... law degree, Stu?

>> Try and put this in the text of common business practice. Is there anything that
>> you buy where the risk of loss is the buyers prior to your actually receiving it?

Have you ever heard of the term FOB? And, in particular, FOB warehouse (or similar phrase)? What the latter means is that the cost of shipping is borne by the recipient AND that title passes to the buyer at the moment the property is consigned to the buyer's shipper. This is quite common in the business world.

>> Here's the real kicker, many states have laws to protect buyers such
>> that certain clauses (even if explicitly agreed to) would be null and
>> void because they would be illegal.

While this is true, it is almost certainly a non sequitur here. Most such laws are among the so-called "consumer protection" laws, by which individual consumers are protected against over-reaching corporations. Can you cite even ONE such law from ANY state which would invalidate a contractual agreement between two individuals by which title passed from the seller to the buyer at the moment of shipment?

There IS a general principle of law called "contract of adhesion" by which agreed upon terms are sometimes invalidated. This typically occurs where a heavily imbalanced contract has been drawn up by one party and offered to another party with less bargaining power on a "take it or leave it" basis.

However, I doubt that this would apply to an eBay auction. And I disagree entirely with your legal conclusion that the buyer does not accept the seller's terms when the bid is placed. The auction states an offer to sell. A bid states an acceptance of that offer at a specified price. If the bid is ultimately successful, a contract has been formed ON THE TERMS STATED IN THE AUCTION, unless the parties have otherwise agreed in writing. Contract Law 101. If the issue of risk of loss is addressed in the auction terms, it is my opinion that the stated terms are generally going to be enforceable.

All of that said, I do agree with the spirit of your initial post in this thread as to what SHOULD happen if a chip gets lost in the mail.

BTW, you never did answer my question about what "federal law" you were referring to in this post about Jim Perlowski:

http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcb/tcb.pl?noframes;read=348822

----- jim o\-S