Search options (Page 3 of 3)

If Thrun's comment is the official ruling on the deckbox rules, then I would be inclined to agree with you that what the traders in this case agreed to was 100% liability on the part of the sender for lost mail.  The entire debate hinges on what constitutes proof of sending as per the deckbox rules, and if Thrun is an authoritative source on the subject due to his position as moderator then I'd happily defer to his judgement.

That being said, your analogy does not make any sense.  The difference between a mail trade and a face to face trade is at what point each of the parties fulfill their end of the agreement.  In a face-to-face trade, the agreement is done when the cards physically change hands.  In the mail trade, however, the agreement is done when either the cards are in the mail, or the cards are received.  This is up to the parties to either determine between themselves or determined by the standard rules, in this case the deckbox rules.  If the parties agree that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain when the cards are in the mail, and it is proven they are in the mail, then they have upheld their end when the cards are in the hands of the USPS.  If they agree that they have upheld their end of the bargain when the cards arrive, then the risk stays with the sender until the USPS does their job.  Either way, it is up to the people involved in the mail trade to determine who holds the risk for cards that are lost in transit.  Prior to Thrun's ruling, if he is the deciding authority (and no disrespect to Thrun, I just have no idea who the official arbiters of the deckbox rules are, if they've ever officially declared any), then a person reading the deckbox rules could fairly presume that if they post the cards and they have a tracking number proving the cards are in the mail, then they have upheld their end of the bargain and whatever happens next is not their responsibility.  It is on that basis that I said the sender has no responsibility to the OP.

The problem with this argument is that the OP did not order an item from an online store.  The OP ordered an item from an individual, and they discussed and agreed upon the conditions for each of them sending their cards.  Presumably both of them were aware of the risks when sending cards online, and chose to accept the risk that there would be issues with delivery.  Unfortunately for the OP, their cards did not arrive.  I've been in their position before and it's horrible.  That being said, it's unreasonable to go back to the sender and say that, despite the fact that they agreed upon the manner of sending, and that each would accept the risks involved with their agreed upon method, it is now the sender's responsibility to compensate the OP for 100% of the value.  If they wanted to saddle one party or the other with the whole of the risk before sending, they should have done so at the outset.  Unless there is a clear rule indicating that 100% of the loss shall reside with the sender in cases of non-delivery then I think the 50/50 split of the losses is more than reasonable on the part of the sender, it's generous.