3 ms·

> and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the "loan" + a "convenience fee". So m

by a1369209993 5y ago

> and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the "loan" + a "convenience fee". So mail the bill back with a (obviously-)form letter to the effect of "I did not agree to pay this, whoever told you I would has defrauded you, feel free to send me a letter at this address if you want me to testify against them in court."? > the "recipient pays" logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, > It's supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance. Sounds like evidence/precedent that they're using this mechanism intentionally fraudulently, rather than out of a mistaken belief that you'd actually want that.

derefr 5y ago
Oh definitely they’re using it fraudulently; but whether or not the seller defrauded the logistics provider, it’s the logistics provider that put up the import duty bond. Legally speaking, you owe the logistics provider money separately from any contract between the logistics provider and the seller. And so the logistics provider will attempt to collect on it, up to the point of impacting your credit score. Its similar to if you had a valet park your car, and they parked it in a pay parking lot they don’t have authorization for, and your car got ticketed/towed. The fact that the valet is in trouble, and the fact that you owe money, are independent facts.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > Legally speaking, you owe the logistics provider money separately from any contract between the logistics provider and the seller. No you don't. A transaction occurred That was separate from your quoted price, purchase price, shipping cost, and after a period of time passed since the delivery of the product. The purchaser is not responsible for the costs incurred by other parties. > It's similar to if you had a valet park your car, and they parked it in a pay parking lot they don’t have authorization for, and your car got ticketed/towed. Nope. That scenario is entirely different.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    Even in the valet scenario, the valet would be treated as the one legally responsible for the charges in, say, any sensible small claims court.
    - derefr 5y ago
      No, you're responsible for the costs. The valet is responsible for the damages. Separate things happening at separate times, resolved by separate parties. The valet committed a tort — but you need to actually to sue them to get the money you're owed for that tort. Torts aren't criminal in the sense of the state resolving them in your favor without you doing any of the work. If you do nothing, you end up on the hook for the ticket/tow, and the valet gets away scot-free. Even if you pursue the tort, you'll likely have to pay the towing company before you recover the damages — because those are two separate things. The judge isn't telling the towing company who to charge. The towing company gets to charge you either way; they have a contract with the lot owner saying they can bill whoever owns a car that gets towed. When you sue for the tort, and the judge finds in your favor, the judge is just extracting the money from the other guy, to give to you, in compensation for the money you already had to pay the towing company. Because you did have to pay.

derefr 5y ago

Oh definitely they’re using it fraudulently; but whether or not the seller defrauded the logistics provider, it’s the logistics provider that put up the import duty bond. Legally speaking, you owe the logistics provider money separately from any contract between the logistics provider and the seller. And so the logistics provider will attempt to collect on it, up to the point of impacting your credit score. Its similar to if you had a valet park your car, and they parked it in a pay parking lot they don’t have authorization for, and your car got ticketed/towed. The fact that the valet is in trouble, and the fact that you owe money, are independent facts.

IncRnd 5y ago
> Legally speaking, you owe the logistics provider money separately from any contract between the logistics provider and the seller. No you don't. A transaction occurred That was separate from your quoted price, purchase price, shipping cost, and after a period of time passed since the delivery of the product. The purchaser is not responsible for the costs incurred by other parties. > It's similar to if you had a valet park your car, and they parked it in a pay parking lot they don’t have authorization for, and your car got ticketed/towed. Nope. That scenario is entirely different.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Even in the valet scenario, the valet would be treated as the one legally responsible for the charges in, say, any sensible small claims court.
  - derefr 5y ago
    No, you're responsible for the costs. The valet is responsible for the damages. Separate things happening at separate times, resolved by separate parties. The valet committed a tort — but you need to actually to sue them to get the money you're owed for that tort. Torts aren't criminal in the sense of the state resolving them in your favor without you doing any of the work. If you do nothing, you end up on the hook for the ticket/tow, and the valet gets away scot-free. Even if you pursue the tort, you'll likely have to pay the towing company before you recover the damages — because those are two separate things. The judge isn't telling the towing company who to charge. The towing company gets to charge you either way; they have a contract with the lot owner saying they can bill whoever owns a car that gets towed. When you sue for the tort, and the judge finds in your favor, the judge is just extracting the money from the other guy, to give to you, in compensation for the money you already had to pay the towing company. Because you did have to pay.