Thanks for that thought, Bill. I'll mention it to my son.
Chris
On 21 Feb 2008, at 23:24, NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> I would that say whoever made the decision to only insure it for
> $150 should
> suck up the difference between the true value and the insured
> value. I am
> assuming the item was well packed by your son. I suspect the buyer
> had
> encouraged a stated value less than true value to avoid VAT. If
> that is the case,
> even though your son was a coconspirator, I'd say it was the buyers
> choice
> and therefore his responsibility. My 2 cents worth Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|