You don't seem to understand, Fraud is intentional ... by definition it is the opposite of negligence. You can not negligently commit fraud.

If you crash your car five times should we assume that the you did it intentionally because after all how many times can you be negligent?

One commits a fraud to gain some benefit. If the Buyer in fact received the chip and reported that he didn't receive it, I would agree that was fraud and he would be benefiting from getting the chip and keeping the money.

But if we assume that the buyer did not receive the chip then what benefit would he receive by giving the wrong address? That doesn't mean the buyer is not responsible for the loss, just that his conduct was not fraudulent. Negligent yes, maybe even reckless, but not fraudulent.

If the seller had properly insured the package we would know for certain whether it was received by the buyer or not because it would have to be signed for. I don't see how we can assume that the buyer was acting with bad intentions since he paid for the "optional" insurance which if the seller had actually provided would have prevented the buyer from falsely claiming non-receipt. If the buyer intended to commit fraud we would not expect him to give the wrong address and we certainly would not expect him to pay for postal insurance.

I suspect that the chip will turn up. The wrong city, but correct zipcode is just the sort of error which I would expect would delay delivery.

(On the address issue) I recently made a purchase and provided the correct city name, but my old zipcode (I moved in July). Fotunately for me when the Seller took the item to UPS, UPS found the error and corrected the zipcode.