Item purchased online, not received. Who is responsible?

If I make an online purchase and it isn’t received, who is responsible for the loss? In this case, there were multiple items purchased at the same time, but not all the items were in the box. The seller claims all items were shipped.

I realize this is a legal question and the specifics could swing a legal verdict one way or another, but I’m really asking in generalities. I don’t intend to pursue any legal recourse and I’m working with the seller to get it resolved.

You do not state your location, as well as the location of the online seller. Both are crucial to determine what laws, if any, may be applicable. If all parties are in the USA, the transaction may be governed by federal law as well as one or or more states’ laws, including consumer protection laws. And how did you pay for this - credit card, debit card, check, money order, paypal (or similar), etc.?

FWIW, here in the USA if you paid by credit card, at the very least you can force a chargeback on the items not received.

In general, it is the seller’s responsibility to get the items to the buyer. If it is not received, it is on the Seller’s head to replace or refund.

I had this problem except the whole package wasn’t received. I was getting no satisfaction from the company so called my credit card company and they issued a chargeback.

I’m in the US, specifically in Oregon. I believe the seller is in Kansas.

In general, in the US, when an item is purchased in one state and shipped to another and the purchaser says the item never arrived while the seller says it was shipped, who then usually has the burden of proof?

**DrFidelius[\b] - Thanks. I was hoping it went that way, but I wasn’t sure. I could make an argument both ways.

The seller, normally. That’s why high-dollar items are shipped with signature required.

However, I have seen a few discussions on this topic about eBay purchases. Many people say that it is an eBay seller’s obligation to get merchandise into the hands of the buyer, but many eBay sellers will insure a package for damage or loss only at additional cost to the buyer, and deny responsibility for what happens after they provide the package to a carrier, as part of their terms and conditions. I don’t know if that’s legal but it may be possible that the seller would not have this responsibility if they explicitly state so prior to the sale.

Of course, the signature generally only proves that you received a box, not that what you ordered was inside it, which appears to be the OP’s problem.

There are delivery services that allow for that, as well. When I bought my TV from Amazon, it was delivered by two guys who set it up, had me turn it on and run through a test pattern, visually inspect it, then sign paperwork indicating that I had done so and that there were no problems with it at the time of delivery.

Like other posters noted: If you paid with credit card, just call your card company and have them charge it off–make sure to tell them you have already disputed w merchant. (Unless you really want the item!)

Can’t recall if the rules are the same for debit card.

So HOW did you pay for the item? What did you pay for the missing items?

What type of online service did you use? Ebay, Craigs, Random Forum–not that any of these services provide much protection, it might help responders to answer your question.

I used a credit card so if it came down to it I could dispute the charge and get it credited back.

I ordered two sets of soccer medals through an online merchant (not e-bay, craigs, amazon, etc.), one for each of the teams I coach. One of the sets of medals was present in the box, the other set was not. The company is claiming the weight of the box indicates all the medals were in there. I was careful opening the box and I’m about 98% certain is wasn’t.

I can measure it myself with the medals and packaging that came with it and check the weight on the label on the box. I can pass that info along to the company and maybe convince them I’m right, but in the end all I really want are the medals. Unfortunately, I need them by Saturday and proving I’m right will take time, meaning the medals won’t get here in time, right or not.

I called the company and they offered to ship out a replacement set. I told the company that they can either guarantee delivery before Saturday or keep the replacements and I’ll cancel the charge. They haven’t gotten back to me on that yet.

I’m not really looking for advice on how to handle this, as that would really fall into IMHO territory. I really was just interested in who, generally, has the burden of proof.

Argument in favor that the seller does: Seller could not ship anything and just claim it was sent. The buyer would be powerless and would have to insure all deliveries.

Argument in favor that the buyer does: Buyer could easily claim the box was empty or not delivered, and the seller is powerless to prove otherwise. Further, as noted above, even if signatures are obtained, that only proves something was delivered. It makes it nearly impossible for the seller to prove.

I remembered reading here that the seller generally carries the higher burden, but base on the above arguments I wasn’t so sure. So I thought I’d ask in general, without trying to get into specific laws in specific areas, knowing that it could change.

Insurance makes no difference. It is the responsibility of the buyer to get the payment into the hands of the seller. Once the seller has rcvd payment, it is his resp to get the goods into the hands of the buyer.

There are a few exceptions, such as FOB, where the buyer contracts with a freight company, and then the sellers resp ends when he gets the goods into the hands of the freight co. Very few goods on ebay are shipped FOb, mostly stuff that needs to go by rail.

The sellers TOS do not relieve them of their responsibilities under Federal law and their contract with ebay.

In the USA, transactions are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Barring any additional contractual obligation, the seller has completed his obligation upon transferring the property to the shipper. That’s it. End of story (in that circumstance).

Does eBay impose an additional contractural obligation to the seller to ensure that the product actually arrives? I don’t know, but obviously that would take priority over the UCC.

In the case of the OP, though, it sounds like the seller didn’t completely pack the box, and as such, the seller didn’t transfer all of the property to the shipper. It would be the seller’s responsibility to make things right.

Beyond the UCC, there’s also the matter of a company’s reputation, which is partially established by offering good customer service. This is why when there are shipping snafus, most companies (such as Amazon) will take it upon themselves to ensure that the customer is satisfied, even though they have no legal responsibility to do so.

[quote=“Balthisar, post:11, topic:582090”]

In the USA, transactions are governed by the (UCC). Barring any additional contractual obligation, the seller has completed his obligation upon transferring the property to the shipper. That’s it. End of story (in that circumstance).QUOTE]

Not true. The seller is responsible until the shipper gets it to the buyer, except in the case of FOB.
Cite?

*§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but

(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer

(a) on his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or

(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer’s right to possession of the goods; or

© after his receipt of posession or control of a non-negotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.

(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.
§ 2-510. Effect of Breach on Risk of Loss.

(1) Where a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance.
*