Need Opinion! Shipping Dispute
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Need Opinion! Shipping Dispute
Hi Guys,
I had recently bought a large amount of turbo parts off of a member of H-T (who will go un-named to avoid bias) and I have just recieved the final shipment. I live in Canada and when a package is shipped up here from the States, a "brokerage" fee is applied (as is GST). Both of these fees are calculated as a percentage of the invoiced price. I had requested the seller write various things on eah shipment none of which avoided the fees (gift, repaired parts, etc). Here is the current issue I have.
I expected to pay borkerage fees, I live in Canada and this is something we have to live with when buying parts from the states. Now what I expected was to be charged on the original $2,200 (would result in $287.38 in fees). What I got was $436.30 in fees due to the packages being invioced at thier original price ($3340.06).
Now I can understand the idea behind invoicing higher, but just because it was a good deed does not make it right. I had expected to pay $287, but $436 was above and beyond what I would assume to be a reasonable cost. We had not talked about what price would be on the invoice so I had assumed it was going to be the purchase price.
What do you guys think? Is it crazy for me to put at least some of the responsibility on the shipper to pay for part of this cost?
I had recently bought a large amount of turbo parts off of a member of H-T (who will go un-named to avoid bias) and I have just recieved the final shipment. I live in Canada and when a package is shipped up here from the States, a "brokerage" fee is applied (as is GST). Both of these fees are calculated as a percentage of the invoiced price. I had requested the seller write various things on eah shipment none of which avoided the fees (gift, repaired parts, etc). Here is the current issue I have.
I expected to pay borkerage fees, I live in Canada and this is something we have to live with when buying parts from the states. Now what I expected was to be charged on the original $2,200 (would result in $287.38 in fees). What I got was $436.30 in fees due to the packages being invioced at thier original price ($3340.06).
Now I can understand the idea behind invoicing higher, but just because it was a good deed does not make it right. I had expected to pay $287, but $436 was above and beyond what I would assume to be a reasonable cost. We had not talked about what price would be on the invoice so I had assumed it was going to be the purchase price.
What do you guys think? Is it crazy for me to put at least some of the responsibility on the shipper to pay for part of this cost?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,098
Likes: 1
From: blavica
This is where, IMO you should take all of it. Being that you know about the brokerage fee's, and most of us "stately" folks don't, I'd expect a purchaser of mine to make me aware of stuff like that before purchase/shipping. Had it been me, shipping it to you and you not saying anything about it, I would have done the same thing the seller did, for CYA factor.
NOW....
If you had told me (presuming I'm shipper again) about the issue before hand, and I blatently ignored it, yes I would say both are at fault. I know it doesn't help your situation, and you are expected to pay more than you had thought, if you didn't tell the seller, IMO he did the right thing.
NOW....
If you had told me (presuming I'm shipper again) about the issue before hand, and I blatently ignored it, yes I would say both are at fault. I know it doesn't help your situation, and you are expected to pay more than you had thought, if you didn't tell the seller, IMO he did the right thing.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
From: vancity
So MSRP on the parts was $3340.06 but you paid $2200 but the shipper used the 3340 price on the invoice?
Brokerage fees and duty and all that other bullshit is the receivers responsibility, unfortunately. I'm from Canada too and I have my little tips and tricks to get around paying through the nose. You should have been specific with the shipper before he sent out you parts.
Brokerage fees and duty and all that other bullshit is the receivers responsibility, unfortunately. I'm from Canada too and I have my little tips and tricks to get around paying through the nose. You should have been specific with the shipper before he sent out you parts.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (Dave_B)
The seller was informed of the fact that brokerage fees are applicable to Canadians. Not of how much they would be, but I wouldn't know how much they would be either until the package comes here.
I also fail to see how listing more than what was paid for as the "right thing". It would never be assumed by the buyer that a seller would ship parts for more than paid for, I believe something like that should actually be communicated from the seller to the buyer (if he intended to put a higher price on the invoice), agree?
And I agree that it is soley the responsibility of the buyer to pay the brokerage fees, I am not disputing the fact that I have to pay them, it's that I have to pay more because the person who shipped the parts put false prices on the invoices.
I also fail to see how listing more than what was paid for as the "right thing". It would never be assumed by the buyer that a seller would ship parts for more than paid for, I believe something like that should actually be communicated from the seller to the buyer (if he intended to put a higher price on the invoice), agree?
And I agree that it is soley the responsibility of the buyer to pay the brokerage fees, I am not disputing the fact that I have to pay them, it's that I have to pay more because the person who shipped the parts put false prices on the invoices.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,274
Likes: 0
Re: Need Opinion! Shipping Dispute (digitalVinyl)
What is the replacement value of the parts that were shipped? (3300ish?)
How much did you spend? (2200ish?)
The other side to this, which is what you labelled the good deed, is that IF something were to have happened to the package(s) (i.e., theft, damage, something unforseen), and the amount listed on the packages (2200 i presume) was not enough to replace the items lost, then both people would lose out. The seller would not get the money back to replace what was lost b/c, presumably again, the value of the items being sold is LESS than the replacement (new) cost.
I always ship with the full replacement value listed for the insured amount. I have never had to ship to canada and therefore have not had this issue in the past - but once or twice a prospective buyer asked me to chop off x% for this very reason and I said no, i would not, because the item would then not be replaceable and all fees from the sale/shipment would most likely not be able to be refunded to the parties involved. and they basically were telling me they wanted to avoid the fees/taxes, and would be 'ok' if something 'happened' to the package. but i did not want to risk the 'what if' scenario where they lost out and had to actually accept the fact that they made an agreement with me whereas they skimped on a fee and would end up with nothing. (not saying this is the case here, but just a seller's perspective)
I'm sure the seller believes he was doing the right thing, and i would have done the same thing - and you two probably should have discussed this 'value' first.
Maybe split the difference? was there a contract of sorts? was this mentioned at all by you to the seller? each pay half of the added fee? (74.50 each) or 75/25%. It is afterall both parties responsibility to discuss this sort of thing, so I'd say responsibility is shared.. to what degree is it shared.. i guess that depends on to what degree the fee/taxes were discussed by you to the seller.
Modified by Chris N at 2:15 PM 8/21/2006
How much did you spend? (2200ish?)
The other side to this, which is what you labelled the good deed, is that IF something were to have happened to the package(s) (i.e., theft, damage, something unforseen), and the amount listed on the packages (2200 i presume) was not enough to replace the items lost, then both people would lose out. The seller would not get the money back to replace what was lost b/c, presumably again, the value of the items being sold is LESS than the replacement (new) cost.
I always ship with the full replacement value listed for the insured amount. I have never had to ship to canada and therefore have not had this issue in the past - but once or twice a prospective buyer asked me to chop off x% for this very reason and I said no, i would not, because the item would then not be replaceable and all fees from the sale/shipment would most likely not be able to be refunded to the parties involved. and they basically were telling me they wanted to avoid the fees/taxes, and would be 'ok' if something 'happened' to the package. but i did not want to risk the 'what if' scenario where they lost out and had to actually accept the fact that they made an agreement with me whereas they skimped on a fee and would end up with nothing. (not saying this is the case here, but just a seller's perspective)
I'm sure the seller believes he was doing the right thing, and i would have done the same thing - and you two probably should have discussed this 'value' first.
Maybe split the difference? was there a contract of sorts? was this mentioned at all by you to the seller? each pay half of the added fee? (74.50 each) or 75/25%. It is afterall both parties responsibility to discuss this sort of thing, so I'd say responsibility is shared.. to what degree is it shared.. i guess that depends on to what degree the fee/taxes were discussed by you to the seller.
Modified by Chris N at 2:15 PM 8/21/2006
Re: (Dave_B)
I would agree with Dave_B. Having recently sold a few things and shipping them, I ALWAYS, ALWAYS put the replacement value in the event something unfortunate happens during shipping, and I think that is common practice. As Chris N mentioned, it covers both parties in case something happens. I don't look at it as being a "good dead", but rather the right thing to do.
In my opinion, the difference should be your responsibility.
In my opinion, the difference should be your responsibility.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (White Dragon)
Your theory lies in the belief that replacement parts are to be brand new, whereas actual replacement parts would be those of the <U>same value</U>. A turbo that has been used for 10,000 miles is not the same price as one brand new, although when UPS damages our stuff we would rather have a new turbo, they are not the same thing.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,098
Likes: 1
From: blavica
Re: (digitalVinyl)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by digitalVinyl »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Your theory lies in the belief that replacement parts are to be brand new, whereas actual replacement parts would be those of the <U>same value</U>. A turbo that has been used for 10,000 miles is not the same price as one brand new, although when UPS damages our stuff we would rather have a new turbo, they are not the same thing.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Put yourself in the sellers shoe's. You can't really find/buy exactly what you were purchasing again. Sure, you'll come close but not the exact mileage/deal. So therefore you insure to new value. Replacement and New, your right are different, but again, you can't replace that part because of the mileage/wear will never be exactly the same...
All I'm saying is the purpose to insuring at a higher rate than the selling price is for security of both the buyer and seller. It's better, IMO to insure at the new purchase price so that if you did have to replace it, your ready to go. Both parties are happy, and usually one is a little more happy to have new parts!
Put yourself in the sellers shoe's. You can't really find/buy exactly what you were purchasing again. Sure, you'll come close but not the exact mileage/deal. So therefore you insure to new value. Replacement and New, your right are different, but again, you can't replace that part because of the mileage/wear will never be exactly the same...
All I'm saying is the purpose to insuring at a higher rate than the selling price is for security of both the buyer and seller. It's better, IMO to insure at the new purchase price so that if you did have to replace it, your ready to go. Both parties are happy, and usually one is a little more happy to have new parts!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (Dave_B)
Understood completely, but you see, it's the buyers problem if the package gets screwed up my UPS, not the sellers. And this is why it is a good deed and nothing else.
This doesn't save the seller any issues, he sold the parts, once the payment goes through he is no longer the owner of the parts. This means that while in transit under UPS/FedEX/USPS it is the buyers property and he is the one who will have a claim against the shipping company. If anyone should ask for the price to be insured at as higher than what was bought, the buyer should request such a thing, it should not be an assumption the seller makes (that the buyer wants a higher insured value).
This doesn't save the seller any issues, he sold the parts, once the payment goes through he is no longer the owner of the parts. This means that while in transit under UPS/FedEX/USPS it is the buyers property and he is the one who will have a claim against the shipping company. If anyone should ask for the price to be insured at as higher than what was bought, the buyer should request such a thing, it should not be an assumption the seller makes (that the buyer wants a higher insured value).
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: (White Dragon)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by White Dragon »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would agree with Dave_B.
.
.
.
In my opinion, the difference should be your responsibility.</TD></TR></TABLE>
The mutual understanding was that you would pay the brokerage fees, period.
One other point - you asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Please don't then start arguing with those expressing opinions you don't agree with as though you're trying to talk us out of them.
.
.
.
In my opinion, the difference should be your responsibility.</TD></TR></TABLE>
The mutual understanding was that you would pay the brokerage fees, period.
One other point - you asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Please don't then start arguing with those expressing opinions you don't agree with as though you're trying to talk us out of them.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,098
Likes: 1
From: blavica
I agree the purchaser/buyer should be the one who would request that it be higher, totally agree because after all, he is the one that has to go through hell, but if something did happen you then don't know the condition or seller of another item. At least this way, you get brand new parts for that dirt cheap price.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (nsxtasy)
I'm not arguing, I'm making sure you are seeing the whole picture. An uninformed opinion is not worth anything to me in this situation. If you agree, thats fine, there have been good points brought up, if all you can say is "i agree" or "you should pay" these just clutter the thread up and are of no help to either party.
And Dave, thank you for seeing my point and how this is truely just an act of kindness from the seller to the buyer. I know it may be a nice thing to do but when the kind act turns into more money for the buyer, it's not so nice. I'm sure many people have done something in good faith and it went wrong, it still makes it wrong.
And Dave, thank you for seeing my point and how this is truely just an act of kindness from the seller to the buyer. I know it may be a nice thing to do but when the kind act turns into more money for the buyer, it's not so nice. I'm sure many people have done something in good faith and it went wrong, it still makes it wrong.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: (Dave_B)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dave_B »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you get brand new parts for that dirt cheap price.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm not familiar with these particular parts. However, if you were going to get a dirt cheap price by paying $2,487.38 including fees, and it turned out that instead you're paying $2,636.30 including fees, it sounds like it's still a darn good deal. The difference is only around 149 Canadian dollars (133 U.S. dollars), not all that much to get worked up about.
I'm not familiar with these particular parts. However, if you were going to get a dirt cheap price by paying $2,487.38 including fees, and it turned out that instead you're paying $2,636.30 including fees, it sounds like it's still a darn good deal. The difference is only around 149 Canadian dollars (133 U.S. dollars), not all that much to get worked up about.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (nsxtasy)
I can send you my paypal account nsxtasy since it's such a small amount of cash.
Shoot me $149 bucks since it'll buy me a fuel pump, or a boost gauge, or a ton of anything else.
Don't tell me that $149 is nothing, it's something, it's $149.
Shoot me $149 bucks since it'll buy me a fuel pump, or a boost gauge, or a ton of anything else.
Don't tell me that $149 is nothing, it's something, it's $149.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,274
Likes: 0
Re: (digitalVinyl)
I'm not sure I like your attitude.
WHY are you asking for opinions and suggestions and then giving us lip when the 'opinions' we have are not to your liking?
sorry for MY attitude, but i dont feel like the time we all spent to write our opinions on the subject were worth the effort.
My one and only set of inter-related questions:
1. did you have a contract where the handling of fees/taxes were mentioned?
and if not,
2.did you tell the seller 'i want the insured value to be <insert value here>'?
and finally, if #2 is no,
3. did you tell the seller anything in regards to the fees?
it is not the responsibility of the seller to know or inquire about the fees and taxes you must pay as a canadian citizen.
if the answers to these three questions are no or 'not really' then this is not the sellers fault and his good deed-ness and generosity in making sure the items were covered for their replacement value. you should have explicitly stated via email/call/contract your exact expectations. if one or all are yes... well.. thats different. but so far i have not seen any mention of an explict expectation or contract made in regards to fees/taxes.
WHY are you asking for opinions and suggestions and then giving us lip when the 'opinions' we have are not to your liking?
sorry for MY attitude, but i dont feel like the time we all spent to write our opinions on the subject were worth the effort.
My one and only set of inter-related questions:
1. did you have a contract where the handling of fees/taxes were mentioned?
and if not,
2.did you tell the seller 'i want the insured value to be <insert value here>'?
and finally, if #2 is no,
3. did you tell the seller anything in regards to the fees?
it is not the responsibility of the seller to know or inquire about the fees and taxes you must pay as a canadian citizen.
if the answers to these three questions are no or 'not really' then this is not the sellers fault and his good deed-ness and generosity in making sure the items were covered for their replacement value. you should have explicitly stated via email/call/contract your exact expectations. if one or all are yes... well.. thats different. but so far i have not seen any mention of an explict expectation or contract made in regards to fees/taxes.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,098
Likes: 1
From: blavica
Re: (Chris N)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">it is not the responsibility of the seller to know or inquire about the fees and taxes you must pay as a canadian citizen.</TD></TR></TABLE>
As much as I'm trying to help you out, this is really what it comes down to. Unless otherwise stated at the time of purchase exactly how much to insure/value an item at, you are the buyer and are intitled to all occuring fee's/duties.
BUT, you will know for next time though. And besides, even with the added costs don't you think your still getting a decent deal? maybe not as good as it was but still fair, no?
As much as I'm trying to help you out, this is really what it comes down to. Unless otherwise stated at the time of purchase exactly how much to insure/value an item at, you are the buyer and are intitled to all occuring fee's/duties.
BUT, you will know for next time though. And besides, even with the added costs don't you think your still getting a decent deal? maybe not as good as it was but still fair, no?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (Chris N)
I'm sorry if you have a problem with my view on this, it's just when someone tells me that the money I earn is "nothing" and I should shrug it off it's just a bit insulting. I have not "given lip" to any other member of H-T in this thread.
1. We had a contract (singed) stating the purchase price
2. It is assumed by me that no other price than that of the purchase price would be put on the packages. I don't see how I could invision the prices would be marked up.
3. I told him that there were fees
And I agree that the duty of the buyer is to know about all fees when importing, my point is, it would be impossible for me to assume that the price would be higher.
1. We had a contract (singed) stating the purchase price
2. It is assumed by me that no other price than that of the purchase price would be put on the packages. I don't see how I could invision the prices would be marked up.
3. I told him that there were fees
And I agree that the duty of the buyer is to know about all fees when importing, my point is, it would be impossible for me to assume that the price would be higher.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (Dave_B)
Dave, yes in the grand scheme of things the parts were given at a fair price, and came in the conditions they were stated (with exception of the intercooler which was dented). I see your point and yes, for next time I will make sure to specifiy the price for the invoice. I appreciate the time given to answer this problem as we both needed impartial people to discuss this.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: (digitalVinyl)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by digitalVinyl »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I can send you my paypal account nsxtasy since it's such a small amount of cash.
Shoot me $149 bucks since it'll buy me a fuel pump, or a boost gauge, or a ton of anything else.
Don't tell me that $149 is nothing, it's something, it's $149.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's less than 6 percent of the amount you were expecting to spend on the purchase. 6 percent doesn't turn a terrific deal into a lousy deal. That's exactly what I already said. Stop ignoring what I'm saying and trying to change its meaning. You asked for opinions. Listen to them. If you're not going to bother listening to what other people say, and you're only going to argue, you never should have posted here in the first place.
Again, to me this is very simple: It was the mutual understanding between you and the seller that you would pay the brokerage fees. So you should pay them. Even if they're not what you expected them to be.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm not sure I like your attitude.
WHY are you asking for opinions and suggestions and then giving us lip when the 'opinions' we have are not to your liking?
sorry for MY attitude, but i dont feel like the time we all spent to write our opinions on the subject were worth the effort.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It sounds like you didn't come here to listen to our opinions (even though that's what you first claimed). It sounds like you only came here to find people who agree with you. And so far, at least, most of us don't. If you don't like hearing other people's opinions, then don't ask for them!
Shoot me $149 bucks since it'll buy me a fuel pump, or a boost gauge, or a ton of anything else.
Don't tell me that $149 is nothing, it's something, it's $149.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's less than 6 percent of the amount you were expecting to spend on the purchase. 6 percent doesn't turn a terrific deal into a lousy deal. That's exactly what I already said. Stop ignoring what I'm saying and trying to change its meaning. You asked for opinions. Listen to them. If you're not going to bother listening to what other people say, and you're only going to argue, you never should have posted here in the first place.
Again, to me this is very simple: It was the mutual understanding between you and the seller that you would pay the brokerage fees. So you should pay them. Even if they're not what you expected them to be.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm not sure I like your attitude.
WHY are you asking for opinions and suggestions and then giving us lip when the 'opinions' we have are not to your liking?
sorry for MY attitude, but i dont feel like the time we all spent to write our opinions on the subject were worth the effort.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It sounds like you didn't come here to listen to our opinions (even though that's what you first claimed). It sounds like you only came here to find people who agree with you. And so far, at least, most of us don't. If you don't like hearing other people's opinions, then don't ask for them!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (nsxtasy)
6% is simlar to all those "NO GST" deals you hear about, no it doesn't turn the deal into garbage. But if you buy a TV under the impression that there is no GST and then the salesmen says "psyche!" it's not a pleasant feeling.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,274
Likes: 0
Re: (digitalVinyl)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by digitalVinyl »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm sorry if you have a problem with my view on this, it's just when someone tells me that the money I earn is "nothing" and I should shrug it off it's just a bit insulting. I have not "given lip" to any other member of H-T in this thread.
1. We had a contract (singed) stating the purchase price
2. It is assumed by me that no other price than that of the purchase price would be put on the packages. I don't see how I could invision the prices would be marked up.
3. I told him that there were fees
And I agree that the duty of the buyer is to know about all fees when importing, my point is, it would be impossible for me to assume that the price would be higher.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i think the problem is that you assumed the purchase price would be the insured value price. that may or may not be fair, but its the truth, imo. my insured value is rarely if ever the same as the purchase price for replacement value purposes. it simply is not possible to find similarly used and equal value parts, in my experience. and one never knows if they were taken care of, etc. in fact, afaik, renters insurance is usually replacement value, or has been when i've had it, i'd call this 'the norm'. again i could be wrong, it is only in my experience that this is true. i feel it was the buyers responsibility to be explicit with the fees/insured value, as you have a vested interest in that amount. im sure if i was in your position i may feel differently. regardless, it should have been hammered out beforehand, unfortunately
i dont have a problem with you or your opinions - i have a problem with you trying to reason to us that we are wrong and should conform to your opinion, and then 'appearing' to be (this is the inet after all and i could be totally offbase and therefore sorry if i was wrong when i say i feel you were) displeased with our responses. we're just giving you our opinions, as you requested.
1. We had a contract (singed) stating the purchase price
2. It is assumed by me that no other price than that of the purchase price would be put on the packages. I don't see how I could invision the prices would be marked up.
3. I told him that there were fees
And I agree that the duty of the buyer is to know about all fees when importing, my point is, it would be impossible for me to assume that the price would be higher.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i think the problem is that you assumed the purchase price would be the insured value price. that may or may not be fair, but its the truth, imo. my insured value is rarely if ever the same as the purchase price for replacement value purposes. it simply is not possible to find similarly used and equal value parts, in my experience. and one never knows if they were taken care of, etc. in fact, afaik, renters insurance is usually replacement value, or has been when i've had it, i'd call this 'the norm'. again i could be wrong, it is only in my experience that this is true. i feel it was the buyers responsibility to be explicit with the fees/insured value, as you have a vested interest in that amount. im sure if i was in your position i may feel differently. regardless, it should have been hammered out beforehand, unfortunately
i dont have a problem with you or your opinions - i have a problem with you trying to reason to us that we are wrong and should conform to your opinion, and then 'appearing' to be (this is the inet after all and i could be totally offbase and therefore sorry if i was wrong when i say i feel you were) displeased with our responses. we're just giving you our opinions, as you requested.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: (Chris N)
Thanks for the response Chris. I am not trying to make everyone believe the same things I do, but I believe people can make counter arguements in a proper debate. Although you may not think that I'm considering the intellegent responses I am indeed. I am currently talking to the Seller though e-mail and it seems like it's closer to being resolved and I do really appreciate almost all of the posts in this thread, they have been helpful.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,098
Likes: 1
From: blavica
Re: (digitalVinyl)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by digitalVinyl »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Okay so for the record, the issue was resolved amicably.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post