Can I sue for lost property?

[justalayman]

BigMouthWino;3107805]I do not see where the OP states that the tapes were shipped back to them via USPS. This is an assumption made in several follow up replies that appears to be completely without basis.

unless I missed it, I believe I am the only one that made that assumption. Why? I have no idea.

Additionally, insurance procured to protect a shipment generally has to be claimed by the SHIPPER not the RECIPIENT.

but if there were discussions concerning insuring the materials, it does become pertinent. If the OP requested the shipment be insured and the processor had agreed and failed to obtain insurance, there is a basis for a claim against the processor simply due to the failure to procure the insurance even if the shipper themselves were 100% liable for the actual loss.

OP I would say based on what the informed Senior Members latigo and Stevef have posted above your best cause of action is against the company you hired to digitize the tapes.

but if you would read the Mieske case, there are some very important differences.

The film was lost or destroyed by the retailer's processing agent.

Bartell sent the film package to defendant GAF Corporation, which intended to send them to another processing lab for splicing. Plaintiffs assumed that Bartell did this 43*43 service and were unaware of the involvement of two other firms.

The bag of films arrived at the processing lab of GAF. The manager of the GAF lab described the service ordered and the packaging as very unusual. Yet it is undisputed that the film was in the GAF lab at the end of one day and gone the next morning. The manager immediately searched the garbage disposal dumpster which already had been emptied. The best guess is that the plaintiffs' film went from GAF's lab to the garbage dumpster to a truck to a barge to an up-Sound landfill where it may yet repose.

additionally, the case cited is an appeal on ONLY the damages. The defendants/appellants accepted liability for negligence for the purposes of the appeal.

Basically, there is nothing in the Meiske case other than establishing damages that is germane to the issue at hand. The circumstances surrounding the loss of the materials is nothing similar to the case at hand. As such, it is not applicable for the purposes of establishing liability and in the case cited, the determination of liability isn't even discussed.

If they choose to make a claim with the shipping company, assist them with it, but unless there was a contract stating the items were FOB the place of shipment they're liable.

so far I have seen nothing in this thread from stevef or latigo actually showing liability on the processor. Not saying there isn't but so far I don't see it.

 

[justalayman]

Do you know of an established principal of law or federal regulations that recognize the OP as having a claim against the shipping carrier, again, with whom he has no privity of contract. If so, please pass it along.

.

3rd party beneficiary?

 

[BigMouthWino]

so far I have seen nothing in this thread from stevef or latigo actually showing liability on the processor. Not saying there isn't but so far I don't see it.

Oh give it up JAL! Unless there is a contract between the parties stating that this merchandise was FOB at the time and place of shipment the merchant is responsible to deliver the goods ordered to their customer. Not just ship it. You rarely see FOB disclaimers in consumer transactions, so it is highly unlikely that exists here.

 

[justalayman]

Oh give it up JAL! Unless there is a contract between the parties stating that this merchandise was FOB at the time and place of shipment the merchant is responsible to deliver the goods ordered to their customer. Not just ship it. You rarely see FOB disclaimers in consumer transactions, so it is highly unlikely that exists here.

so, what does the contract say to:

the issue of liability for shipping damages

the agreed value of the items

the obligation on the processor to do anything other than copy the tapes and ship them, and yes, this is a lot more common that you want to accept.

and any discussion concerning insurance. If the processor informed the OP that they are not liable for shipping damage and need to purchase insurance for that, it becomes the OPs loss.

When you have that, we'll talk. Until then, you are guessing.


Oh, and to this:

I do not see where the OP states that the tapes were shipped back to them via USPS. This is an assumption made in several follow up replies that appears to be completely without basis.

colin caster

That's why we send 'em out to be digitized.
This is correct. Digitizing was our effort to back up our videos. Had we the equipment to back up our own videos, the service would not have been necessary.

In my view, the company (1) failed to deliver the goods promised, and (2) lost our property. sandyclaus seems to be arguing that the company's responsibility for our property ended once they went to the post office. That doesn't seem very convincing to me on its face. Is there statute or case law to support this argument?

Notice something in there? Like, maybe where the OP said the POST OFFICE? The OP is the person that brought the post office into the discussion. I guess the only assumption was made by you.