Possibly, but I suspect that those simple words might be insufficient. Some
responsibilities cannot be abrogated by a simple statement that the vendor
"is not liable" for certain normal expectations. An example is the common
warning on the back of an amusement park ticket that says that the
management is not liable for injuries. The statement is almost always
worthless.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi,
>
> Would it make any difference if you put in the auction that the seller
takes
> no responability for items that are not insured? As a lot of sellers do
put
> this in there auctions.
>
> Cyas
>
> From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > No, it applies to private transactions as well.
> >
> > Chris does have it right about the seller having the right
> > to wait until it is reasonably clear that the shipment has
> > been lost or destroyed and not just temporarily gone astray
> > before reimbursing the buyer. Most shipping companies demand
> > two month before they will pay on the insurance.
> >
> > Paul Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldnt this only be in regards to a business shipping the item? A
think
> a
> > > transaction between two individuals would be a total different deal.
> > >
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
