SCAM - Coinabul owe me 81btc

[casascius]

Shiftybugger, thank you for starting this thread.  I was considering using Coinabul, but the complete lack of accountability shown in Coinabul's response made me think twice.  They are not going to refund your order because you bugged them after months of not receiving anything?  Completely inappropriate response.  I'd like to get Casascius to weigh in on this, he also a lot of experience sending insured orders paid for by bitcoin and I'm sure he would refund the order in a case like this.  

Here would be my take:

1. I take the position that I only guarantee I'll send what was ordered.  I do not guarantee anyone will receive what they ordered unless they pay for insurance, which in my case is only available with registered mail.  There's not really another sustainable position to take without opening myself up to scams.

2. It is so incredibly rare for things to disappear in the mail that paying for insurance, in terms of expected value, is virtually always a waste of money.  Odds of losing a package are easily more favorable than 500:1.  It only makes sense for the most valuable of shipments.

3. One good way I've found to mitigate risk, especially with silver coins, is to split orders up into multiple envelopes and mail them on separate days.  This also helps things make it through customs with the privilege of not getting flagged for special treatment.  And that's how it seems is the best way to mail silver coins: in a boring envelope (mine are 15cm x 15cm, meant for mailing CDs/DVDs).

4. I probably wouldn't suggest to a customer whose package went missing that I was dealing with an insurance company or that my reaction depended on whether I was able to collect from insurance.  As far as I'm concerned, if the customer didn't pay for insurance, then any insurance I might have is to benefit me, not them.  Instead, I'd tell them to keep waiting, as it might eventually show up, or that I would let them know if I saw the package returned (which, oddly, has happened a couple times, many months after the original mailing, with the package notated "unclaimed").

5. I may, in my sole discretion, offer favors to keep people happy.  The simplest favor I can offer to someone I'm forced to say they're outta luck is offering them a replacement order "at cost" without any markup, and throwing in freebies that might be valuable to them but are low cost for me.  Then again, I have more flexibility in that respect than a bullion dealer, because I can pad my products with a healthy markup and a bullion dealer cannot while still remaining competitive.  If I were a bullion dealer, I'm not sure what I would do, cause it's not like I could just throw in some free PM's to anyone claiming a loss and keep my business sustainable.  ANd if someone came to the forums and alleged that I was a "scammer" as in this thread (as opposed to simply posting that they're disappointed they took a loss) I'd be the least motivated to offer a favor, just sayin.

6. If I were being accused of scamming by international customers (where registered mail is less efficient), to protect my reputation I'd probably switch my business to domestic only and/or require registered mail for everything, and only accept bulk orders from international resellers that I already trusted.  That would be sad, but unavoidable if I did things that made it effective for scammers to scam me.  Suffice it to say, I'd rather tell a few unlucky people that they're out of luck, because the odds are still overwhelming that most everyone will get what they ordered.

[1714661846]

1714661846

[1714661846]

1714661846

[1714661846]

1714661846

[1714661846]

1714661846

[1714661846]

1714661846

[JoelKatz]

4. I probably wouldn't suggest to a customer whose package went missing that I was dealing with an insurance company or that my reaction depended on whether I was able to collect from insurance.  As far as I'm concerned, if the customer didn't pay for insurance, then any insurance I might have is to benefit me, not them.  Instead, I'd tell them to keep waiting, as it might eventually show up, or that I would let them know if I saw the package returned (which, oddly, has happened a couple times, many months after the original mailing, with the package notated "unclaimed").

This I don't understand. If the insurance is to benefit you, that must mean that you are liable if the package is lost. But you're saying you're not. These two positions are inconsistent. Unless you are saying that if the customer didn't pay for insurance but you paid for insurance, and the package is lost and the insurance company pays up, you might just keep the insurance money and tell the customer they're out of luck? I sure hope that's not what you're saying.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm having trouble comprehending the insurance aspect. If send via USPS, which has proven that it was via Priority Mail, then the only insurance that could have been use was the one provided by the USPS. I can't phantom the use of some other insurance used, even if another entity existed.

Please set me straight on the above if I'm in error.

Last year, I had an accounts payable dispute with one of my regular clients in the sum of exactly $500. Sometimes, I supplied him wood between him getting paid from his clients (30 days, normally). In this case, I supplied him three loads of wood whereupon he owed me $9,500. None of this was written down, for it was straightforward, consisting of round numbers. Two days prior to him paying me, he called to let me know he had gotten paid, but needed the funds to settle in his bank first. At that point, we confirmed the amount owed. Two days later I went to pick up the check, and it was $500 short. We each redid the math five times, him opting to use the Ma and Pa Kettle math. I quickly gave in, for I didn't want to loose him as a customer. The guy is very straight up and has never lied to me before. I made great profit off sales to him in the past, and continue to do so to this day, as well as continue to do so in the future.

I have never shared the above with anybody until now.

Another incident last year consisted of a woman who needed only 200 s/f of flooring, but order 300 s/f to make sure she had enough. I delivered slightly over 300 s/f which equals the volume of half of a full size pick up truck bed. She calls me about a week later and states that she was short over 50 s/f, which was impossible. I even had pics of the load, as I did of the loads I mentioned in the previous paragraph. But I was not going to call her a liar and show her proof. I quickly delivered a little more than 50 more s/f of the same lumber to her garage, never seeing her 12 X 15 dining room.

I never expected to her from her again, but got luck and she ordered barn wood for two walls she was doing in her basement.

~Bruno K~

[bitcool]

4. I probably wouldn't suggest to a customer whose package went missing that I was dealing with an insurance company or that my reaction depended on whether I was able to collect from insurance.  As far as I'm concerned, if the customer didn't pay for insurance, then any insurance I might have is to benefit me, not them.  Instead, I'd tell them to keep waiting, as it might eventually show up, or that I would let them know if I saw the package returned (which, oddly, has happened a couple times, many months after the original mailing, with the package notated "unclaimed").

This I don't understand. If the insurance is to benefit you, that must mean that you are liable if the package is lost. But you're saying you're not. These two positions are inconsistent. Unless you are saying that if the customer didn't pay for insurance but you paid for insurance, and the package is lost and the insurance company pays up, you might just keep the insurance money and tell the customer they're out of luck? I sure hope that's not what you're saying.

+1. I have exactly the same question.

[davidspitzer]

If you are a seller, selling goods to consumer then the risk of loss remains with the seller unless specifically stated otherwise in the sales contract.

[casascius]

4. I probably wouldn't suggest to a customer whose package went missing that I was dealing with an insurance company or that my reaction depended on whether I was able to collect from insurance.  As far as I'm concerned, if the customer didn't pay for insurance, then any insurance I might have is to benefit me, not them.  Instead, I'd tell them to keep waiting, as it might eventually show up, or that I would let them know if I saw the package returned (which, oddly, has happened a couple times, many months after the original mailing, with the package notated "unclaimed").

This I don't understand. If the insurance is to benefit you, that must mean that you are liable if the package is lost. But you're saying you're not. These two positions are inconsistent. Unless you are saying that if the customer didn't pay for insurance but you paid for insurance, and the package is lost and the insurance company pays up, you might just keep the insurance money and tell the customer they're out of luck? I sure hope that's not what you're saying.

I don't pay for insurance to bet against my customers getting their shipments, so it's moot (if I were dealing bullion it might be different and sensibly so).  The point I am trying to make is that there are two prices you can pay, and you can pay the lower price and take a small risk and get a good value, especially if the order is small and not worth registering.

[vampire]

I can't phantom the use of some other insurance used, even if another entity existed.

There are other insurance companies.... A quick google search:

http://www.shipsurance.com/

http://www.u-pic.com/

[vampire]

6. If I were being accused of scamming by international customers (where registered mail is less efficient), to protect my reputation I'd probably switch my business to domestic only and/or require registered mail for everything, and only accept bulk orders from international resellers that I already trusted.  That would be sad, but unavoidable if I did things that made it effective for scammers to scam me.  Suffice it to say, I'd rather tell a few unlucky people that they're out of luck, because the odds are still overwhelming that most everyone will get what they ordered.

Are you shipping your international packages with registered mail? I think for US you sent me with Priority, I don't recall.

[vampire]

also

Normally unless specifically stipulated as otherwise in the sale contract:

If the seller is in the business of selling that merchandise, then the risk of loss does not pass until the merchandise is delivered to the buyer.

Thanks for this info. This is how it works under Australian consumer protection laws, but I had no idea about US laws.

Actually this isn't correct. In the USA, normally, if a buyer didn't buy insurance the seller isn't responsible for lost packages. Personally I never offer insurance on my packages, but at my discretion I buy it sometimes (like shipping a laptop).

Big companies are usually self-insured, so they can send an another package out. Smaller companies can't really do especially with expensive products like silver.

[davidspitzer]

also

Normally unless specifically stipulated as otherwise in the sale contract:

If the seller is in the business of selling that merchandise, then the risk of loss does not pass until the merchandise is delivered to the buyer.

Thanks for this info. This is how it works under Australian consumer protection laws, but I had no idea about US laws.

Actually this isn't correct. In the USA, normally, if a buyer didn't buy insurance the seller isn't responsible for lost packages. Personally I never offer insurance on my packages, but at my discretion I buy it sometimes (like shipping a laptop).

Big companies are usually self-insured, so they can send an another package out. Smaller companies can't really do especially with expensive products like silver.

Sorry that is incorrect I am on my iphone but the controlling law in a sale of goods is the ucc. Here is the pertinent extract. If you don't want to read the whole thing skip to the end

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Such considerations generally come into play after the contract is formed but before buyer receives goods, something bad happens.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:

Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls
Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.
Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations
If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller.
If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer.
If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1]

[vampire]

also

Normally unless specifically stipulated as otherwise in the sale contract:

If the seller is in the business of selling that merchandise, then the risk of loss does not pass until the merchandise is delivered to the buyer.

Thanks for this info. This is how it works under Australian consumer protection laws, but I had no idea about US laws.

Actually this isn't correct. In the USA, normally, if a buyer didn't buy insurance the seller isn't responsible for lost packages. Personally I never offer insurance on my packages, but at my discretion I buy it sometimes (like shipping a laptop).

Big companies are usually self-insured, so they can send an another package out. Smaller companies can't really do especially with expensive products like silver.

Sorry that is incorrect I am on my iphone but the controlling law in a sale of goods is the ucc. Here is the pertinent extract. If you don't want to read the whole thing skip to the end

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Such considerations generally come into play after the contract is formed but before buyer receives goods, something bad happens.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:

Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls
Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.
Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations
If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller.
If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer.
If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1]

The last one wouln't be applicable in this case, since this is applicable:

Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations

[casascius]

6. If I were being accused of scamming by international customers (where registered mail is less efficient), to protect my reputation I'd probably switch my business to domestic only and/or require registered mail for everything, and only accept bulk orders from international resellers that I already trusted.  That would be sad, but unavoidable if I did things that made it effective for scammers to scam me.  Suffice it to say, I'd rather tell a few unlucky people that they're out of luck, because the odds are still overwhelming that most everyone will get what they ordered.

Are you shipping your international packages with registered mail? I think for US you sent me with Priority, I don't recall.

I typically send regular mail (aka "First Class Mail").  And it arrives well over 99% of the time.  I will sometimes send international priority mail for heavy shipments since it's a better rate, but once it leaves the US, it is virtually identical to regular mail.

Express (EMS) is what I offer as a premium shipping option for international shipping.  It's pretty reliable, and there's tracking end-to-end in most places, though it also increases the likelihood that customs will care about your package and want to charge an import tax, if it were me I would just go for regular mail and take my chances.

[Raoul Duke]

also

Normally unless specifically stipulated as otherwise in the sale contract:

If the seller is in the business of selling that merchandise, then the risk of loss does not pass until the merchandise is delivered to the buyer.

Thanks for this info. This is how it works under Australian consumer protection laws, but I had no idea about US laws.

Actually this isn't correct. In the USA, normally, if a buyer didn't buy insurance the seller isn't responsible for lost packages. Personally I never offer insurance on my packages, but at my discretion I buy it sometimes (like shipping a laptop).

Big companies are usually self-insured, so they can send an another package out. Smaller companies can't really do especially with expensive products like silver.

Sorry that is incorrect I am on my iphone but the controlling law in a sale of goods is the ucc. Here is the pertinent extract. If you don't want to read the whole thing skip to the end

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Such considerations generally come into play after the contract is formed but before buyer receives goods, something bad happens.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application:

Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls
Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller.
Delivery by common carrier other than by seller.
Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations
If it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller.
If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer.
If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1]

The last one wouln't be applicable in this case, since this is applicable:

Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations

No, that last one is applicable if the seller is a merchant and will invalidate the rule you pointed out.
Isn't Coinabul a merchant?

[vampire]

No, that last one is applicable if the seller is a merchant and will invalidate the rule you pointed out.
Isn't Coinabul a merchant?

Not it goes in the order :-) This one is clearer

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-509.html

Also a good read: http://britpoptarts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/paralegal-goods-lost-in-transit-who-is-responsible/

§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but
(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.
(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer

(a) on his receipt of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
(b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
(c) after his receipt of a non-negotiable document of title or other written direction to deliver, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.
(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this Article on sale on approval (Section 2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Section 2-510).

[vampire]

In John W. Jordan, II, v. Kentshire Galleries, Ltd., et al., Jordan appealed an earlier decision in favor of Kentshire Galleries. Jordan alleges that he purchased an antique from Kentshire and that it arrived damaged. This was a case where there was no clear contract drawn up and no language on any of the sales documents designating whether it was a shipping or destination contract; the latter would clearly hold Kentshire solely liable for the damaged furniture item. Initially the court had decided that Jordan and Kentshire had a shipping (shipment) contract, rather than a destination contract, and thus Kentshire was not responsible for the loss once the carrier picked up the antique furniture item. (The appellate court revised its opinion when Jordan clarified that the seller made him pay for insurance to cover the safe transport of the antique, that they recommended the art packer / carrier company that apparently caused the damage, and that the antique was not the age represented by Kentshire and also had inherent defects which made it susceptible to cracking and becoming damaged.) Had the antique been stolen or lost in transit, the court might still find for Jordan because the seller, Kentshire, required him to pay insurance to cover the shipping for the antique and urged him to select a specific art packer (which wound up damaging the antique). Jordan could be excused for reasonably believing that he would receive in good condition the item he bought from Kentshire. That the antique was also a “one of a kind” item may also have influenced the decision; Jordan could not exercise his right as a buyer to demand a replacement for a non-conforming item because there would likely be no comparable item available.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=2001601282AD2d319_2434.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

Looks like according to the law that Coinabul is responsible for the loss, because the customer bought insurance.

[davidspitzer]

This only pertains to the US as far as I know but under the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC a merchant is defined as:

As a person that deals in goods of the kind or otherwise holds itself out by occupation as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to which the knowledge or skill may be attributed by the person's employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary that holds itself out by occupation as having the knowledge or skill.

Under UCC Article 2-509

Normally if the sale is between two Merchants and or private individuals the risk of loss passes once the merchandise is duly delivered to the carrier

The big exception is when the sale is between a merchant (as defined above) and a non merchant (consumer). In this circumstance the UCC states:

...if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

In other words in all US jurisdictions that have adopted the UCC (which are all the states except Louisiana) the risk of loss remains with a merchant when selling to a consumer until such time as it is tendered for delivery. The term tendered for delivery is a point of fact open to interpretation. If you mail something with tracking and it is delivered to a locked mailbox that may suffice. The burden of proof will fall to the merchant to prove that it was tendered for delivery.

The circumstance of this discussion and the appropriate outcome and rights are unknown to me due to the foreign jurisdiction involved. In the US though the law is well established on risk of loss when is involves merchants and non merchants

[vampire]

This only pertains to the US as far as I know but under the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC a merchant is defined as:

As a person that deals in goods of the kind or otherwise holds itself out by occupation as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to which the knowledge or skill may be attributed by the person's employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary that holds itself out by occupation as having the knowledge or skill.

Under UCC Article 2-509

Normally if the sale is between two Merchants and or private individuals the risk of loss passes once the merchandise is duly delivered to the carrier

The big exception is when the sale is between a merchant (as defined above) and a non merchant (consumer). In this circumstance the UCC states:

...if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

In other words in all US jurisdictions that have adopted the UCC (which are all the states except Louisiana) the risk of loss remains with a merchant when selling to a consumer until such time as it is tendered for delivery. The term tendered for delivery is a point of fact open to interpretation. If you mail something with tracking and it is delivered to a locked mailbox that may suffice. The burden of proof will fall to the merchant to prove that it was tendered for delivery.

The circumstance of this discussion and the appropriate outcome and rights are unknown to me due to the foreign jurisdiction involved. In the US though the law is well established on risk of loss when is involves merchants and non merchants

That section is irrelevant. One of the items above it satisfied the condition.

Here are some interpretations of the law.

http://britpoptarts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/paralegal-goods-lost-in-transit-who-is-responsible/

[davidspitzer]

This only pertains to the US as far as I know but under the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC a merchant is defined as:

As a person that deals in goods of the kind or otherwise holds itself out by occupation as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to which the knowledge or skill may be attributed by the person's employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary that holds itself out by occupation as having the knowledge or skill.

Under UCC Article 2-509

Normally if the sale is between two Merchants and or private individuals the risk of loss passes once the merchandise is duly delivered to the carrier

The big exception is when the sale is between a merchant (as defined above) and a non merchant (consumer). In this circumstance the UCC states:

...if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

In other words in all US jurisdictions that have adopted the UCC (which are all the states except Louisiana) the risk of loss remains with a merchant when selling to a consumer until such time as it is tendered for delivery. The term tendered for delivery is a point of fact open to interpretation. If you mail something with tracking and it is delivered to a locked mailbox that may suffice. The burden of proof will fall to the merchant to prove that it was tendered for delivery.

The circumstance of this discussion and the appropriate outcome and rights are unknown to me due to the foreign jurisdiction involved. In the US though the law is well established on risk of loss when is involves merchants and non merchants

That section is irrelevant. One of the items above it satisfied the condition.

Here are some interpretations of the law.

http://britpoptarts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/paralegal-goods-lost-in-transit-who-is-responsible/

your reading of the UCC is incorrect - there are also dozens of pages of notes associated with this short passage  - even if you do not accept the merchant rule, which is a well tested rule. Clearly the contract for shipping falls under  2-509(B) as I assume that the silver was addressed to a specific location for delivery EG the home of the person that did not receive the metals.

Determination of the parties’ rights and obligations must be made when ambiguity exists in the contract between them. The resolution of that ambiguity begins with a determination of whether the contract is a "shipment" or a "destination" contract. If the contract does not require the seller to deliver the goods at a particular destination, a “shipment” contract is presumed. On the other hand, a “destination” contract is characterized by a seller’s obligation to deliver at a particular destination.

Clearly the shipment by Coinabul was a destination shipment and would therefore, if not for the merchant exception, would still place the risk of loss with Coinabul until tendered for delivery

§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but
(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

[casascius]

Determination of the parties’ rights and obligations must be made when ambiguity exists in the contract between them. The resolution of that ambiguity begins with a determination of whether the contract is a "shipment" or a "destination" contract. If the contract does not require the seller to deliver the goods at a particular destination, a “shipment” contract is presumed. On the other hand, a “destination” contract is characterized by a seller’s obligation to deliver at a particular destination.

Clearly the shipment by Coinabul was a destination shipment and would therefore, if not for the merchant exception, would still place the risk of loss with Coinabul until tendered for delivery

Clearly how?  That doesn't make sense.  Coinabul didn't obligate itself to deliver the goods directly to the buyer, Coinabul's obligation was to deliver them to a carrier for shipment.  Otherwise, you're suggesting that everything that has a "destination" short of picking the goods up yourself is a "destination" contract, if this were so, there would be nothing left to occupy the definition of a "shipment" contract.

On the other hand, the operative thing that would make the difference is that the buyer "paid extra for insured shipping".  This alone would put the burden on Coinabul, because it doesn't make sense for a buyer to pay for the insurance only to be told "Oops!  The insurance I offered and you paid for was no good, sorry, your loss".

[davidspitzer]

destination or shipping its all in the contract  - true if its not specified then courts tend to specify it as shipping. I don't know what are in the terms and conditions for coinabul for shipping but however defined coinabul would still be a merchant and the buyer (if in the us) would have a good argument in court that the risk of loss was still with them. I am going to go have a drink  - discuss