How I donated Boomba Racing $300, and the awful service I've received

[redline727]

So if everyone is telling the truth the part is in the mailbox??? Haha bc it sounds like even though the driver forged the OP's signature it was stated that the package was put in the mailbox right? It's not there anymore, all investigation thus far leads to it being stolen out of the OP's mailbox. Doesn't the Postal Service have to have that investigated as a crime now???

Sponsored

 

[RiseUpBears]

Its funny that RiseUpBears tries to insult someone but his own insult just fits him exactly like a glove.

Oh, believe me. The irony is clear.

 

[phunk]

[MENTION=13099]phunk[/MENTION] .... wow

glad there is an ignore list. i would say a lot more but there are forum rules about what you can say about someone so I won't go in depth and leave it at that.

Words cannot explain just how crushed I am.

:lol:

 

[BCeagle08]

You guys are all arguing about the wrong thing here.

First, a common carrier is not an "agent" of a seller. I don't know where you are all getting this idea, but it's 100% false. Boomba is not responsible for the actions of the USPS.

Second, the proper legal analysis is who bears the risk of loss when an item is lost, stolen or damaged during shipment. Most states follow the UCC which spells out who has the risk of loss while a product is in the custody of a common carrier.

UCC 2-509, entitled “Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach” provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but

(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

Generally, under the UCC (not looking at specific law for these clowns) if the buyer does not specify a delivery address, the risk of loss is on the buyer as soon as the seller delivers the item to a common carrier. That is, it's up to the buyer to get the package delivered to where they want it. If the buyer does specify a delivery address, like in a online transaction for the delivery of a car part, the risk of loss is on the seller until the item is made available for delivery at the address provided by the buyer (notate, he does not actually have to take delivery for the risk of loss to shift to him).

Here, the seller, who bore the risk of loss until delivery, specifically chose a delivery method that would protect him from loss (requiring signature). Requiring signature is proof that the item was available for delivery at the address requested by the buyer, unequivocally proving that it was available for delivery and pickup by the buyer, and therefore, shifting the risk of loss to the buyer.

Then shit got weird, and you can decide who is at fault, but it's the buyer. The buyer gave instructions to the common carrier which altered the delivery instructions. I'm not sure why he thinks it matters that he wanted it on his porch when they put it in his mailbox, because it doesn't matter. He wanted it left unattended. I'm also not sure why he thinks it matters that the post office supposedly forged his signature. The signature is for the seller's protection, not his. Fact is, the seller bore the risk of loss until it was available for delivery at the address specified by the buyer. This happened. It was made available to him for delivery. In fact, he specifically requested that it be left unattended. It doesn't matter if he actually received it. The risk of loss shifted to the buyer once it was made available for delivery in the manner he requested - at his address unattended.

Boomba is not required to insure anything. They bear the risk of loss until it's delivered. If they think it makes more sense to not buy any insurance, then that's their business decision. If the item was damaged by the USPS during shipment Boomba would be responsible for replacing it and Boomba would have to make a claim against the USPS for damaging his goods.

Facts are that the item was available for delivery to the buyer and subsequently somehow got lost. The risk of loss was on him. If he didn't want to bear the risk of someone stealing his package, he shouldn't have instructed the USPS to leave the package unattended. He should have picked it up from the post office himself. These are basic life skills.

Does it suck that he is out a couple hundred bucks or whatever it is? Absolutely. No one wants to have their shit stolen, but don't blame Boomba for not treating you like a charity case. That's not fair either.

 

[mustangtaxman]

Bashing a company that has been great with offering group buys and creating affordable products that we all want is not cool. Sucks you are out a few hundred bucks, welcome to the real world were not everything works the way it is supposed to.
This should have been kept between you and boomba

 

[Five0GT]

I think it was more the way that boomba responded to him than the fact that they won't replace the shifter.

 

[Five0GT]

I wonder what the person who ended up taking the package will do with a mustang shifter lol

 

[mustangtaxman]

Why would they?
They shipped the product, the tracking says delivered. They are not the bad guys here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Socalmustang]

Funny how the boomba rep does not respond to the presidents comment. Brandon, I remember you tryng to rectify this situation like a month or so ago. I feel bad for you and I'm glad you spoke up...USPS is wrong here as well, but people telling you to fix the problem with them are completely wrong. You won't get anywehre with them.

Booma should have done you right and sent you a replacement. There's been a few times when I've bought things from retailers ($100+) and it would say that my stuff was delivered, but my items were not there. Without hesitation, I got a replacement without haggling. Great customer service always gets my business.

I was actually considering buying a Boomba shift knob, I will never buy anything from that company...That company president is a joke and so is there customer service. Keep doing everything you can...If I were you, I would no longer want their product and want my money back.

Ultimately, they are losing more now than you are. I guarantee they are regretting this now!

 

[brandonsmash]

I'm not sure why he thinks it matters that he wanted it on his porch when they put it in his mailbox, because it doesn't matter. He wanted it left unattended. I'm also not sure why he thinks it matters that the post office supposedly forged his signature.

Do you really not understand the distinction between "hidden and off the street" and "in a mailbox on the street?" One is demonstrably more secure than the other. I left instructions and they were ignored. I signed for the parcel to be delivered only per my instructions. The parcel was not delivered per my instructions, therefore I didn't sign for it. The USPS has acknowledged such.

And you don't see why it matters that the USPS carrier forged my signature? Really? You don't understand why signatures matter on a document?

 

[edillen3953]

You guys are all arguing about the wrong thing here.

First, a common carrier is not an "agent" of a seller. I don't know where you are all getting this idea, but it's 100% false. Boomba is not responsible for the actions of the USPS.

Second, the proper legal analysis is who bears the risk of loss when an item is lost, stolen or damaged during shipment. Most states follow the UCC which spells out who has the risk of loss while a product is in the custody of a common carrier.

UCC 2-509, entitled “Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach” provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but

(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

Generally, under the UCC (not looking at specific law for these clowns) if the buyer does not specify a delivery address, the risk of loss is on the buyer as soon as the seller delivers the item to a common carrier. That is, it's up to the buyer to get the package delivered to where they want it. If the buyer does specify a delivery address, like in a online transaction for the delivery of a car part, the risk of loss is on the seller until the item is made available for delivery at the address provided by the buyer (notate, he does not actually have to take delivery for the risk of loss to shift to him).

Here, the seller, who bore the risk of loss until delivery, specifically chose a delivery method that would protect him from loss (requiring signature). Requiring signature is proof that the item was available for delivery at the address requested by the buyer, unequivocally proving that it was available for delivery and pickup by the buyer, and therefore, shifting the risk of loss to the buyer.

Then shit got weird, and you can decide who is at fault, but it's the buyer. The buyer gave instructions to the common carrier which altered the delivery instructions. I'm not sure why he thinks it matters that he wanted it on his porch when they put it in his mailbox, because it doesn't matter. He wanted it left unattended. I'm also not sure why he thinks it matters that the post office supposedly forged his signature. The signature is for the seller's protection, not his. Fact is, the seller bore the risk of loss until it was available for delivery at the address specified by the buyer. This happened. It was made available to him for delivery. In fact, he specifically requested that it be left unattended. It doesn't matter if he actually received it. The risk of loss shifted to the buyer once it was made available for delivery in the manner he requested - at his address unattended.

Boomba is not required to insure anything. They bear the risk of loss until it's delivered. If they think it makes more sense to not buy any insurance, then that's their business decision. If the item was damaged by the USPS during shipment Boomba would be responsible for replacing it and Boomba would have to make a claim against the USPS for damaging his goods.

Facts are that the item was available for delivery to the buyer and subsequently somehow got lost. The risk of loss was on him. If he didn't want to bear the risk of someone stealing his package, he shouldn't have instructed the USPS to leave the package unattended. He should have picked it up from the post office himself. These are basic life skills.

Does it suck that he is out a couple hundred bucks or whatever it is? Absolutely. No one wants to have their shit stolen, but don't blame Boomba for not treating you like a charity case. That's not fair either.

Wasted words. People buy on reputation (of product and service) or need. He has every right to post on thei forum and the forum members have a right to agree or disagree. A bunch of legaleez is only to make you feel you proved a point. Fair enough. A good majority of businesses would choose either to insure or just replace. The OP never in my mind tried to make himself a charity case.

I use Amazon Prime regularly and have had a few incidents where packages didn't show up as planned. Amazon came thru every time without fail and sent me a replacement. Hence I continue to use them. I'd bet if every time this happened they blasted the customer with some BS federal legal document on the minutiae of how they aren't liable they'd be out of business.

Bad business is bad business.

 

[P4RKER]

These last 5 posts all miss the point that the buyer tried to work with USPS and hit a road block that only Boomba can get around since they are the shipper. The OP requested they work with him to get what was owed by the USPS and he received the response he posted. That is unacceptable. Had he not done any leg work nor ran into the road block that the required Boomba's input you would all be correct. The fact of the matter is only the shipper can do anything and clearly they were unwilling to assist a customer who had already done a significant portion of the work. Threatening to sue a customer who is requesting help with a matter that directly requires the vendors input is uncalled for and unacceptable.

Having already had a rather large issue with another vendor (wits whom several other forum members have had identical experiences to mine) on here I applaud the OP for posting this and hope we as a community can continue to help our fellow mustang owners/enthusiasts.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

 

[RiseUpBears]

I guess you missed the sarcasm in the comment. Yes, the intellectual part. :lol:

But its OK. Many others got it.

I did not miss it. I am a firm believer that if you are going to dish it out, you must expect to get it back in return. I appreciate you being a good sport about it.
Still, I would like to think that our little back and forth brightened this thread up a little. Beats listening to Phunk try to regurgitate the same point 25+ times.

 

[86merc]

I will say Boomba lost a lot more than the 300 going forward.

They should have refunded the customer immediately.

The customer IS always right.

It isn't even $300. What do you think their actual cost is on the shifter and tool? No where near $300. We are talking a relatively small amount of money. They would rather battle this out on a forum and potentially lose a whole lot more than the replacement cost of the shifter and tool. Not very bright in my opinion. But hey, this is the stuff I have heard about them and even what I experienced with dealing with them in person.

I am sure in the long run this is just small issue that will not ruin their company because people have short term memory. But I would be willing to bet they will not sell as much as they could have if this had not played out this way.

Sponsored