New MARTIN went BOOM off the UPS Truck 12/6 Update

[jljohn]

Originally Posted by Vancebo

Ha. Maybe so. So does LA Guitar then take responsibility since his instructions were to return the guitar packed the same way in the same packaging? Just worth discussing.

Well now...if that is the case, I would fully expect LA Guitar to take financial responsibility for the damage, and I would call my credit card company to back me up. It sounds like LA Guitar required you to pack that guitar in a way that didn't meet the UPS insurance requirements, and, for that reason, they should bear the risk of loss. You kept the terms of the contract, and I would argue that a seller requiring you to 'underpack' (from a UPS insurance perspective) a guitar upon return accepts the risk of such underpacking.

Take the thought to its extremes and see what principle prevails. On the one end, if the seller does not dictate the mechanisms of return, but only requires the guitar to arrive back in the same condition, then it makes sense that the would-be buyer is on the hook to make sure it arrives as such or is properly insured. As soon as the Seller starts dictating specific mechanisms of return, they should be seen to accept the risk that comes from the control they are demanding. Imagine a dealer saying that, to return a guitar, you had to put a shipping label on the pickguard and mail the guitar without a case. Would anyone think that the buyer should be responsible for damage in that situation? How is requiring a would-be buyer to underpack a guitar any different in principle?

[Mr. Paul]

Here is the dealer's return policy

Refunds

In case of a return, the actual outgoing shipping charges will be deducted from the refund. Return shipping is the cutomers resposibilty. If paid by Paypal there will be a 3% restocking fee. After 72 hours all sales will be considered final. Guitars shipped outside of the US are not returnable.

Verbal instructions to pack as received only follow industry standard. Instructions were not at fault, UPS handling is at fault. Their "insufficient packaging" response is bs. Dropping the credit card dispute hammer on the dealer would be punishing a party that has done absolutely nothing wrong here.

[Vancebo]

To be clear, I am not going after LA Guitar or do I think he needs to make anything right. Ted has been reassuring and helpful.

UPS is at fault here. They may eventually try and throw their policy in my face but my thinking if this is a court of law and if there is evidence that they are knowingly shipping thousands of guitars around the planet in industry standard containers, then their case, written policy or not, is weak. I will be as interested as everyone else will be to see how this ends.

[hermithollow]

Originally Posted by Vancebo

To be clear, I am not going after LA Guitar or do I think he needs to make anything right. Ted has been reassuring and helpful.

UPS is at fault here. They may eventually try and throw their policy in my face but my thinking if this is a court of law and if there is evidence that they are knowingly shipping thousands of guitars around the planet in industry standard containers, then their case, written policy or not, is weak. I will be as interested as everyone else will be to see how this ends.

It is possible that UPS also denies claims from shippers who ship in "industry standard containers". The shippers may accept that risk knowing that most shipments will arrive safely and accept the loss on those that don't.
It looks like the "try before you buy" is really a "buy before you try" and you just happened to wind up on the bad end of the stick. I hate UPS. The last two packages they left on the side of the road about a thousand feet from my house. The one before that they left on a porch of someone who lives about the same distance away from me. Fed Ex is no better depending on who they contracted to take the route.

[Goodallboy]

This is sadly a risk one assumes when shipping instruments. I detest shipping guitars and the fact there’s a “return policy” only means more risk is introduced onto the transaction.

But that’s just me. I’m sorry this has happened!

[89bruin]

Sorry but this sounds like a fraudulent claim; by your own admission there’s no apparent damage to the instrument. At most UPS owes you a new case. Everything else is on you; thats part of the risk you took auditioning a guitar by mail. Trying to stick UPS with he bill for the whole transaction is simply dishonest. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.

[Watt]

That's a little harsh. But I agree that, if the guitar itself is undamaged, UPS has no responsibility to compensate the OP beyond replacement cost for the damaged case. The fact that LA Guitar Sales will not accept a return due to the damage to the case is immaterial.

[Vancebo]

Originally Posted by 89bruin

Sorry but this sounds like a fraudulent claim; by your own admission there’s no apparent damage to the instrument. At most UPS owes you a new case. Everything else is on you; thats part of the risk you took auditioning a guitar by mail. Trying to stick UPS with he bill for the whole transaction is simply dishonest. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.

First of all. Maybe your right. They pay for a case. Fraudulent no. Is it damaged? Not a dishonest word here or in my communication with UPS. Everything has been fair and on the up and up. I have a letter from Ted that was included in my report stating there was a loss of value on the guitar that he could no longer sell it as new after learning that it received a blow hard enough to crack a five ply case. It would also require an in depth inspection that neither one of us are willing to pay for. There is a loss for sure. It is up to UPS to determine what that loss is. Just reporting the facts.

[jljohn]

Originally Posted by 89bruin

Sorry but this sounds like a fraudulent claim; by your own admission there’s no apparent damage to the instrument. At most UPS owes you a new case. Everything else is on you; thats part of the risk you took auditioning a guitar by mail. Trying to stick UPS with he bill for the whole transaction is simply dishonest. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.

Everything can broken down to its parts, but replacing broken parts doesn't make the OP whole. The OP bought a guitar with a case, and if any part of that is damaged he deserves to have UPS reimburse the whole and do what they want with the guitar and broken case.

Again, think along the spectrum and ask what differentiates this from other cases. On the one end, the case is damaged, but the guitar is fine. Yes, the case could be replaced, but is the buyer whole at this point? He has a new guitar without the OHSC. What if a tuner post was bent? UPS could pay to replace the tuners, but is the buyer whole? What if the neck broke and UPS offered to replace the neck; is the buyer whole? What if a forklift punches a hole through the case and the top of the guitar and UPS offers to buy a new case and replace the top. Would that make the buyer whole?

There are lines that could be drawn to differentiate groups of examples, but my perspective is that the unit for sale was a guitar with its case. If UPS damages any portion of that unit, they should reimburse the whole package price and do what they want with whatever retains value. But, for the OP, having a new guitar without its OHSC for full price is NOT being made whole. Furthermore, do you really think this doesn't impact the value of this guitar. If the OP tries to sell this guitar with its history being known, its resale value will be lower than comparable guitars. That's not "made whole" either.

[ManyMartinMan]

Originally Posted by jljohn

Everything can broken down to its parts, but replacing broken parts doesn't make the OP whole. ...

Actually, that's exactly how tort law works. You are made whole when your loss is compensated. No more, no less. You might remember "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"? That's what it means. If you lose X (an eye) you are entitled to an eye (or equal compensation) for the eye - not a new guitar.

Originally Posted by jljohn

Well now...if that is the case, I would fully expect LA Guitar to take financial responsibility for the damage, and I would call my credit card company to back me up. ...

This has been explained very clearly to you, you're wrong.

[KevWind]

First just a very general preemptive reminder, let's keep this thread within AGF rules specifically Rule # 1 (be nice)

Next as general observation and note about shipping via UPS . UPS has automated conveyor belt sorting systems at many hub locations where there are are 3 foot drops between belts, which is why damage and or crumpling to the outer packaging box happens often , just something to consider

[gerardo1000]

I read some comments that implies that LA Guitars should have done a better effort to help the OP resolve the problem. I tend to agree but I didn't expect this to happen. Based on my experience, Ted follows the "rules" 100% and it is not accomodating if this could mean a loss. One year ago I bought two brand new Rainsong from LA Guitar sales, a dread and an OM. The dread that I received was perfect. The OM had a blimp on the top around the sound hole. A cosmetic defect, but still a defect. For a few days I debated with myself if to keep the guitar or not, then I finally decided to return it. Ted refused because I had exceeded the 3 days return frame by a few days. I ended up selling the guitar as used, losing $ 450.00. Since then, I decided to buy my instruments on line either on Amazon or at Guitar Center or Musicians Friend. Yes they offer no pre-inspection of the merchandise, they just pick up the guitar and ship it. So it is a bit of a gamble, but... they have a 45 days return policy no question asked. I am pretty sure that if they had received the guitar back from the OP, with the case damaged during the return shipping, they would have not refused it.

[ManyMartinMan]

Thankfully all the rules for purchase and return are clearly stated and that Ted stands by his rules. A man who has principles and sticks by them can not be criticized and should be respected for it.

[Vancebo]

Originally Posted by ManyMartinMan

Thankfully all the rules for purchase and return are clearly stated and that Ted stands by his rules. A man who has principles and sticks by them can not be criticized and should be respected for it.

This is true.

[jaan]

Originally Posted by Vancebo

Ha. Maybe so. So does LA Guitar then take responsibility since his instructions were to return the guitar packed the same way in the same packaging? Just worth discussing.

I do think that if you’re instructed to ship it as received, and then that’s a problem, well LA has some responsibility. I also feel they could be more helpful. The case was damaged. Big deal, what that $100 to replace? Hidden damage, cmon your a store, you can’t take a mirror out and look at it? Going on 2 months and a customer is still out $2700 over a case?! Sorry that’s poor customer service. I also think that if the claim was for only the case you may have gotten further.