So I've hit a recent snag in one of my trades and I'm looking for some input/suggestions and opinions regarding what can be done to get this trade done. (Im typing on my phone so I will fix the post with any extra info needed when I get a chance to)

So the trade was my scalding tarn and verdant catacombs for his ftv sol ring, cold eye selkie, micharo(white legend from COK I think) and a FNM Korsan grip. The trade was agreed on before the hike in scalding tarns price so given the premium the value of both sides was settled at 30. We both sent out same time and agreed to post tracking numbers which we both did. I live in NY and he lives in CA so I wasn't expecting it like next day or anything. He recieved both of my fetches within a week but I have yet to receive his at all. The tracking number shows that the package did leave CA but it never was recieved anywhere since and it's been over 2 months. We've called and filed a claim but bc it wasnt insured, there is nothing that USPS will do for lost mail. Their only advice was to wait and see.

So now we come to issue of sending compensation. His offer was to send me 15 in value which is basically half of what the original trade was for which doesn't seem fair so I now come to all you wise and all knowing traders (and mods) for what you think would be the right compensation. If by chance the sol ring and other cards come in I would gladly send them back. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to post your thoughts below so he and I can get this this figured out.

Him sending you 15 in trade definitely seems fair. That way you both split the loss. You should have more say (within reason) over what $15 in cards he sends you, since he is getting cards he wants, you should get some cards you want.

On the other hand, he is paying the extra postage, so that should count for something.

You've visited your local Post Office and asked to see if it was snagged up somewhere right? Maybe the label was damaged and the address was unreadable or something?

Either way, $15 seems very fair. You are splitting the original loss of cost. It wouldn't be fair to him if you are asking for more since there was a price hike on the fetches.

I appreciate the reponses.

I haven't physically been to the post office but I've called and spoken to both post offices in my area as well as the USPS customer service and it hasn't turned up. The tracking only shows that it left CA and they have no idea where went from there.

To be clear i wasnt asking for the current value of the fetches (which would be around 45) just the original 30. I was just under the assumption that even if the mail was lost I would still send value equal the original trade espically if I recieved theirs and they didn't receive mine. I just didn't think it was fair that I would be taking that big a loss when I never recieved anything at all and would be basically taking half of what I traded for. I understand taking some loss but I don't see why I should take more of the loss.

This is really the first time I've had this kind of problem which is why I asked for suggestions. Im not trying to be a pain in the ass with what I think I deserve in compensation. I just want a better understanding as to why 15 would be fair. If people agree that 15 is fair than the majority wins and ill gladly accept that. I am great full he's willing to send anything but just appreciate some clarification

I have to disagree with the others on this one. Maybe it's because I'm from MTGS but I tend to follow the policy that it is the sender's responsibility to make sure their package gets to the destination therefore I would still put it on the other trader to send equal value, the cards back or wait longer for the lost cards. It does sound douchey but it's a policy that seems pretty fair.

You sent him $30 worth of cards, he sent you $30 worth of cards:
You: -$30, him: -$30

He receives $30 worth of cards, you don't:
You: -$30, him: $0

He sends you $15 worth of cards:
You: -$15, him: -$15

If he can prove to you that the tracking # for the package that can't be found was addressed to you, I feel it's not his fault. The USPS will lose packages, it's just part of the risks of trading online. I don't think it's fair for him to pay an extra $30 to you because the USPS lost the package. I think it's fair for you two to split the loss.

@awful_person - thank you. That's what I was looking for more or less :)

@iamsolipsim - my thoughts exactly. I guess I was just assuming that that was how lost mail trades were handled.

Helios52 wrote:@awful_person - thank you. That's what I was looking for more or less :)

@iamsolipsim - my thoughts exactly. I guess I was just assuming that that was how lost mail trades were handled.

My problem with what awful_person says is that the mail was never confirmed to be the items stated in the trade. It was merely a tracking number given to you to which you assume contains the cards. So, I personally still believe it should be complete compensation to you.

I find it unlikely that anybody can will a package to get lost. Assuming that you can confirm that the package was indeed sent to you, then there is no way he could have foreseen that you would not receive them, which means that he thought you were going to see the package he sent, which means he probably sent you cards.

Awful_Person wrote:I find it unlikely that anybody can will a package to get lost. Assuming that you can confirm that the package was indeed sent to you, then there is no way he could have foreseen that you would not receive them, which means that he thought you were going to see the package he sent, which means he probably sent you cards.

It's easy to buy a tracking number for $1.64 online and then not ship the package.

I recently had a tracking number on a package that never even said that it got picked up from my house, but the person still received it. If they hadn't received it, I would have sent back all of their cards, just like I have on other such occasions, because it is fair in that they really have no way of knowing what I did or didn't send.

NullParameter wrote:

Awful_Person wrote:I find it unlikely that anybody can will a package to get lost. Assuming that you can confirm that the package was indeed sent to you, then there is no way he could have foreseen that you would not receive them, which means that he thought you were going to see the package he sent, which means he probably sent you cards.

It's easy to buy a tracking number for $1.64 online and then not ship the package.

I recently had a tracking number on a package that never even said that it got picked up from my house, but the person still received it. If they hadn't received it, I would have sent back all of their cards, just like I have on other such occasions, because it is fair in that they really have no way of knowing what I did or didn't send.

Well, he said the package left California, meaning it had to at least been picked up...

You're making assumptions that aren't there.

Actinide wrote:

NullParameter wrote:

Awful_Person wrote:I find it unlikely that anybody can will a package to get lost. Assuming that you can confirm that the package was indeed sent to you, then there is no way he could have foreseen that you would not receive them, which means that he thought you were going to see the package he sent, which means he probably sent you cards.

It's easy to buy a tracking number for $1.64 online and then not ship the package.

I recently had a tracking number on a package that never even said that it got picked up from my house, but the person still received it. If they hadn't received it, I would have sent back all of their cards, just like I have on other such occasions, because it is fair in that they really have no way of knowing what I did or didn't send.

Well, he said the package left California, meaning it had to at least been picked up...

You're making assumptions that aren't there.

I'm not trying to make assumptions, I just didn't read the whole thread.

My point is more that it is difficult to just draw a line in the sand and say, "we're always going to split the costs," because people will abuse it. Personally, if a package of mine doesn't arrive to the person I'm trading with, and I have no evidence to the contrary (a tracking number saying that it did), then I will compensate them in full for their loss. And I, personally, would like the same treatment in return. I have had it happen once in both directions, and that is what we decided on in both cases because we agreed that it was fair. To each their own.

I find that to be the most "fair" because I think that the system isn't easily as cheated that way, and it keeps people more honest.


And I'm sure that, if I wanted to, I could make a package go "missing" by really poorly adhering my label to the package. It gets picked up and scanned a time or two before some processing machine or belt or whatever accidentally rips the thing off. I doubt that each postman makes sure that all the labels are properly secured.

NullParameter wrote:

Actinide wrote:

NullParameter wrote: It's easy to buy a tracking number for $1.64 online and then not ship the package.

I recently had a tracking number on a package that never even said that it got picked up from my house, but the person still received it. If they hadn't received it, I would have sent back all of their cards, just like I have on other such occasions, because it is fair in that they really have no way of knowing what I did or didn't send.

Well, he said the package left California, meaning it had to at least been picked up...

You're making assumptions that aren't there.

I'm not trying to make assumptions, I just didn't read the whole thread.

My point is more that it is difficult to just draw a line in the sand and say, "we're always going to split the costs," because people will abuse it. Personally, if a package of mine doesn't arrive to the person I'm trading with, and I have no evidence to the contrary (a tracking number saying that it did), then I will compensate them in full for their loss. And I, personally, would like the same treatment in return. I have had it happen once in both directions, and that is what we decided on in both cases because we agreed that it was fair. To each their own.

I find that to be the most "fair" because I think that the system isn't easily as cheated that way, and it keeps people more honest.


And I'm sure that, if I wanted to, I could make a package go "missing" by really poorly adhering my label to the package. It gets picked up and scanned a time or two before some processing machine or belt or whatever accidentally rips the thing off. I doubt that each postman makes sure that all the labels are properly secured.

^ Basically this. Splitting the costs is far too an abuse-able system.

Splitting costs effectively penalizes the OP unfairly - they did everything correctly, the cards arrived safely and in a timely manner. The cards should be returned - it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure their cards arrive at the destination.

Alright, fair enough. I see the validity in your guy's argument. I've personally never had this been an issue, so I had no basis in what I found fair.

The rules of the site say:

"The sender is responsible for the cards to get to the destination, or to prove that he sent them."

and under guidelines it says:

"As the rules state, you are responsible for proving you send the cards and for their arrival at the destination."

I guess it just depends on if a tracking number proves that he sent them?

reignofkindo wrote:The rules of the site say:

"The sender is responsible for the cards to get to the destination, or to prove that he sent them."

and under guidelines it says:

"As the rules state, you are responsible for proving you send the cards and for their arrival at the destination."

I guess it just depends on if a tracking number proves that he sent them?

"As the rules state, you are responsible for proving you send the cards and for their arrival at the destination."

Second part makes it on the part of the sender.

The guidelines are inconsistent with the actual rules, which use "or".

iamsolipsism wrote:I have to disagree with the others on this one. Maybe it's because I'm from MTGS but I tend to follow the policy that it is the sender's responsibility to make sure their package gets to the destination therefore I would still put it on the other trader to send equal value, the cards back or wait longer for the lost cards. It does sound douchey but it's a policy that seems pretty fair.

I agree. That's the reason I always send with delivery confirmation (and, if the value is high enough, insurance). Site policy is clear: each trader is responsible for proving DELIVERY to the recipient. If the carrier loses a package, the sender should take it up with the carrier. The intended recipient has clean hands.

Actinide wrote:If he can prove to you that the tracking # for the package that can't be found was addressed to you, I feel it's not his fault. The USPS will lose packages, it's just part of the risks of trading online. I don't think it's fair for him to pay an extra $30 to you because the USPS lost the package. I think it's fair for you two to split the loss.

That's why tracking information is not enough--you need delivery confirmation to prove delivery. In any business, if a store ships something but the customer never gets it, the store is on the hook for reshipping or refunding unless they can prove delivery.

grossoggodeckbox wrote:Splitting costs effectively penalizes the OP unfairly - they did everything correctly, the cards arrived safely and in a timely manner. The cards should be returned - it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure their cards arrive at the destination.

This (returning the cards from the other side of the trade) would be the least expensive option for resolving the issue. I would certainly insure any return shipment, just in case the same thing happens again.

I know I'm popping in late on this one, but does anyone else think this is in anyway nickel-and-diming?

just fuckin pay for for the cards and get it over with. It's called paying wants due.

1) you promised cards.
2) your promised cards were not delivered.
3a) give back cards you received or
3b) buy cards and have them sent as replacement.

ultimately, it's the material aspect of the cards. not the monetary aspect.

yes, i know that these materials are worth money. but they are NOT money.

Materials promised = materials delivered.
period.

the only reason money should be involved is if both parties agree to a value in payment.

namartia wrote:I know I'm popping in late on this one, but does anyone else think this is in anyway nickel-and-diming?

just fuckin pay for for the cards and get it over with. It's called paying wants due.

1) you promised cards.
2) your promised cards were not delivered.
3a) give back cards you received or
3b) buy cards and have them sent as replacement.

ultimately, it's the material aspect of the cards. not the monetary aspect.

yes, i know that these materials are worth money. but they are NOT money.

Materials promised = materials delivered.
period.

the only reason money should be involved is if both parties agree to a value in payment.

While I do agree with what you are saying, I really think that the attitude here is wrong. The issue/case here could become a problem in a lot of trades and because this site's rules/guidelines are slightly vague, this case could essentially set a precedent. Therefore, I think this discussion on the solutions to such a situation is better than blowing this off as a nickel-and-dime thing, especially since it still is $30.

That being said. +1 to HikingStick's responses.

The other half of the trade should either send you your cards back, or give you 30$ in cash or cards. I don't understand why 15$ is a fair loss at all. You are responsible for the other side receiving the cards.

PS: What is the the reputation of the other party?

nowa90 wrote:The other half of the trade should either send you your cards back, or give you 30$ in cash or cards. I don't understand why 15$ is a fair loss at all. You are responsible for the other side receiving the cards.

PS: What is the the reputation of the other party?

The other party's reputation should come into play before the trade is agreed upon. In this case (if you review the earlier messages), they have some information showing that the package was shipped. The problem is that it appears to have been lost by the carrier. In other words, there is proof of shipping, but no proof of delivery.

It is possible that the package may yet be delivered. I've had packages with delivery confirmation that list the departure point, a point in between, and then the delivery point--it's pretty clear that not every point was listed. If the missing package's sender has the time and inclination, s/he could check with the last documented point along the package's path, to learn where it was headed next. That's the next place I'd call to find out if they have any damaged packages that match the description of the missing one.

On a related note, since I know discussion around this topic will eventually turn to feedback, let me suggest a few points.

1. Since there is proof that the package was shipped (though not received), I would not give the sender negative feedback just based on non-receipt of the package. S/he may be responsible for his/her half of the trade, but the carrier's loss of the package should not further negatively impact that trader's reputation score.

2. I would consider how the situation is ultimately resolved (e.g., how well the other party makes good on his/her half of the trade). If an agreeable solution is reached, I would give positive feedback, with some notes about the cirucmstances of the trade.

3. I would only leave negative feedback it the other party is non-communicative, or unwilling to resolve the trade amicably.

Sorry for not being that responsive to suggestions, its been a fairly busy weekend for me.

nowa90 wrote:
PS: What is the the reputation of the other party?

His reputation was 9/9 out trades completed in the last 2 months prior to ours and he had posted a topic on this group that I responded to. Seeing as he was somewhat new, is why I asked to use DC and tracking in the first place. Ive also been in contact with a previous trader that Ive done business who had a similiar issue with cards not being delivered effectively so this could be a some kinda of scam. Although faking tracking would be a very clever trick.

Honestly, getting cash for the cards would be the final option I would go with below, getting the cards back or getting trade value in return. If I wanted cash for them, I would have just sold them on ebay. Alot faster and safer. Its more the principle. No one ever said that trading via mail was 100% fault proof and I understand that but I have always understood that if I want to keep a good reputation as a safe and friendly trader, I would take my losses where I have to and make sure the other person is satisfied with the deal when completed. Again Im not blaming him for the loss of the cards because he did provide proof they were sent, but that still shouldnt change the fact that Ive never recieved them and he recieved mine 4 days after I sent and its been 2 months since he sent. IF they ever do show, I have no problem either giving back the cash credited to me or the value in compensation.

The "official" answer would be that delivery confirmation is not enough to prove that a package has been shipped or shipped to the correct person. It would technically be the sender's fault that he did not buy tracking, insurance, and signature confirmation and he should compensate for all of the damages equal to the price of the cards at the time of agreement. This means either paying $30 or sending your cards back.

While it may sound really lame, you have to take into account that this rule applies to everybody and everybody has an equal chance of being screwed over by the USPS. Trading online is a risk to begin with, and insurance is available for you to lower the risk. However, nobody pays for insurance, so disputes like these will happen every so often and the sender that got screwed over will have to take responsibility.

Thrun wrote:The "official" answer would be that delivery confirmation is not enough to prove that a package has been shipped or shipped to the correct person...

Actually, delivery confirmation would be enough. Both parties must confirm their respective delivery addresses. A postal record confirming delivery to the agreed address, shown both in the trade record and on the delivery confirmation receipt, is considered proof that the delivery was made to that address. If someone steals the package between the point of delivery and when the recipient picks it up, the sender technically has clean hands because s/he was responsible to prove delivery to the agreed address.

Just so I understand correctly, the general consensus is that the policy is that the sender is responsible even for the lost mail of the trade even if DC and tracking was used?