HEFFERNAN

Huge Member
It was nice that the bank ended up doing the right thing.

I believe there is a rule in the shipping policy about shipping irreplaceable items.
I think even if it was insured for that much, the fine print would exonerate UPS.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
It was nice that the bank ended up doing the right thing.

I believe there is a rule in the shipping policy about shipping irreplaceable items.
I think even if it was insured for that much, the fine print would exonerate UPS.
What are you insuring?



Had a customer once wanting to insure a 12k check. Sup was with me. He said yeah it's insured for the 50 cents it'll cost to write another check.
 

HEFFERNAN

Huge Member
What are you insuring?



Had a customer once wanting to insure a 12k check. Sup was with me. He said yeah it's insured for the 50 cents it'll cost to write another check.

Obviously, this check was basically considered a wad of money, according to TD Canada Trust policy.
It kind of screws with your thought and UPS policy that it was only a piece of paper.
For it to go the press for them to do the right thing and cancel the former check is staggering.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
When I was a preloader, small air would be unloaded en masse near the end of the sort. Which is also when loaders typically have minimal walk space in the trucks and on the belt. So loaders are moving more slowly, spending more time in their trucks wrapping up and paying less attention to the belt.

Pretty safe bet that this particular envelope was paper thin, slipped past its intended loader and was sucked into the crack leading to the motor drive at the end of the belt.

For it to go the press for them to do the right thing and cancel the former check is staggering.

Yep, zero sense. And what a stupid clickbait headline.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Obviously, this check was basically considered a wad of money, according to TD Canada Trust policy.
It kind of screws with your thought and UPS policy that it was only a piece of paper.
For it to go the press for them to do the right thing and cancel the former check is staggering.
Think it was just a matter of ups vs them trying to bully the inheritance receivers around.
 

badpal

Well-Known Member
When I was a preloader, small air would be unloaded en masse near the end of the sort. Which is also when loaders typically have minimal walk space in the trucks and on the belt. So loaders are moving more slowly, spending more time in their trucks wrapping up and paying less attention to the belt.

Pretty safe bet that this particular envelope was paper thin, slipped past its intended loader and was sucked into the crack leading to the motor drive at the end of the belt.



Yep, zero sense. And what a stupid clickbait headline.
About twice a year at our small center when they work on the belt drives, they always find a couple torn nda envelopes inside.
 

Coldworld

Well-Known Member
It was nice that the bank ended up doing the right thing.

I believe there is a rule in the shipping policy about shipping irreplaceable items.
I think even if it was insured for that much, the fine print would exonerate UPS.
But how much did they loose in the confidence of the public’s impression of us... hell, both my wife and my news blind dad both told me about this...the bank should have sent it early am... those pkgs are about the only ones treated like royalty....would have been worth the 100 bucks considering it was almost a 900k check...
 

Coldworld

Well-Known Member
Obviously, this check was basically considered a wad of money, according to TD Canada Trust policy.
It kind of screws with your thought and UPS policy that it was only a piece of paper.
For it to go the press for them to do the right thing and cancel the former check is staggering.
Damn check is probably stuck in some Gears or under some box line... probably find it in 6 months when they do maintenance...
 
Top