Chuck, I appreciate the input and will add my perspective.
A damage claim is not necessarily denied if a box is not injured.
Impact damage can occur that is not reflected by the box itself.
Decades ago I worked for UPS at one of their major depots. We loaded
the semis that hauled packages to distribution centers. One of my
co-workers enjoyed hearing the sound that fluorescent tubes make when
they break. He would slam those boxes end first into an interior wall
of a truck just to hear the tubes explode. The boxes wouldn't show
any real damage, but tubes inside were shattered.
I'm sure the customers that shipped tubes that got broken made claims
against UPS and they were paid.
If one looks at this situation, I don't think I'm not asking for that
much. Paul already has the lens where the service estimate can be
provided. When complete, he simply needs to take that, the lens and
shipping materials (along with an envelope I mail to him with original
paperwork) to his local p.o. and turn them in. At that point, I'll
issue him a full refund including the amount he paid for shipping and
I'll deal with the p.o. claims process.
Items turned in for insurance claims cannot be shipped elsewhere or
the claim will be, summarily and reasonably, denied. Otherwise, I'd
ask him to send it back so I could handle the whole thing myself.
As to packing . . . the lens was centered when I sent it and didn't
seem to move when I or the USPS clerk checked it. It was apparently
impacted during shipping in a way that damaged it.
Bottom line -- Paul and I are not qualified nor empowered to determine
if USPS will honor a claim. They pay someone to do that and since the
package was insured, I want them to have the opportunity do their job.
ScottGee1
On 1/12/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I should probably stay out of this entirely but since I don't know
> either of you personally and have no reason to favor one over the other
> I'll give you my two cents as an arbiter.
>
> From Paul's standpoint, a USPS insurance claim appears to be without
> merit because the packaging appears to be undamaged. And I agree, if
> true, the USPS will certainly deny the claim.
>
> From Scott's standpoint, an undamaged package means it's unlikely to
> have suffered any significant trauma. Paul's description of the
> condition doesn't jibe at all with Scott's view of the condition before
> it was sent (ignoring the aperture ring which may be interpretation).
>
> The problem with this scenario is that both views may be valid but only
> Paul knows the actual condition of lens and packaging. That may or may
> not be the same way Scott would evaluate it *if* he could see it. Paul
> has become judge and jury to a condition statement that Scott sees as
> unlikely.
>
> I think any money should be returned and the lens and packaging (inside
> a larger package) should be returned to Scott at Scott's expense. The
> reason that Scott should pay the return postage is that, allowing for
> honest assessments on both ends) damage to the lens without damage to
> the package (insufficient crush distance) seems the most likely outcome.
> No damage claim can be made at Scott's end but this will serve to
> verify Paul's claim that the packaging is undamaged and that an
> insurance claim will be useless in any case. Scott can then evaluate
> the condition of the lens and verify that it is or is not as he sent it.
>
> Once returned a new sale negotiation can be made if desired.
>
> My two cents,
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Paul Martinez wrote:
> > I agree, the problem here though it that Scott is insisting on either being
> > dependant on the insurance claim; which I feel has no merit (see my post of
> > the box condition). He's not willing to do either in a timely manner, saying
> > both need to be processed through the USPS claim service first!
> >
> > Paul
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|