sitka_spruce
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 794
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Jonas; I think that's the case here: there are arguably two claims; shipping damage and loss of a shipping-damaged instrument but UPS can't interpose its own negligence in the 1st claim as a defense to paying in the 2nd.capnjuan said:Note: the reimbursement will be for the value of the lost gods. You will still have to claim somebody for the remaining value of your purchase to be fully compensated - unless UPS could be held responsible for the whole affair and therefore the reimbursement will cover the entire purchase.sitka_spruce said:[quote="cjd-player":c039e]That was my thought, too. This could be the best possible result, Barb. If UPS lost it, they will have to reimburse you for the guitar. I would think there might be less hassle than arguing over how badly damaged it was, etc. On the other hand, they might try to prorate the reimbursement saying that the guitar was already damaged. So be prepared for that.
"It wasn't worth that much; I know because I broke it ..... " Breaking it is one thing, losing it another but breaking and losing it .... they can run but they can't hide. Once upon a time, UPS stood for United Parcel Service ....
cj[/quote:c039e]
Yes, you are so right about that, CJ. In some cases though this "it wasn't worth much..." holds true as a liable excuse, at least the company involved would like to think so - and if it isn't so, they'll make it so. Them: :twisted:
The way I see it should a company as in this case manage to mess it up twice like this there should be a consolationprize in it, too, for the person this mess was brought upon.
My worries are should not the selling party recieve what once was an instrument, should it work out without friction anyway? What part does the selling party actually play here? Could the selling party be said to have been negligent in the way they packaged the item?