This is between me, who live in Sweden, and my trading buddy in the US. Before we started trading, i requested that everything we trade would be declared at no more than 20$. This is to avoid or keep customs fees to a minimum. A couple of weeks ago, he sent out a box to me with beer valued at 120$, and he spent around 120$ on shipping. Same day it was set to be delivered to me I got a notice that the shipment was stopped due to "insufficient packaging" (= something has likely broken and soaked everything). I've been in contact with Sweden Post several times to try to get the package, but they refuse to give it to me. Most reasonable thing in my opinion would be to let it dry in a warehouse for a few days, then give me the option to decide whether I want it or not. But according to their policies it can no longer be delivered, and either destroyed or returned (= destroyed). So to the problem. I think he has likely not packaged and protected the beers sufficiently, which is the cause of everything. We've agreed on terms and what to trade before hand, and he's gotten his, but I haven't got mine. He still owes me six beers. His side is this: "I had done everything that you had asked for on that second shipment. Went out of my way to purchase those six beers at about $120+ and then $120.35 to ship them. Then followed your instructions to only insure it for $20. With that I believe that you took responsibility for that shipment. So, that shipment was wort six beers and then I will take the $20 insurance value and buy you $20 of beer and include it in my next shipment. The shipment is completed when I purchase you $20 worth of beer from insurance." So, whos responsibility is it?
I've always been wary of gaming the system with lowballing the amount, or trying to declare it as something other than what it is because the shipment isn't permissible otherwise, so those things are always a risk we take. However, I haven't thought enough about all of the potential consequences of these actions, or really even the purpose of the monetary declaration and tax implications, to provide a well rounded opinion. I am curious to hear others chime in.
Oof. First and foremost, I’m sorry you are going through this. If you trade enough, something like this happens eventually, but it is never good for either side no matter what. Second, to me it seems pretty clear that this person probably isn’t a long-term trade partner for you. Anyone who goes out of their way to tell you that they went out of their way isn’t a real trade partner. They might be a trader, but that isn’t the same thing as a trade partner. A partner is someone that wants to help you out just because they want to see you open those beers. They get as much or more enjoyment from sending you beers as they do from getting their own. The fact that this person then said they weren’t going to do anything to help is a second red flag. That said, dealing with the matter at hand instead of the future…it’s tough. My personal opinion is that he should try to meet you half way. He should have done a better job packing, but there is some shared responsibility, both because it is going overseas, and because of the low declared value. If I was on the receiving end of this bad luck, I would want to try to help you regardless of the fault, because I would want someone to help me. And, if this was with a trade partner, I’d probably try to get the person to include an extra beer every shipment for the next 6 shipments or something. Spread it out slowly. That said, he is out $250 (unless he is refunded shipping?), and that isn’t entirely on him. tl; dr: This isn’t a long term trading partner, and if I was him I would try to help you out, but both sides share fault.
OP, it seems this is at least the 2nd time they've shipped a box to you, is this correct? How was their packing on the prior shipments? Assuming they've done a good job with packing on prior shipments, might be just a fluky breakage this time in transit. Any trader worth their salt will tell you it's the shipper's responsibility to get the beer to the recipient safely. Clearly here the sender has not yet done this regarding this particular shipment. The crux seems to be the $20 vs $120 responsibility on the part of the sender. Let's face it, international trading is not an inexpensive endeavor. For them to decide to 'cheap out' here using the $20 insurance value seems a bit bogus to me. I would expect a stand-up trader to make your side whole based on the trading agreement terms, not some shipping declaration value. Good luck, OP.
This is the second he sent, correct. The previously was received in good condition. This second package was sent while he was "on the road", which may have caused him to have less shipping supplies versus at home.
Seems a reasonable possibility. Ultimately, the low declaration value was used for minimizing customs fees only. To then use that as the reimbursement value here seems poor form imo.
This is the answer right here. There are some weird peripherals attached to this trade due to it being international, but it's the responsibility of each side to get a box to the other's doorstep. That responsibility hasn't been met. The other trader owes you a box you agree on for an equal amount.
I am of a somewhat dissenting opinion, in that I don’t think that the sender is on the hook until a box makes it to their partner. If a box gets to their house and is stolen, is that really the senders problem? What if a box gets actually lost, not damaged? Delivered to the wrong address? There are things beyond the sender’s control, and I don’t believe it is incumbent on the sender to simply replace the contents full-stop. That said, as I stated in my previous post, there should be some shared responsibility - both sides need to give and take. The sender absolutely should help out, but I don’t believe the full cost should fall on the sender in such an ambiguous case, where shipping costs are so exorbitant. I guess one thing that could sway mine (and perhaps others’) opinions is whether or not this trade partner is sort of “doing a favor” for OP. Is this truly a “normal” trade/trade partner relationship, or has OP really wanted beers from the U.S., and the sender agreed, but is really doing this as a favor. Yes, I understand that it is a trade, but trades can still be favors. Edit: As a receiver, I would never expect a sender to replace a well-packed box that was not received if the circumstances are beyond their control, at 100% cost to them. I would work with them to share that unexpected cost. I understand the well-packed part is potentially disputable in this case.
Shippers message Per OP stated : "Then followed your instructions to only insure it for $20" This is a tricky one . International trades always seem to be a roll of the dice . Finally a kinda sorta bad trader thread. I missed them
The accepted rule of thumb is if a package doesn’t make it or arrives damaged it is on the shipper to replace it. BUT, it was your request to limit declared value to $20. If you hadn’t requested that he would get full value of the box and could use the money to replace the box. So I agree with him, you are entitled to $20 worth of beer. How many boxes have shipped back and forth? How much custom fees are paid for each box? Depending on this he may have saved money and benefitted based on your $20 policy, so he should take some of the risk too.
International, domestic, who cares. I've sent my share of beer in the mail, always have packaged well but still had bottles broken in transit. UPS slammed the truck gate on a box I sent once, damaging the bottle. Without hesitation, I sent another box with equally good or better beer. That's the risk we all take in this stupid hobby. Until it's in your partners hands, trade is not complete. Insurance is not relevant in my mind. Your partner owes you another box.
I'm pretty sure the standard solution here is to meet in the middle (perhaps Iceland in this case?) and commence in a round of traditional Indian leg wrestling. Winner decides fair replacement value and lower enjoyed a wholesome sporting contest with a good friend in a beautiful location. A classic win win. But really, I've also always been of the mind that the sender has not fulfilled their duty until the agreed upon beers are in the receivers hands. And yes that does mean that the receiver has some responsibilities to make sure they're having it sent to a location where it won't get stolen. Obviously, as a trading relationship grows and develops you may transition into handling really unusual and blameless disappearances with more flexibility. But in this case it seems like the sender owes you a comparable box to that which was lost.
Agree with the previous three posts. The OP reads like a pretty straightforward trade that unfortunately went south. Rule of thumb has always been that the sender, regardless of how blameless they may be, needs to make the recipient whole in a situation where the beer sent to the recipient doesn’t arrive in good condition. Whether the package is insured or not is irrelevant (this is generally a non issue in domestic trades, as shipment of beer isn't allowed and so can't really be insured). I assume the high cost of shipping internationally is the sticking point for the sender (that and the cost and inconvenience of obtaining replacement beer). Again, that's unfortunate, but he agreed to the trade and it's up to him to fulfill his part of the bargain. In other words, it's up to him to make the recipient whole (by sending another box of the same beer originally agreed upon or something of comparable value if that's not possible). I suspect the sender knows all this. Sounds like he doesn't want to meet his responsibilities and is looking for an excuse to avoid replacing the lost beer.
My only question now is was your package to the US insured at its full worth, or was that not even an option? I know some European countries charge a hefty tax to the recipient based on the package's estimated value listed for customs, at least in my experience that's why I've been instructed to lowball the amounts. However, I don't think we have the same thing in the states that I'm aware of, so we don't normally think to instruct shippers to even consider that either way. If both sides are incurring the same expenses like we would be for stateside shipments, then yeah I usually lean towards trying to make the recipient whole. It's just hard for me to take in the whole picture with how expensive it gets for all sorts of different reasons internationally.
Why are they refusing to give it to you? Can they legally not give you what is intended for you because of whatever issue? Isn’t that theft? Give me my torn, wet box that still has x number of intact beers. Piss off Swedish post office. P.S. just saw this was from January. How did it all play out?
I’m surprised folks here are considering the declared value / insured amount a factor here, when that value is absolutely meaningless when shipping prohibited items. From years of experience I can tell you USPS, FedEx, DHL, Bpost and UPS can all: -Mark something as damaged and never show you proof. -Search/scan the box and not deliver due to prohibited contents. -Not honor any insurance amount due to prohibited contents When you ship beer without an alcohol license and declared paperwork stating so on the physical box, there is zero expectation the beer will make it in one piece or that you would ever see that box or its value ever again. It’s absolutely a gamble…a gamble I continue to make as *most of the time* it all works out.
I think everyone in this thread is well aware of everything you listed in the first paragraph quoted. It's part of the inherent risk when trading and shipping beer. Maybe I'm confused by the point you're trying to make in the last quoted paragraph. On the contrary, most trading participants do in fact expect the goods they ship to arrive in one piece. If they didn't, I'm pretty sure the involved parties wouldn't be participating in the trade. Yes, it's a gamble, but the risk is perceived as minimal, as most trades go off without a hitch. Unfortunately, every once in a while a trade goes south, through no fault of the participants. When that happens, some solution needs to be reached to make everyone whole. That's what this thread is all about. Sometimes long time trading partners will reach an advance agreement on how they're going to proceed in the event a package is lost during transit. If no money has exchanged hands, then both parties can agree to simply walk away from the trade (which unfortunately, forces the sender to absorb the cost of the loss). However, if one side has already fulfilled their part of the exchange, then the only recourse is to resend the package or refund the recipient's money/cost. This is one of the primary reasons I don't like to participate in trades. I don't want to bear the risk and expense that occurs with trades. I'll sometimes orchestrate a trade as a favor for someone on BA, but these days that's very rare.
