Author Topic: FS [Sold]: Scope LeCroy DDA-260 (WavePro 960), BW 2GHz, 16 GS/s, 4 channel  (Read 1091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
The LeCroy DDA-260 is a WavePro 960, which is additionally equipped with special software for measuring hard disk parameters. In addition, this version includes some important software modules (JTA, WAVA).

bandwidth: 2GHz, 4 channels
acquisition memory: single channel 64MB, quad channel 16MB
Sampling rate: single channel 16 GS/s, quad channel 4 GS/s

The instrument is in good condition, bright display, floppy disk and built-in printer work as well as GPIB and LAN interface.

All 4 channels are working within specification, see picture.

The instrument is in good cosmetic condition, there are only a few remains of stickers. The front protection cover is present.

The device is delivered without warranty, but I grant a right of return of 1 week, if it does not meet its specification significantly.

Price 1350€ plus shipping costs. I recommend a sufficiently insured shipping, since the shipping risk is with the buyer.

Shipping only to EU countries.

Regards Dieter
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 09:31:37 am by djac »
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
And some more pictures.
 

Offline dunkemhigh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1710
Quote
since the shipping risk is with the buyer

Really? The buyer has no control over the packing and has no contract with the shipper, yet he takes all the risk? I thought it was usual for the seller to take the risk until it's delivered. The seller knows the cost of shipping and has the contract with the shipper after all. The price of shipping should include whatever the seller deems to be worth the risk to him, covering packaging, shipping and insurance (if any).
 

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Country: gb
Yeh, e.g. with eBay all the shipping risk is with the seller.
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
With whom the risk lies is a question of what the supply contract provides for. If nothing is agreed, it may be that the risk lies with the seller.

A delivery is an ancillary purchase service that has its additional price. Since neither I nor the buyer have any influence (apart from careful packaging) on the quality of the delivery service, I therefore always recommend an adequately insured shipment, which of course costs extra. If the buyer decides against it, he has to bear this part of the risk as well.

Regards Dieter
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9491
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Yeh, e.g. with eBay all the shipping risk is with the seller.
i think not necessarily. this is where tracking number play its role and presented to ebay/paypal as proof. to be fair, when the shipment is tracked to be closer to the buyer, its should be buyer's risk so he have to retrieve the parcel by contacting local agent etc. its logical to think for international shipping. when the parcel reached destination country, the seller has no control over it anymore. with exception if the seller insists on hung-low courier service when buyer requested higher grade service. but since this is FS:EU ad, i dont think not much problem to either seller or buyer to retrieve back the parcel, if tracking number exists.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online grizewald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 425
  • Country: se
The person who purchases the shipping is the one who has a contract with the shipper. Therefore, the recipient of a shipment is NOT the person who has the contract with the shipper.

It therefore follows that any risks associated with shipping are the responsibility of the seller and not the buyer.
  Lord of Sealand
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
The person who purchases the shipping is the one who has a contract with the shipper. Therefore, the recipient of a shipment is NOT the person who has the contract with the shipper.

It therefore follows that any risks associated with shipping are the responsibility of the seller and not the buyer.

No, this is so not right. The seller orders the delivery service because it is more practical to handle, but neither the delivery itself is a service of the seller nor the transport has anything to do with the actual object of sale. It is an additional service that the buyer needs and a third party that provides it.

As far as I know, the buyer also negotiates with the delivery service for compensation if the package is lost.

But the request not to continue the certainly interesting discussion here in the sales thread.


Regards Dieter
 

Online grizewald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 425
  • Country: se
The person who purchases the shipping is the one who has a contract with the shipper. Therefore, the recipient of a shipment is NOT the person who has the contract with the shipper.

It therefore follows that any risks associated with shipping are the responsibility of the seller and not the buyer.

No, this is so not right. The seller orders the delivery service because it is more practical to handle, but neither the delivery itself is a service of the seller nor the transport has anything to do with the actual object of sale. It is an additional service that the buyer needs and a third party that provides it.

As far as I know, the buyer also negotiates with the delivery service for compensation if the package is lost.

But the request not to continue the certainly interesting discussion here in the sales thread.


Regards Dieter

I won't continue the discussion any further than this post Dieter, but you are mistaken. The person who purchases the shipping is the person who makes a contract with the shipper. The buyer must ask the seller to resolve shipping problems.

How do I know? I work for the Swedish Post.
  Lord of Sealand
 

Offline Noy

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Country: de
Maybe a hint / city me would be interesting for pickup?
 

Online Pinkus

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
When a package is lost or damaged, the seller will have to do all the paper work and will have the hassle with the postal/courier service. As they already got their money, their efforts often are low. And you never know if (and when) they will get money back from the shipment-insurance. You as the receiver will get no information from the shipping companies, they will turn you down and talk only to their business partner which is the sender (the one who paid them for the shipping). I have been there several times and decided, it will not happen again.

To eliminate this problem, I am always (with expensive stuff) acting as sender and receiver (why shouldn't you send a package to your home if you are abroad):
What I often do: I as the buyer will organize a pickup (e.g. UPS or DHL) or will send the seller a prepaid shipping label as a PDF file.

The sending address then is:
My name
c/o senders name
senders address

By this, I do have control about the shipping process (though not the quality of the packaging) and are able to discuss everything directly with the shipping company. The only hassle you will have to go through is to get exact measures and weight of the package from the seller.
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
Maybe a hint / city me would be interesting for pickup?

I'm living in Aachen. There you could pick up the device. Details per PM.

Regards Dieter
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18893
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
As far as I know, the buyer also negotiates with the delivery service for compensation if the package is lost.
Definitely not (it is a common misconception though). The one who pays the shipper is responsible. So if you send the parcel & pay for shipping the responsibility is entirely up to you. If something gets lost it is up to you to track it down and / or reimburse the buyer. This is why I only send expensive equipment out with proper insurance.

@Pinkus: your method is risky. I rather have the seller being responsible for a package until I signed for it at my doorstep. Getting money back is something I leave to Paypal / the credit card company.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 10:48:52 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online TopLoser

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: gb
What djac means is that if the buyer pays the extra for insured shipping then it will be shipped using an  insured service

If the seller wants to save money and take the risk of not paying for insured shipping then it’s their responsibility if there is an issue. Caveat Emptor.
 

Offline Zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2479
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
Very nice beast!
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18893
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
What djac means is that if the buyer pays the extra for insured shipping then it will be shipped using an  insured service

If the seller wants to save money and take the risk of not paying for insured shipping then it’s their responsibility if there is an issue. Caveat Emptor.
Better get that in writing from the buyer. I wouldn't want to take that risk. What if the package gets lost on purpose? Over here the law is on the side of the buyer so the seller must prove an item has been delivered.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Country: gb
Also beware insurance caveats - often shipped devices with LCD display screens are exluded.
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
Because of the different opinions I researched the legal regulations in Germany. In other countries it might be different of course, but probably it is the same or similar in the EU countries.

Purchase of private

The German Civil Code (BGB) provides clear rules for the so-called mail order purchase: If the seller dispatches the sold item at the request of the buyer, the risk of dispatch passes to the buyer as soon as the seller has handed over the item to the courier service or the post office (§ 447 BGB). In other words: If the seller - as on eBay - is to ship the item, the buyer bears the shipping risk.

Purchase from a commercial dealer

If an online purchase does not take place between 2 private individuals, but between an entrepreneur and a consumer, different rules apply. It is then a so-called consumer goods purchase (§ 474 BGB), in which the provision on the sale to destination (§ 447 BGB) is not applicable.

In this case the seller always bears the risk of shipment. He must therefore make an insured shipment or live with the risk. By the way, this is mandatory law which cannot be changed by agreements between the contracting parties.

Therefore, once again we ask you not to continue this discussion in this sales thread.

Regards Dieter
 

Offline Zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2479
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
Therefore, once again we ask you not to continue this discussion in this sales thread.

I am always happy for discussions (regardless) about what I sell here, I get my items bumped in the first page/row automatically.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 08:22:44 am by Zucca »
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 
The following users thanked this post: Ice-Tea, thinkfat

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Country: gb
But if the 'thing' is damaged during shipping, the buyer can then legitimately state the item is defective:

Section 437
Rights of buyer in the case of defects

If the thing is defective, the buyer may, provided the requirements of the following provisions are met and unless otherwise specified,

1.  under section 439, demand cure,

2.  revoke the agreement under sections 440, 323 and 326 (5) or reduce the purchase price under section 441, and

3.  under sections 440, 280, 281, 283 and 311a, demand damages, or under section 284, demand reimbursement of futile expenditure.


 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
But if the 'thing' is damaged during shipping, the buyer can then legitimately state the item is defective:

Section 437
Rights of buyer in the case of defects

If the thing is defective, the buyer may, provided the requirements of the following provisions are met and unless otherwise specified,

1.  under section 439, demand cure,

2.  revoke the agreement under sections 440, 323 and 326 (5) or reduce the purchase price under section 441, and

3.  under sections 440, 280, 281, 283 and 311a, demand damages, or under section 284, demand reimbursement of futile expenditure.

This requires an answer once again.

In the case of a sale from private to private, §437 BGB is only applicable to the extent that the buyer can demand the return of the compensation actually paid by the delivery service to the seller because the package was damaged or lost during transport.

He cannot assert further claims because the so-called transfer of risk to the buyer (§446 BGB) took place at the moment the buyer handed over the package to the delivery service. Unless he can prove that the seller did not package the device appropriately. In this case the private seller must also compensate the buyer.

Regards Dieter
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 05:49:41 pm by djac »
 

Offline jadew

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 453
  • Country: ro
But if the 'thing' is damaged during shipping, the buyer can then legitimately state the item is defective:

Section 437
Rights of buyer in the case of defects

If the thing is defective, the buyer may, provided the requirements of the following provisions are met and unless otherwise specified,

1.  under section 439, demand cure,

2.  revoke the agreement under sections 440, 323 and 326 (5) or reduce the purchase price under section 441, and

3.  under sections 440, 280, 281, 283 and 311a, demand damages, or under section 284, demand reimbursement of futile expenditure.

This requires an answer once again.

In the case of a sale from private to private, §437 BGB is only applicable to the extent that the buyer can demand the return of the compensation actually paid by the delivery service to the seller because the package was damaged or lost during transport.

He cannot assert further claims because the so-called transfer of risk to the buyer (§446 BGB) took place at the moment the buyer handed over the package to the delivery service. Unless he can prove that the seller did not package the device appropriately. In this case the private seller must also compensate the buyer.

Regards Dieter

Why would it be different when buying from a private person? This means that one way or another, that law is unfair.

If it's fair for a company to take the risk of shipping, then it isn't fair to shift the burden to the customer when buying from a private person. If it's fair for the burden to be with the customer, when buying from a private person, then it isn't fair for that burden to be shifted to the company, in case the seller is a company.

No matter the way you look at it, it's broken.

I think in this year, 2020, everyone expects to either get what they bought or get their money back. Even the chinese adhere to this and they have complete disregard for almost everything else.

Sure, you can state that those are your terms and the buyer should agree to them before committing, but I think it makes potential buyers question your motives and it might work against you in the end.
 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
Why should the law be unfair?

It is the buyer who needs the transport, not the seller, who only has to make sure that the equipment, as long as it is in his possession, has the characteristics that he promised the buyer.

It does not change this principle if the seller organises the transport by means of a delivery service (this is usual because it is more practical). After all, he cannot influence the quality of the delivery service, so how can the law hold him responsible for the success of the delivery?

How crazy the contrary legal principle would be, can be seen from the fact that the buyer "orders" himself, picks up the equipment and has an accident on the return trip. If the opposite legal principle were to apply, the seller would still be liable.

Everyone can only be held responsible for what is also his own performance. If the buyer wants to avoid his transport risk, he has to choose insured shipping and pay for it.

Regards Dieter
 

Offline dunkemhigh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1710
Quote
It is the buyer who needs the transport, not the seller

They both need the transport. It is arguable who needs it the most, but if the seller can't deliver then he probably has no sale.

Quote
After all, [the seller] cannot influence the quality of the delivery service

On the contrary, it is he who has a contract with the delivery service, so it is he who can influence them by firstly selecting the service and then holding them to account if they fail to provide the service he has contracted them for.

Quote
It does not change this principle if the seller organises the transport

I wonder if there is a little confusion here. Whoever contracts with the shipper is the one that should hold the risk. Normally, it is the seller that does this, but the buyer can organise a shipper instead. In that case, the seller gives up the risk the moment the shipper takes charge. Perhaps that's what the wording of the regulations you quoted mean?

Of course, the buyer may say to the seller that he wants it shipped by so-and-so. But he has still not organised the shipping - it is the seller that is contracting the shipper, still, so takes the risk until delivery. For the buyer to be responsible, he would have to contract the shipper by a) paying them and b) instructing them himself. That isn't what normally happens, not least because it costs a lot more than for the seller to just put the thing in the post :)

Quote
Everyone can only be held responsible for what is also his own performance.

Indeed, and it our hypothetical case it is the seller who is responsible for delivery. The shipper is the seller's agent, acting on the seller's instructions and answerable to the seller.

 

Offline djac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 37
  • Country: de
The main error in your reasoning is that you see sales and shipping as one coherent and inseparable act for which the seller is fully responsible.

You can certainly find arguments for this view. But what good is it if the law is based on another basis, namely that the two acts are to be separated and the seller is liable for a faultless product and the buyer has to bear the shipping risk. This principle is also not undermined by the fact that the seller usually orders and organises the shipment. However, this does not make him responsible for the success of the shipment.

In the event of a conflict, any judge will judge according to the law and not according to the sense of justice of the parties involved.

This principle of law applies to shipping from private to private and equally to commercial to commercial.

Only for the dispatch from commercial to private an exception is valid. It is intended to protect the weaker party (the private buyer).

Regards Dieter
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 10:42:44 pm by djac »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf