Topic: SCAM - Coinabul owe me 81btc - page 17. (Read 61682 times)

May not seem logical, but it's the rules of law.  Coinabul is disputing the liability.  When you say "in fact liable", unless you've got some black robes and juris doctorate we dont know about, you can't "in fact liable" anything.

You've got some kind of PROOF that shows Coinabul DIDN'T have any insurance for this shipment?  It's a liability dispute.  Coinabul believes that they are not liable.  Buyer believes Coinabul is liable.  Up to a judge to decide in a civil decision.

If buyer decides to go through with a civil subpoena and proves that Coinabul didn't insure the package, then go ahead with your scammer label.

Good enough logic fer ya?

Coinable should be ashamed of themselves, instead of acting like there in the right. WOW!

Also, I dont know why this dude pretends to be from the states (4:30AM US time) I call Bullshit!. He's from Montreal Canada to be more specific, Cathcart St. Downtown Montreal.

I would never use these guys services, not because there a scam which clearly they are not, they have delivered many orders. But because they have the worst customer service I've ever seen, and coming from the scam telemarketing capitol of the world where CS is everything I'd expect better CS from them especially when there selling a legit product!

So if somebody is in fact liable for something but does not accept liability then he's not scamming? Great logic there.

There's no issue of scamming, OP should really edit the title and go with the liability angle.  If Coinabul was scamming, there'd be a lot more complaints than just one.  If USPS was scamming, that would be evident as well. 

The buyer is not liable for an ordered product (with insurance) that doesn't make it to the destination.  If the buyer was given the option for insurance (like a check-box) and declined - buyer is liable.  If the buyer did not research customs laws within his/her country and it got seized - buyer is liable.  If the buyer knows the product is illegal to own and it gets seized anywhere between shipper and buyer - buyer is liable.  Those are the only three instances that I can see where Coinabul is not liable. 

Coinabul is on the hook for providing faulty/inadequate insurance, something that absolutely should have been researched extensively before coin #1 shipped.  I don't remember anything when I ordered from them about risk involved with shipping coins/bullion.  They need that as an "I Agree" checkbox at order placement. 

It's not a scam, no malice from Coinabul and no intent to defraud.  Liability though?  If this went to small claims court, unless the circumstances were like the ones listed above, this would be over in 15 minutes in favor of the buyer. 

The only scammer here is the USPS

No, no resolution at this time. Coinabul have been silent since the post on the first page.

I've done business with Coinabul.  I've received every shipment - after an email asking where the shipment was.  In their defense, I've never registered an account and always did a straight purchase.  One status request email went unanswered for more than four days while the order was being "checked" (not fun).  I got the order, but no email with a shipping confirmation or tracking number.   The reason Jon gave was that sometimes Gmail "doesn't play nice with our emails occasionally".   I was pleased with product, but I thought the communication could have been better.  

I have an order pending with Amagi metals, and I've had three very good transactions with Jay at rarepandacoins.  I tend to stress when I have coins sent through the mail, and I'm almost OCD'ing while watching the tracking number.  I don't like stress.  This customer's experience may have soured future purchases with Coinabul.

I finally learned not too long ago not to fret over the 1 shipment a year that actually gets lost. Cost of doing business.

Whoever runs Coinabul hasn't yet learned not to be stubborn in this kind of situation. Pissing off a customer like this probably cost them at least hundred fold more in potential profits than replacing a $500 order. Especially since reputation is ESSENTIAL in this community.

Don't forget that Jon works at or co-owns BitcoinStore.com also.
I know I'm not buying anything there now. inb4 they try to pull the same stunt.
I'll just buy on real shops who will let me chargeback non-delivered merchandise.

So u expect the customer to take responsibility for the failings of the shipper? You are crazy. If he ordered something he should receive it. If it did not turn up on time, you would expect anyone to replace the item under their cost. The only way that it could possibly be his fault is that a neighbor or someone signed for it and it then went missing. As it was delivered to the correct address. Any other company in the world would ship a replacement, even if it meant they took a loss for the year.

Phil

I can't believe they haven't fucking refunded yet. Will not ever do business with Coinabul after reading this.

This is a tricky one. From the OP there are kind of conflicting issues. I will bold and give my interpretation of each section below.


Ok, so the buyer purchased insurance from the postal service through Coinabul. Coinabul charges extra to insure the package with the postal service (assuming he did so). The insurance was properly filed, but due to a time lapse limitation the postal service refused to pay the insurance claim.

Assuming all of that is correct, I don't technically think its Coinabul's fault due to the fact that he fulfilled his obligation to ship the package, and to facilitate the proper insurance. It sounds like both of you were boned by a clause in the insurance terms.

But! If that invalidation of the insurance due to price fluctuation was due to an unreasonable time lapse before Coinabul filed the claim, then I would say it is his mistake that should be fixed. Then you would also have to define unreasonable amount of time, but I guess more information is needed, as there are a lot of variables that decide is it Coinabul's fault, or the shipping company's. You can't expect Coinabul to financially burden himself over something that he did to the best of his ability that suits the needs that he had to fill, unless it was an avoidable oversight that caused the situation.

Actually pm me on this, I know people who own one of the biggest gold sellers in the US, I can speak to him, about supporting bitcoin.

Phil

That's it. It doesn't matter what the law says about this. If you're a business and you care about your reputation then you cover the loss yourself and then you go and find a better insurance company. Anything else is unacceptable.

Has the money been refunded? Should coinabul be added to the scammer list. Has this issue been resolved? If the customer has not been sent more silver or been refunded then the answer is yes.

Please advise. Thanks

I think that Coinabul is in the wrong here and should send the silver, but I think that this is a misappropriation of the SCAMMER tag. The scammer tag shouldn't be used to settle contract disputes between two people who believe they were acting in good faith, but disagree on the outcome of a failed deal. Coinabul did buy the insurance, and the insurance company isn't honoring the amount to Coinabul so in their view they did what they could to insure it, but that insurance didn't pay, so there is nothing for the buyer. The buyers sees it as they bought insurance from Coinabul and so they should insure the delivery regardless. Both can be seen as good faith views and so there is no reason to think anyone is acting as a SCAMMER.

That said, due to Coinabul's interpretation of their responsibility here, I will no longer recommend their service to others and if someone asks about them in public forums, I will warn them of this case.

This is shipping done right:  Texas Precious Metals, my PM provider of choice.

"Every product we sell is in stock and available for immediate shipment. Unlike most dealers: If we don't have it, we don't sell it. You will not wait three months for an order like you do with other companies! We strictly observe our policy of shipping all orders within 3 business days of receipt of payment. (If for some rare and unexpected reason we miss this window, we will do all in our power to correct and amend.) When your order ships, you will receive an email with a tracking number.

All packages ship fully insured. If a package is lost or stolen in transit, it is our responsibility to file a claim and issue you a new package. Orders over $6,000 ship fully insured for FREE. Orders less than $6,000 will incur a shipping and insurance charge between $19.95 and $29.95, depending on value. All shipments will require a signature. Packages will not be left on your doorstep.

As of July 23rd, 2012, we ship 90% of our packages through UPS. Gold orders over 10 ounces will ship UPS Overnight (or in some cases, by FedEx Overnight). All other orders ship UPS ground. For certain orders, depending on value, weight, and location, we may ship via USPS Registered Mail, or FedEx. Shipments to PO Boxes will automatically ship via USPS. We will not ship to mail forwarding companies. We do ship to military addresses, provided customers are aware that our liability for the package ends the moment it is signed for by the military.

We use three vaults for inventory diversification: our main vault is located in southern Texas. We also store at vaults on the East coast and West coast. Depending on your location, inventory levels, product choices, or other factors, we may ship from any of our three vaults.

Be advised that you may receive a tracking number before our carriers actually scan the package, so if your tracking number does not display tracking information the moment you receive the tracking number, please try again after 5pm CST.

If your order ships via USPS Registered Mail (to PO Box customers), please note that registered mail can be slow, sometimes taking as long as 3-10 business days. The USPS online tracking system is not always accurate, often setting an arrival date much earlier than actual delivery date, as though the package were shipping "Priority" instead of "Registered".

All packing operations are videotaped. In the rare event that we make a mistake, we will review our video logs and happily correct any mistaken shipment.

We always welcome clients to pick up orders in person. We are open Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm CST for pickup. Please note: 1. We still require payment via bank wire even when picking up in person. 2. We request at least 24 hour advance notice of your arrival. We do not have a showroom, and for security reasons, our vault is not located at our administrative address. Therefore, your advance notice is greatly appreciated.

If you are picking up in person, be advised that we are Texan, so the entire staff is armed."

To phrase this more artfully, if you find that the circumstances of the sale make it the buyer's loss if the package is lost or stolen in shipment, that just demonstrates that Coinabul's negligent failure to secure effective insurance harmed the buyer, a harm that Coinabul would be responsible for. If a merchant charges a customer for insurance, just as if a merchant charges a customer for anything else, it's the merchant's responsibility to ensure the thing sold is adequate for the purpose intended.

This assumes that the failure to secure appropriate insurance was negligent on Coinabul's part. The posts above suggest that, but it's not absolutely clear.

Even assuming the failure wasn't negligent, it is unthinkable to me that Coinabul wouldn't make good on the loss. Here we have a customer who didn't knowingly intend to incur any risk -- he chose to pay for the insurance that Coinabul offered. What business wants to make it their policy that even if the customer pays for the delivery insurance that that business specifically offers, they are still assuming the risk that the package may get lost or damaged in shipment and the insurance company may deny a claim for a reason that everyone involved agrees is unacceptable? (That is, not a risk the customer or business meant to assume.)

LMAO.

I will inform Coinabul about this debate. Perhaps they indeed have work to do and care not to read this thread day and night. As a fellow PM merchant myself, I suggest that Coinabul be given until Monday, March 18, to post their offer. This is not an unreasonably long delay. If Coinabul refunds, they can always make up for the delay by giving extra.

Also I hope that you refrain from accusations that go further than the handling of a rather small claim from customer. It is a stressful work to sell PM, international shipments are a pain, and there is always the chance that something material has not yet been revealed. (It is not unusual that there is a matter which neither party may want to disclose.)

destination or shipping its all in the contract  - true if its not specified then courts tend to specify it as shipping. I don't know what are in the terms and conditions for coinabul for shipping but however defined coinabul would still be a merchant and the buyer (if in the us) would have a good argument in court that the risk of loss was still with them. I am going to go have a drink  - discuss