To be fair, statistical anomalies can and do happen -- it simply isn't out of the realm of possibility that yvel did send the items, but was a victim of the postal service. Yes, he did call stu a terrorist, but the vast majority of court systems believe in innocence unless proven otherwise, and the title of this thread itself can easily be taken to be libel. Two wrongs don't make a right, but to make myself clear, if yvel's terrorist claims were wrong, so were stu's. At least until yvel has been proven guilty.magic-belgium wrote:The thing is that the item was paid with Paypal. And Yvel should abide by Paypal's rules, which means he should not empty his account to avoid a chargeback.
French Postal Service is quite good, and after having sold on Ebay (1st seller in value in France for a year), I can tell you that very little mail is lost. I was sending 10 000 packages a month, and 5 to 10 of them were lost. That's 0.01% at most.
If you consider Yvel, the proportion of lost mail is quite bigger, which made me think there was a problem.
What bothers me more here on the forum, is the fact that stu was called a terrorist when he asked Yvel to straighten things up. This is a REAL problem forum-wise.
If I may comment on drag's explanations, as long as you are a webmaster of a website, no matter if you are away from it for a long time, you will always be responsible for it. That doesn't mean however that the webmaster is responsible for lost mail of course, but Yvel's account could have been frozen until things had been cleared.
Yvel offered to trade cards with me on the forum (release cards), I'm afraid I won't trust him anymore unless I get my Oath of Druids back.
From the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, section 2-401:
(2) Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods, despite any reservation of a security interest and even though a document of title is to be delivered at a different time or place; and in particular and despite any reservation of a security interest by the bill of lading
(a) if the contract requires or authorizes the seller to send the goods to the buyer but does not require the seller to deliver them at destination, title passes to the buyer at the time and place of shipment; but
(b) if the contract requires delivery at destination, title passes on tender there.
The definition of "completion of performance" here is the crux of any argument, and there really isn't any way to objectively interpret it from a legal point of view. As this wasn't a FoB transaction, I would assume that yvel retained title until stu received his items, which makes him still responsible, especially as insurance was explicitly asked for.