@afantiques wrote:
i was referring to GSP re-packing a large item into a smaller one
It is fair enough, really, as at that point the GSP has assumed responsibility for the safe arrival of the package undamaged, so it is out of the seller's hands.
Can anyone argue that it is inappropriate for someone responsible for undamaged arrival to repack as they see fit?
They may get it wrong, but this is something that they accept responsibility for explicitly in the terms and conditions.
The issue with that aspect is that while they "accept responsibility" and may be willing to make repayment for damages, some sellers are experts in packing specific classes of items (e.g. antiques) where PBI employees may be versed in "everyday" items only.
Some sellers may use oversized containers with appropriate packaging so that they explicitly could protect the item from damage. Thing is — under current policy, if PBI opens the box and sees that the box would be more expensive for them to ship as-is, they may move it to a smaller box where it is less protected and in the case of irreplaceable antiques, that is a bad thing because often times monetary reimbursement of such items is simply never enough. Say you're buying a 200 year old vase with affirmative documentation on its genuine status, if that vase were to get mishandled/inappropriately repackaged by PBI to make it more economical; during transport it gets destroyed. That's an item that can never again exist gone due to "making economical" the shipping process.
Yeah you can take out insurance, yeah, PBI may take responsibility, but in the face of destruction of rare/irreplacable items, that isn't enough. Prevention Is Necessary. sometimes sellers know more about what parts of an item need support or how many layers of packaging are necessary to ensure safe arrival than PBI.
Even everyday items, people are looking to receive the item, they're not looking to receive a requirement to issue SNAD claims against a seller because PBI failed to consider that sellers may know better in various circumstances.
Once a package enters into PBI's system, all that matters to them is what's the cheapest method to get your package shipped, and if your package takes up "more than is deemed necessary" space on their truck, they'll repackage it so that they can ship other items in the space made. Yeah, the postal system also wants the cheapest route so they can make a profit, but by law they have to respect the integrity of the original packaging, and only repackage if that integrity was damaged in the logistics chain. The only reason PBI can get away with it is because in the GSP contracts there are provisions essentially setting PBI as an "agent" of the buyer.
Again, this is a significant highlight that there are far too many hands in the GSP logistics chain. The more hands a package changes in a logistics chain, the higher the chance of damage and/or destruction of the property. There needs to be a mechanism in the GSP wheras a buyer and seller can elect to prohibit repackaging by PBI except in damage situations (with customs of course having customary access as the law permits)
c!~~_7.JPG "kalvin@ebay.com"){kind=avatar}
