Not safe as a seller receiving Paypal....i lost both watch, money and confidence....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
asteclaru
It would depend on Singaporean law, which, in this case, would be the Sales of Goods Act :
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/SGA1979#pr24-
I've only had a quick scan, but it seems that once payment has been made, unless otherwise agreed, the seller must deliver the goods to the buyer (Part IV, Article 29) and the buyer can claim that goods have not been delivered to them if the goods are lost or damaged in transit (see Part IV, Article 32, Paragraph 2)
To me, this reads that the seller is responsible for the goods reaching the buyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alansmithee
Forget that - basic contract law is enough - the buyer has a contract that is unfilled - the problem rests with the seller.
Unless the seller mislabeled the package (“watch parts” not “watch”), or did not require signature delivery,…*the seller appears to have made reasonable, responsible efforts to deliver to the buyer. And the seller has been given signature proof that the package has been successfully delivered to the recipient.
The buyer has to pursue the claim that it was not delivered TO HIM. Apparently the buyer, or his agent (the creditor), made a fraudulent claim to Paypal that it was “not as described.”
Not safe as a seller receiving Paypal....i lost both watch, money and confidence....
Yep, Deckard81 is losing credibility in my view.
1. “The watch wasn’t delivered to me, it’s RM’s fault.”
2. “The local police wouldn’t investigate a clear case of theft, it’s the policemen’s fault.”
3. “I didn’t tell Paypal the falsehood that the item was ‘not as described,’ it’s my creditor’s fault.”
4. “The seller didn’t respond to my last PM, it’s the seller’s fault.”
Poor Gab, everyone’s conspiring against him. :( (sarcastic)