4 ms·

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that F

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. Even after their "higher ups" got involved all that FedEx could do was "huh, sucks to be you I guess?" Does freight shipment not have insurance? What's going on here?

steve918 2y ago
This isn't surprising at all if you have every had an interaction with Fedex.
- therein 2y ago
  Every time I bought an electric unicycle, it got stolen at South San Francisco branch. It is totally reproducible, happened 3 times. One time I found some higher up at FedEx on LinkedIn and sent them an InMail. The regional manager really pushed this issue to highest priority for the branch. Branch managers got CC'ed in, drivers, people working at the warehouse; it was an all hands on deck situation. They reassured me that they have cameras everywhere and it couldn't be stolen. It was stolen. They don't know who did it. FedEx is terrible.
- brk 2y ago
  FWIW, I've had really good interactions with FedEx for the most part. Including for Apple hardware, where I had a FedEx driver pull into the end of my long driveway, wait 5 seconds and then leave. They marked the signature-required MacBook Air as "undeliverable, nobody home", while I was in fact home and waiting for the delivery. Called the local FedEx hub and they sent the driver back to me.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with FedEx then.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
This reminds me of the recent story where an Uber courier stole two MacBooks, there was no signature, CCTV showing no delivery, and Apple was just like "our carrier has completed the requested investigation, and no further action will be taken by Apple."
- Maxious 2y ago
  Back in the old days Apple Security was ruthless about tracking down lost hardware https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/01/apple-staffer-loses-iphone https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/01/apple-sta... These days you have to beg them to take their proprietary prototype hardware back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeEHdAmJDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeEHdAmJDg
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    I mean, I'm sure Apple's still the same for their own stuff. But retail is a whole different beast.
- agos 2y ago
  I wonder if this tunes changes once lawyers are involved
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    given that those mac's would have been 4-5k? I sure as heck would have at least consulted a lawyer. I don't want to just lazily have my package stolen in real time. if no one else is seeking justice, I will at least poke the blind woman a bit.
- yard2010 2y ago
  When you're the one making the rules, enforcing them and judging who breaks them, you can basically do whatever you want as long as you pay taxes :)
  - 2y ago
raybb 2y ago
Would playdate be able to sue FedEx or take them to small claims court or do you sign something when you use FedEx that says you can't sue them for XYZ?
- sweetjuly 2y ago
  $400k is quite a bit more than they typically let you pursue in small claims court :)
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    In this economy? Don't worry just give it 20 years ;)
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  'you cannot sue us for not doing the only thing you are paying us for (delivering your goods)' sounds like an inconscionable clause. Surely any worthwhile legal system would make such clauses illegal. Otherwise many scams (fake invoicing, for example) would be essentially legal as long the perp buried a clause in a contract.
whazor 2y ago
Shipment insurance is normally an optional add-on. IMO, if the shipper doesn’t get it, it is on them. It is nicer for the shipper to decide the value and pay the corresponding price for that. Because you need to know the replacement value of that lost item. This is dependent on all kinds of factors.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Is there any scenario where someone would knowingly decide not to take insurance on a 400k shipment? What would be the reason for doing so? In this case the shipper is the company behind the Playdate, so it seems weird to me they wouldn't insure their own stock. But maybe there's a good reason why this isn't done?
  - soneil 2y ago
    It's not unusual to effectively self-insure for shipping. If insurance costs you more than lost shipments, it stops making sense to pay for insurance. If insurance costs less than lost shipments, it stops making sense for the insurer to offer you insurance at that rate. Insurance works when the loss is disruptive to your cashflow. If I can't afford to absorb that loss right now, it may be worth finding an insurer that can. If I can afford to absorb that cost, it's almost always better to leave my money working for me, than working for the insurer. If you're shipping in volume, self-insurance almost always works out better. You can bet amazon don't insure their shipments to you. If they take the potential cost of insurance, stick it in a pot, and dip into it when there's a shipping issue - that pot should never run dry. If that pot runs dry, it means insurers are operating at a loss, and they're not going to stay in business long.
  - sakjur 2y ago
    I’m not sure about Playdate, but for a larger company, it’ll be beneficial to stop paying fpr the insurance after a while — the insurance companies bank on the difference between risk tolerance for individuals and in groups. Your liquidity might not be able to survive an event that is fairly insignificant in the context of a larger group (say your house burning down — devastating for you, but zooming out to a city-level it happens occasionally). Larger companies can develop a higher risk tolerance in-house and eliminate the middle hand, and that’ll let them siphon the excess to their shareholders rather than the insurance company.
michaelt 2y ago
> all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. [...] What's going on here? Basically a lot of global logistics runs on trust. If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything like that. He just pulls up to the building that says FooCorp on it, says "got a delivery for FooCorp", they let him in and he accepts any name and signature from whoever is near the door.
- gambiting 2y ago
  >>If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything like that. Obviously. But if there is 400 grand on the line, you'd think someone would actually check(when the claim is made). The receiver would say "you have a signature from person X. Person X doesn't actually work here". Fedex then says "ok, prove it" - and then the receiver does, in whatever way is legally acceptable. Edit: in fact, let me add a bit more - if the shipment was delivered to the right address just signed by someone who didn't actually work there then sure, I think FedEx would be in the clear. But they delivered the parcel to the wrong place - the fact that it was signed for by someone is almost irrelevant, it's the same as having no signature at all.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Better controlled delivery services presumably exist for things like delivering cash to banks, drugs to pharmacies and suchlike. Hell, there are food delivery companies where the customer gets a secret code they have to give to the driver. As far as FedEx is concerned, though? They were not contracted to get any specific name or signature. They were contracted to deliver to a certain address. The GPS says the driver went to the right address, to within the accuracy of a GPS trace. The driver got a name and signature at that time. The driver marked the delivery as successful in their computer. Maybe they call up the driver and say "Did you deliver to the wrong address?" and the driver says "I don't think so, but I make a lot of deliveries so I can't say for sure." Sure, in reality the pallet was dropped off in the parking lot across the road from Ship Fusion, instead of at Ship Fusion. But FedEx's records say everything is in order. To be clear I'm not saying this is good, I'm just saying it's normal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

steve918 2y ago

This isn't surprising at all if you have every had an interaction with Fedex.

therein 2y ago
Every time I bought an electric unicycle, it got stolen at South San Francisco branch. It is totally reproducible, happened 3 times. One time I found some higher up at FedEx on LinkedIn and sent them an InMail. The regional manager really pushed this issue to highest priority for the branch. Branch managers got CC'ed in, drivers, people working at the warehouse; it was an all hands on deck situation. They reassured me that they have cameras everywhere and it couldn't be stolen. It was stolen. They don't know who did it. FedEx is terrible.
brk 2y ago
FWIW, I've had really good interactions with FedEx for the most part. Including for Apple hardware, where I had a FedEx driver pull into the end of my long driveway, wait 5 seconds and then leave. They marked the signature-required MacBook Air as "undeliverable, nobody home", while I was in fact home and waiting for the delivery. Called the local FedEx hub and they sent the driver back to me.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with FedEx then.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

This reminds me of the recent story where an Uber courier stole two MacBooks, there was no signature, CCTV showing no delivery, and Apple was just like "our carrier has completed the requested investigation, and no further action will be taken by Apple."

Maxious 2y ago
Back in the old days Apple Security was ruthless about tracking down lost hardware https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/01/apple-staffer-loses-iphone https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/01/apple-sta... These days you have to beg them to take their proprietary prototype hardware back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeEHdAmJDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeEHdAmJDg
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  I mean, I'm sure Apple's still the same for their own stuff. But retail is a whole different beast.
agos 2y ago
I wonder if this tunes changes once lawyers are involved
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  given that those mac's would have been 4-5k? I sure as heck would have at least consulted a lawyer. I don't want to just lazily have my package stolen in real time. if no one else is seeking justice, I will at least poke the blind woman a bit.
yard2010 2y ago
When you're the one making the rules, enforcing them and judging who breaks them, you can basically do whatever you want as long as you pay taxes :)
- 2y ago

raybb 2y ago

Would playdate be able to sue FedEx or take them to small claims court or do you sign something when you use FedEx that says you can't sue them for XYZ?

sweetjuly 2y ago
$400k is quite a bit more than they typically let you pursue in small claims court :)
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  In this economy? Don't worry just give it 20 years ;)
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
'you cannot sue us for not doing the only thing you are paying us for (delivering your goods)' sounds like an inconscionable clause. Surely any worthwhile legal system would make such clauses illegal. Otherwise many scams (fake invoicing, for example) would be essentially legal as long the perp buried a clause in a contract.

whazor 2y ago

Shipment insurance is normally an optional add-on. IMO, if the shipper doesn’t get it, it is on them. It is nicer for the shipper to decide the value and pay the corresponding price for that. Because you need to know the replacement value of that lost item. This is dependent on all kinds of factors.

gambiting 2y ago
Is there any scenario where someone would knowingly decide not to take insurance on a 400k shipment? What would be the reason for doing so? In this case the shipper is the company behind the Playdate, so it seems weird to me they wouldn't insure their own stock. But maybe there's a good reason why this isn't done?
- soneil 2y ago
  It's not unusual to effectively self-insure for shipping. If insurance costs you more than lost shipments, it stops making sense to pay for insurance. If insurance costs less than lost shipments, it stops making sense for the insurer to offer you insurance at that rate. Insurance works when the loss is disruptive to your cashflow. If I can't afford to absorb that loss right now, it may be worth finding an insurer that can. If I can afford to absorb that cost, it's almost always better to leave my money working for me, than working for the insurer. If you're shipping in volume, self-insurance almost always works out better. You can bet amazon don't insure their shipments to you. If they take the potential cost of insurance, stick it in a pot, and dip into it when there's a shipping issue - that pot should never run dry. If that pot runs dry, it means insurers are operating at a loss, and they're not going to stay in business long.
- sakjur 2y ago
  I’m not sure about Playdate, but for a larger company, it’ll be beneficial to stop paying fpr the insurance after a while — the insurance companies bank on the difference between risk tolerance for individuals and in groups. Your liquidity might not be able to survive an event that is fairly insignificant in the context of a larger group (say your house burning down — devastating for you, but zooming out to a city-level it happens occasionally). Larger companies can develop a higher risk tolerance in-house and eliminate the middle hand, and that’ll let them siphon the excess to their shareholders rather than the insurance company.

michaelt 2y ago

> all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. [...] What's going on here? Basically a lot of global logistics runs on trust. If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything like that. He just pulls up to the building that says FooCorp on it, says "got a delivery for FooCorp", they let him in and he accepts any name and signature from whoever is near the door.

gambiting 2y ago
>>If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything like that. Obviously. But if there is 400 grand on the line, you'd think someone would actually check(when the claim is made). The receiver would say "you have a signature from person X. Person X doesn't actually work here". Fedex then says "ok, prove it" - and then the receiver does, in whatever way is legally acceptable. Edit: in fact, let me add a bit more - if the shipment was delivered to the right address just signed by someone who didn't actually work there then sure, I think FedEx would be in the clear. But they delivered the parcel to the wrong place - the fact that it was signed for by someone is almost irrelevant, it's the same as having no signature at all.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Better controlled delivery services presumably exist for things like delivering cash to banks, drugs to pharmacies and suchlike. Hell, there are food delivery companies where the customer gets a secret code they have to give to the driver. As far as FedEx is concerned, though? They were not contracted to get any specific name or signature. They were contracted to deliver to a certain address. The GPS says the driver went to the right address, to within the accuracy of a GPS trace. The driver got a name and signature at that time. The driver marked the delivery as successful in their computer. Maybe they call up the driver and say "Did you deliver to the wrong address?" and the driver says "I don't think so, but I make a lot of deliveries so I can't say for sure." Sure, in reality the pallet was dropped off in the parking lot across the road from Ship Fusion, instead of at Ship Fusion. But FedEx's records say everything is in order. To be clear I'm not saying this is good, I'm just saying it's normal.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]