To avoid this, i have only ever done insured shipping and hold at location FedEx. The buyer would have to go into a pre-determined location, show their ID, and then get the package. Eliminates all headaches and chances of being scammed.

 

Very smart.

 

I have never had a problem buying via OF but I am very selective about who I choose to do business with

 

I’m not sure how or why OF could or would do that. Unlike a sales platform such as C24, which acts as an escrow agent, has a contract that a seller enters into when posting a sales listing, and earns a commission on the sale, OF has no involvement in private sales other than allowing sellers to post items for sale subject to the forum rules for those threads. Establishing and enforcing shipping rules seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

Me neither through Chrono24, they already have those rules in place and i am more comfortable buying that way.

 

OF has sales forum rules i think ? Why not add shipping and insurance"

 

Just wondering how that would be policed and enforced?

 

I'm pretty sure the forum rules apply to conduct of members while using the forum. They have no bearing on how forum members treat one another.

 

OF is not primarily a sales platform. It's a collectors community with a sales section added for the benefit of members. It's all run by volunteers, and they already have plenty enough to do. All you need to do as a buyer or seller is have a conversation with the other party to get the terms of the deal straight before you finalize it - the forum doesn't have to be involved in that.

 

Why fix something that's not broken?

 

This is a finer point I missed until pointed out in another thread about Secursus. Secursus doesn't insure parcels within the USA, (same as Australia.) As per their FAQ below, they only insure internationally for listed countries (as you also noted. I just thought it needed emphasis, as I know I didn't pick up on that nuance until it was pointed out.)

They are happy to take your money for shipping within country but they don't actually cover it.

FAQ

3.1.Countries covered by the Parcel Insurance
The following countries are covered in full: all European countries and the United Kingdom. Only international shipments will be covered for the following countries: the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong, Norway, New Zealand, and Israel.

 

Yes, suffice it to say that their terms and conditions make for interesting reading.

 

It is policed now if you dont follow the advertising rules, or bump more then once a day i believe ? The rules already apply for mentioning price , description and pictures i think, so we can add - seller must specify shipping and insurance options and costs ?
Something like that.

 

I wasn`t aware.... thanks for psoting !

 

@gbesq gets the credit, as he pointed this out in the other thread I referred to.

 

As for the OF rules, here is an excerpt that specifies that OF is not responsible for any losses, which would cover a loss in shipping.

While the rules don't specify how payment is made, they do add some advice and caution about payments. In the same manner, if the moderators wanted to add a statement about the importance of the buyer and seller agreeing to shipping terms (including who is liable if a watch is lost), then that could be helpful.

Of course, we know that many people do not read the rules anyway. At a minimum, it could help the moderators when someone complains that they lost a package and OF is partly at fault for treating them like an adult. The mods would just say we told you so.




Paying for an item.

Please note: OF.net is not responsible for any losses you may incur.

• Payment through PayPal is recommended & which must be a verified account (with the exception of respected dealers where a bank transfer can be done) the two parties will have to agree of the fee's. REMEMBER Gift payments cannot be recalled once sent.
• Bank Transfer - Be cautious, do your research on the seller before parting with your hard earned cash.
• We cannot help you reclaim any monies lost. Please contact your local law enforcement.
• Please contact us if you feel someone is suspicious we will look in to the member in question.
• ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE IF YOU SHOULD PAY FOR AN ITEM.

 

I find this thread of interest but what I've noticed mostly within are opinions of how things ought to be expressed by members.

Disclaimer: I am not an authority on these matters. I have had years of experience buying, selling and shipping and what I've learned is that assumptions don't carry much weight. I had become familiar with terminology and generally accepted practices predating the International Chamber of Commerce Incoterms 2020, but only today was I motivated by this thread to do some further reading.

Transfer of title, and liability in the case of loss in transit are complicated issues that - for the US - are expressed in the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC and internationally are defined by the * ICC's Incoterms 2020 where they apply. I'm not certain that Incoterms apply unless clearly stated. Experts may spend entire work-lives interpreting such matters where there is conflict, but my understanding is that the terms agreed to between seller and buyer can take precedence over what is expressed in the applicable codes.

What do we make of this?



It takes some art and a bit of luck perhaps, to simplify and reduce to just a few words understandings between seller and buyer and express them in a simple contract. There will likely be a risk that one party or the other will balk when things become complicated, but that is the kind of risk I personally would take unless I knowingly decide to take on all the risk myself, which I sometimes do.

Some links of potential interest:

https://www.trade.gov/know-your-incoterms

https://www.blankrome.com/publications/incoterms-and-transfer-risk-and-title-sale-goods-transactions

These two pertains to the UCC.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text...onment-v1.0-a/s21-title-and-risk-of-loss.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-509

In practical terms, the entity that holds the money is the one that has the strongest position regardless of what the contract states.

Here is an example which may not present me in the best light!

In the areas of business I have mostly operated within, manufacturers or sellers generally dictate the terms in the contract of sale and the terms favor them, of course. Transfer of title and liability for shipping is generally transferred to the buyer upon sale. Payment terms are Net 30 or Net 60 ARO (after receipt of order or goods) Any loss in shipment is technically on the chin of the buyer.

When we buy something, we issue a Purchase Order. As may be expected, the terms of our purchase contract favor the buyer.What often happens is that we do not read or deliberately ignore their fine print and they do not read or choose to ignore the terms of our purchase order.

I have never paid for goods I did not receive.

On a couple of occasions, the goods were lost in shipment and the legal minds trotted out the sales contract. "We'll pay you when we receive the goods" is always our response. "But, but, but, the contract" may be their response. The seller's choice is to either send another item - or sue the buyer and if the choice becomes suing to buyer to receive payment for something not received, the legal costs to the seller may exceed whatever they may collect, assuming that a court decides that the sales contract supersedes the purchase contract. It's rare that either the sales contract or the purchase contract have a counter-signature. In the end, business decisions are made and the party holding the money also holds a better chance of prevailing.

On the other hand . . .

We have also shipped items where we decided to cover any loss despite our terms protecting us from bearing such loss.

In the watch game, we generally pay in advance for what we buy and so the seller is in the stronger position generally. The only way for the buyer to be protected is to spell out clear simple terms and more importantly, to purchase real insurance and not something a carrier may provide with a long list of exclusions.

What is assumed to be in a contract - or what is actually stated in the contract - probably won't matter if you are in no position to enforce the terms.

Cheers,

Joe.

* Not sure Incoterms are enforceable unless both parties agree. Searching briefly, I could not find a list of countries who do not accept Incoterms.

 

I agree with all of this and I’ll add one further complication. The UCC applies when at least one of the parties is a “merchant.” That’s a nebulous term in the UCC and the case law interpreting it is even more so. Is a “dealer” on C24 a merchant? Very likely. What about an established astute collector who buys and sells in some volume? Possibly. What about someone who buys or sells one watch? Unlikely. What is clear is that the parties can opt out of many default provisions that might otherwise apply by making their own agreement.

 

Must have sounded familiar ; Transfer of title and liability for shipping is generally transferred to the buyer upon sale

Good post Joe !

 

Joe, I think that you’re generally correct when you are referring to a shipping contract. Where I think we may have different views is what the rules are when it’s a destination contract. My understanding is that in a destination contract, where seller agrees to deliver to buyer’s location (which describes about 99% of the private sales on OF), both title and assumption of risk transfer to buyer when the goods are delivered to the buyer’s location. In a shipping contract, the seller is off the hook when the goods are delivered to the carrier. In a destination contract, the seller remains on the hook until the goods are delivered to the buyer. This is why I think C24, for example, requires the seller to insure the watch for shipment because the risk of loss remains with the seller until the watch is delivered to the buyer. If I’m mistaken, I’m happy to be corrected.