... to rest here, Stuby:

You are absolutely correct about this:

>> In this case, had the seller properly insured the item and/or
>> shipped the item in accordance with the PayPal buyer/seller
>> protection policies, this discussion would not be taking place.

Unfortunately, that statement has nothing to do with the one that follows:

>> There was a lengthy discussion on this board some time back about auction
>> insurance etc and the great legal minds on this board told me I was wrong.
>> Maybe those same legal minds will now help this seller recover his loss.

What the "great legal minds on this board" said was that unless otherwise agreed, the risk of loss in shipment is on the seller. In this case, the seller failed to properly protect himself against that risk. His auction contract offered insurance which was (unfortunately for him) inadequate. It did not otherwise shift the risk of loss to the buyer.

Nothing that I (or anyone else who disagreed with you on this subject) said can be read to suggest that what Mike did here would have passed the risk of loss to the buyer.

On the other hand, your statement that ...

>> The seller is responsible for delivery of the item ... PERIOD.

... is just wrong ... PERIOD.

Here's what the Uniform Commercial Code has to say on the subject. Much of it has nothing to do with our discussion, but I am including the entire provision to avoid any possible claim that it is misquoted or selectively presented. Note the emphasized portion of paragraph (4):

§ 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 ).

"The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties ...." You can read plain English, can't you, Stu? If the parties agree otherwise, the normal rule of seller risk is replaced by whatever the parties agree upon. PERIOD.

By the way, are you ever going to prove that I "openly threatened" you with the "apparently secret 'do not trade list'"? Or admit that you made that accusation falsely?

Nah, that would take personal courage and intellectual honesty, neither of which you have thus far exhibited.

----- jim o\-S