  
| Author: | bagelboybugle  | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2010 19:47 | | Subject: | Re: Insure/Noninsure Checkboxes when Submit Order | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
Having read the thread thus far, perhaps I miss something, but, I personally
think there is no harm in it morally, having the moral upper hand when buyer
actively declines insurance (as opposed to passively as is done when its written
in terms and ignored) is great for the notion of feeling that as a seller one
may be in the right, but, ultimately, in a paypal chargeback it is completely
meaningless.
So, beyond my thoughts below, is there a meaningful purpose?, unless you wish
to start litigating against those who ignore the fact they actively did not request
insurance and subsequently file a paypal chargeback.
HOWEVER: as much as I dislike the probability that it will encourage sellers
to circumvent the legal rights of the consumer and/or responsibilities of the
seller in some countries....
I DO think that to ask the buyer to consider more actively whether or not they
wish to have insurance is a good idea if nothing else as a basis for clear communication
on the insurance issue, one cant claim they wanted insurance and forgot to ask
for it if they tick the no box for example. But I dont personally think it appropriate
to allow additional seller defined comments against the insure/not insure option.
As it would be an opt in feature, any terms relating to insurance should remain
where they are now, in terms, for consistency.
Perhaps a little permanant note along the lines (as similarly suggested upthread
somewhere I think) of Please read sellers terms and shipping policy to ensure
you understand the cost and benefits of requesting insurance.
Gareth
| | Please give sellers the OPTION to require buyers to select insure or not insure
when submitting an order in their shop. Currently, BrickLink only offers a single
checkbox for insurance only, which need not be checked for the order to go through.
As mentioned here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=435576
having the buyer make a deliberate affirmative choice to insure or not insure
is better than the buyer making a passive choice which may not be a conscious
choice at all.
This could work similar to the "I Will Pay By" choices given by sellers who accept
multiple forms of payment, the "I Will Pay In" choices given by sellers who accept
payments in multiple currencies, and the "I would like my order to be shipped
by" choices given by sellers who offer multiple shipping options. See therobo's
checkout page for an example of these choices. If a choice is not made by the
buyer, BrickLink will not allow the order to be submitted. The order can only
be submitted if the buyer makes a choice. As with the shipping choices, each
seller could add a sentence or two explaining the insurance and no insurance
choices. I think allowing this OPTION could help eliminate or resolve some of
the problems that arise with orders that are lost or damaged during shipment.
Again, this is an OPTION for those sellers who want it. If anyone does not want
to use it, they don't have to.
Foster
|
|
|
Message is in Reply To: 57 Messages in this Thread.
(Message tree supressed because there are more than 50 messages in this thread)
show message tree
Entire thread on one page
This message and all its replies on one page
|
|
United Kingdom, England
