An awful lot of bad things have happened over the years by playing the majority/minority game, so you're not going to get a concession there.
I will certainly admit some surprise on my behalf when I consider the following:
- Buyer admits that insurance was offered.
- Buyer admits intentionally not accepting insurance for $5.
- Buyer could have canceled the order prior to placing it if he didn't like the terms.
- Order was possibly lost and wasn't insured and the buyer can't prove that he didn't receive the item.
- Buyer (and most/all here) still desire to hold seller accountable for items 'not received'.
Yep. Still doesn't add up to me. Never will I don't reckon.
BTW, I'm not 'putting the buyer down' in any way, shape, manner or form. He's probably quite the upstanding individual. I simply don't see it as practical to put the accountability/responsibility on the seller that the item is lost in this particular case. Had insurance not been offered, I'd have absolutely no problem with putting this on the seller. But since it WAS offered, and since it was refused and the order could have easily been stopped at that point, then I say it's on the seller at this point.
It's a bit surprising that not another person's willing to admit they agree, or even more so if not another person actually does agree, but I'm pretty firm in my convictions, so no sweating here.