you put enough pressure on them, eventually they will cave even when they know you were right in the first place.
even with the public display and proof they won't change their practices, because these companies make money by doing as little as possible to help you.
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; Nov 25, 2015 at 07:30 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 300
Likes: 3
From: Sussex, UK
If you want a company as big as UPS to make changes to improve thier handling you have to make it an embarrassment that will cause their bottom line to suffer. If that happens and it's high profile enough that it's tied to the mishandling of these situations then they have to answer to their investors.
They tend to move fast then!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Vaqueropr27
Old School and Other Rotary
8
Nov 18, 2015 05:03 PM
Cameron38
1st Gen General Discussion
3
Nov 18, 2015 01:17 PM
Fcsaln134
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
7
Nov 17, 2015 03:48 PM
