Stolen card please keep an eye out - And do I have any recourse?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Nope. There is no written contract here (not a big assumption). This is a "merchant transaction", look it up in the UCC Code you referenced earlier. Therefore risk does not transfer until received by buyer.

Also, common sense tells us that if it was FOB shipping point that there would mail delivery chaos since anyone could pretend to ship an item that gets lost in transit. That would be the easiest scam in existence.

So you have withdrawn the claim about it being a destination contract, and now want to talk about the merchant provision. OK, let's do that.

I don't think you are reading it right. The merchant provision only applies to cases not within the first two clauses. It says so clearly. And who says there isn't a contract, either via eBay or an exchange of emails? It seems self-evident that there was a contract where Luke authorized the seller to ship the card to him. And who says the seller is a merchant here, could just be a casual collector. If someone became a merchant just by virtue of selling something, the term would have no meaning at all.

As to your second point, the overwhelming majority of people are honest and not looking to screw people over, so it doesn't impress me. Your argument is basically, the law must be what I say it is, otherwise people would act differently. So many assumptions built into that...

PS To be clear, we are just talking about the basic provision of the UCC, which may or may not be the law in any given state. And as Eric said earlier if it was an ebay transaction, eBay's own rules may apply. But still (for me anyhow) a good academic discussion perhaps because it's a problem as to which there is no good answer -- both Luke and the seller did what they were supposed to do here, and the loss isn't either of their faults.

[PolarBear]

My understanding, from being in the coin hobby many years ago, was always that the risk passes to the buyer when the item is shipped. The buyer (or seller) may mitigate that with insurance. Ebay or other rules aside, in the end, the buyer is on the hook if the seller can prove the item was shipped.

Even with ebay/paypal rules, if the seller can show the item was "delivered", ebay is going to side with the seller. In this case it was "delivered". I know the whole thing sucks but the buyer is probably going to be on the hook unless the seller just wants to issue a refund because he's a nice guy.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you have withdrawn the claim about it being a destination contract, and now want to talk about the merchant provision. OK, let's do that.

I don't think you are reading it right. The merchant provision only applies to cases not within the first two clauses. It says so clearly. And who says there isn't a contract, either via eBay or an exchange of emails? It seems self-evident that there was a contract where Luke authorized the seller to ship the card to him. And who says the seller is a merchant here, could just be a casual collector. If someone became a merchant just by virtue of selling something, the term would have no meaning at all.

As to your second point, the overwhelming majority of people are honest and not looking to screw people over, so it doesn't impress me. Your argument is basically, the law must be what I say it is, otherwise people would act differently. So many assumptions built into that...

PS To be clear, we are just talking about the basic provision of the UCC, which may or may not be the law in any given state. And as Eric said earlier if it was an ebay transaction, eBay's own rules may apply. But still (for me anyhow) a good academic discussion perhaps because it's a problem as to which there is no good answer -- both Luke and the seller did what they were supposed to do here, and the loss isn't either of their faults.

Good discussion thus far.

I know there is a contract upon the sale, even if it's verbal, but I think the UCC Code is referencing a real written contract with terms and such. That's why I believe the merchant contract applies. And any seller can be considered a merchant in this case.

I agree with the premise that most people are honest and that "common sense" doesn't mean legal. But there is just no way, in my opinion, that we just discovered a legal loophole where informal sales can be an easy source of a scam of this magnitude.

Just to be clear, I don't think there was anything nefarious going on here between the buyer and seller.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Good discussion thus far.

I know there is a contract upon the sale, even if it's verbal, but I think the UCC Code is referencing a real written contract with terms and such. That's why I believe the merchant contract applies. And any seller can be considered a merchant in this case.

I agree with the premise that most people are honest and that "common sense" doesn't mean legal. But there is just no way, in my opinion, that we just discovered a legal loophole where informal sales can be an easy source of a scam of this magnitude.

Just to be clear, I don't think there was anything nefarious going on here between the buyer and seller.

It's not oral. You meant oral, not verbal, presumably. It's most likely evidenced either by a winning ebay bid, and subsequent invoice and payment, or by an email exchange setting out the main terms, and a paypal or check payment. Anyhow, if you think you can read a UCC provision better than I can, based on what you "think" it's referencing, so be it. You're wrong there too by the way the UCC applies to oral contracts; certain ones need to be in writing to be enforced but that wouldn't apply here anyhow because there has been performance. If you're interested though, read up on the statute of frauds.