Angus wrote:The films left Pro8 in good condition....travelled for a few days in DHL's system and arrived on your doorstep damaged.
That is DHL's responsibility.
If your contract is with Pro8mm, you pay to Pro8mm, you are working with and paying to pro8mm for the whole service, and they are the "sender" that "sends" the item to you, it's their own responsbility to their clients.
Also, DHL would later be responsable to Pro8mm, but you as a client of Pro8mm must not know whether they choose DHL for their returning service, UPS, KKK or GGG.
You've obviously never had something go wrong with a shipment.
When that happens, you have to contact the courier/postal service yourself. It is out of the hands of the vendor.
In this case, once the films left pro8 they were the responsibility of DHL and the *customer* must deal with DHL, not pro8. Yes, it makes sense to phone pro8 first...but they will tell you to take the matter up with DHL and they are legally and morally 100% correct.
As a customer it is up to you whether you ask a business which postal/courier service they use. If you don't like their first choice you may request something different. It is up to the business whether they feel its worth their while offering several choices of courier.
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter
MIKI-814 wrote:If your contract is with Pro8mm, you pay to Pro8mm, you are working with and paying to pro8mm for the whole service, and they are the "sender" that "sends" the item to you, it's their own responsbility to their clients.
what are you basing this on? it doesn't ring true at all. the sender and the recipient are both clients and they both can and should complain to the post office or courier.
But the recipient has no contract, temporary or otherwise, with the courier. There is no legal leverage that the recipient can bring to bear on the courier unless the recipient is paying the courier directly by virtue of placing an order with the courier. So, the sender is really responsible, both contractually and ethically, for making sure that the product arrives to the recipient undamaged. By holding the sender responsible, that creates a chain reaction where the sender either uses another courier in the future or packs the product better to withstand the abuses that the sender now knows the courier inflicts on sent packages. But there is nothing the recipient can demand, legally, of the courier because the recipient had no agreement with the courier and did not place an order with them. That is why when you order something from ebay and it arrives damaged, the recipient can not file a damage claim directly. They can provide pictures and other evidence but the sender is the one that files the claim using evidence provided by the recipient. So the sender refunds the recipient and then the sender gets refunded by the courier that they contracted with. At least that's how it works here in the states.....
On this I completely agree with Roger. First, I don't believe I had a choice of carrier, at least one was not presented when we spoke, only the speed of the delivery was an option. Again, I should be able to expect the same quality handling and service no matter whether I chose overnight, ground or burro.
If I send a vase to my aunt Minnie in Cleveland wrapped in a single sheet of newspaper, I can pretty much know what's going to happen. If the courier accepts the package there may be some chance I can get them to pay up but I really doubt that. The only leverage there is that they accepted the packaging and the contract to deliver it in good condition. I should rightfully be blamed for sending it out in such bad packing. Why would this be any different than say an Ebay purchase of a camera. I wouldn't blame UPS if a Bolex H16 came to me loose in a shoe box. I would certainly blame the guy that sent it that way. I'm pretty sure UPS would see that the same way. They have no idea what the contents are nor should they have to.
I will say this and probably drop the subject as responses are running hot and cold on this one. Just because it's always been this way, that doesn't mean it is now, or ever was the best or right way to send film. Back 30 years ago, marking a pouch or package "Fragile" meant something different than it does today. With the massive amount of packages being sent every day from one place to another, it just isn't the same. People are involved less and the humans that do touch the packages are paid by the piece they deliver or remove from a truck (they have quotas) and naturally the process will suffer as the volume grows.
If we agreed to do everything the way we did 30 years ago just because it was always that way, it's going to be a much different world out there.
Just because it's been that way doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
Sean
This line left intentionally blank
-----------------------------------
Sean McHenry
Deep Blue edit
MovieStuff wrote:But the recipient has no contract, temporary or otherwise, with the courier.
i think you're wrong. i totally see your point but in my experience it's like angus says. the post office is responsible towards the recipient, that much i do know. not sure if the couriers operate under the same legislation.
Angus wrote:
When that happens, you have to contact the courier/postal service yourself. It is out of the hands of the vendor.
That's not how it is here in the USA. I have had numerous instances where an ebay item I purchased arrived destroyed (usually by UPS) and I would call to try and file a claim. In every case, UPS will not even talk to the recipient (me) other than to tell them to contact the shipper to file a claim. The courier will also tell the recipient not to throw away any packaging and to also take pictures, if they can. If the recipient throws away the packaging, then no claim can be filed of any kind by the shipper.
Angus wrote:
In this case, once the films left pro8 they were the responsibility of DHL and the *customer* must deal with DHL, not pro8. Yes, it makes sense to phone pro8 first...but they will tell you to take the matter up with DHL and they are legally and morally 100% correct.
At least here in the states, this is not my experience. When I ship a telecine unit to someone, it is my responsibility to make sure that it arrives undamaged. If the unit arrives damaged or lost (such as the case with DHL), I must replace the unit and then get refunded by the courier for my loss. The only way the recipient could file a claim directly with the courier is if the recipient contacted the courier before shipping and arrainged for a pick up and paid the courier directly.
Angus wrote:
As a customer it is up to you whether you ask a business which postal/courier service they use. If you don't like their first choice you may request something different. It is up to the business whether they feel its worth their while offering several choices of courier.
DeepBlueEditor wrote:I don't believe I had a choice of carrier
of course you did. ultimately you could have not sent your film in the first place if you were unhappy with the delivery options offered.
I should be able to expect the same quality handling and service no matter whether I chose overnight, ground or burro.
but of course, the question is from whom.
If I send a vase to my aunt Minnie in Cleveland wrapped in a single sheet of newspaper, I can pretty much know what's going to happen.
so i take it you send hundreds of vases in single sheets of newspaper every day and have been doing so for decades and pretty much nothing ever happened before? then isn't it reasonable to expect everything to be fine this time as well?
Just because it's been that way doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
what exactly is it that you want to change? you want couriers to stop breaking packages or you want them to stop accepting responsibility when it happens so that the sender will be more careful next time?
MovieStuff wrote:But the recipient has no contract, temporary or otherwise, with the courier.
i think you're wrong. i totally see your point but in my experience it's like angus says. the post office is responsible towards the recipient, that much i do know. not sure if the couriers operate under the same legislation.
/matt
I think that is the difference. The post office is funded by taxes so both the sender and the recipient have, in essence, paid the courier. Thus the recipient can file a claim. But if you used your post office in Sweden to send me an international package here in the states and it arrived damaged, I would have zero recourse in getting a refund other than from you, the sender. I did not pay for the shipping nor do I have any convenant with your postal service. This is especially the case where the package is often handed off to a variety of "in between" couriers, so it would be hard to track down where the damage occured. But if I had paid you for a product and that product did not arrive, then you would be the person I would go to directly.
I mean, imagine if you just sent me an empty box and then I tried to file a claim with DHL, "I ordered a $5000 camera and it's missing. Please refund me $5000." If they actually paid such a claim, there would be a wave of empty boxes arriving all over the world, don't you think? ;)
If Pro-8 washed their hands of it and left you high and dry over the damaged film... to hell with them. What kind of business ethic is that? The question of blame on this is squarely on DHL - Pro 8 had every right to expect the film to arrive and undamaged. However, to abandon the customer when the shipment arrives damaged is unacceptable. Pro 8 is the party versus DHL. You the customer is the party versus Pro 8. You the customer had no contract with DHL... and thus no claim against damages. Pro 8 being in the middle sounds like they want to do a disappearing act. Don't let them.
In the Dunlop case, I can see why Dunlop was not directly affected by the sales either way. They got their money from the initial sale and were basically no longer a party to any further transactions down-line. If I'm reading that right, that one makes sense but I don't think that applies here. For that to work, Pro8mm would have to be suing DHL for damages to Pr08mm and there essentially are none like in the Dunlop case. In fact, the Dunlop case, again, unless I can't wrap this little brain around the legalese this morning (a good bet too) sounds like they were just trying to make a buck off the misfortune of a dealer. Weird to me. The damages would have been to the second party dealer. Then again, I probably didn't read it all that well.
Anyway, this will be the only time I deal with Pro8mm. Someone on another forum in a different older thread said it best perhaps. They are searching for new accounts, not servicing the current customer. And that follows with a WC Fields quote, There's a sucker born every minute. (Or was that PT Barnum?) My brain hurts.
Sean
This line left intentionally blank
-----------------------------------
Sean McHenry
Deep Blue edit
MIKI-814 wrote:If your contract is with Pro8mm, you pay to Pro8mm, you are working with and paying to pro8mm for the whole service, and they are the "sender" that "sends" the item to you, it's their own responsbility to their clients.
what are you basing this on?
Mercantil law
mattias wrote:the sender and the recipient are both clients and they both can and should complain to the post office or courier.
In this case, I am the client of Pro8mm, I am not client of DHL. Also, Pro8mm is the client of DHL because they subcontract the transport/courier with them, but this, is not my business: I have absolutely nothing to do with DHL nor with the commercial agreement between DHL-Pro8mm. This comes to a higher point if I haven't had the possibility of chosing the method of postal returning when signing commercial contract with the company I am paying my money to (Pro8 in this case)
mattias wrote:you as a client of Pro8mm must not know whether they choose DHL
Moreover, you are right there: I could now that or could not, anyway it's not my business. Knowing the name of the company with which Pro8 has agrement to delivery, or even accepting that DHL will do for Pro8 the delivery work delivering the items to my home, does not at all implicate me between them. I am paying my invoice to Pro8, so to me they're the responsible. Later on, Pro8 would have to ask DHL for his responsability.
Last edited by MIKI-814 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Angus wrote:The films left Pro8 in good condition....travelled for a few days in DHL's system and arrived on your doorstep damaged.
That is DHL's responsibility.
If your contract is with Pro8mm, you pay to Pro8mm, you are working with and paying to pro8mm for the whole service, and they are the "sender" that "sends" the item to you, it's their own responsbility to their clients.
Also, DHL would later be responsable to Pro8mm, but you as a client of Pro8mm must not know whether they choose DHL for their returning service, UPS, KKK or GGG.
You've obviously never had something go wrong with a shipment.
Just a few of them... There are many posible cases of delivering/shipping but that would ask for a boring master in International Commerce. In this case, I see it quite clear... you have no contract with DHL at all.
Angus wrote:In this case, once the films left pro8 they were the responsibility of DHL and the *customer* must deal with DHL, not pro8.
I don't agree, DHL's customer is Pro8, not me. When I buy and pay for a film at Pro8 which includes developing and sending, Pro8 is responsible to whatever happens to the film till it's received in the stated adress for returning.
David M. Leugers wrote:Pro 8 is the party versus DHL. You the customer is the party versus Pro 8. You the customer had no contract with DHL... and thus no claim against damages.
Well maybe things are different in the US...I never had need to find out during my time there.
The few times I've had problems with goods being delivered in the UK I have always been told the same thing...which is that once the goods leave the vendor they cease to be the responsibility of the vendor and that I have to take up any issues with the postal/courier service myself.
I once discussed this with Initial Citylink after they failed to find my place of employment on two separate days for a "next day delivery"...I found it odd as their local depot was visible from my window...anyway they confirmed that it was my responsibilty to deal with them as they had the goods in their hands and the goods belonged to me (as they'd been paid for).
I can quite see how one might assume that the vendor has a contract with a delivery service....must be different ways of doing things...
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter
