In number 3, you say, and I have seen a number of people write this opinion before:

When I've been given the opportunity to decline insurance and have chosen to do that, I know in my heart of hearts that I am taking responsibility for the item if it gets lost because I was wanting to save a couple dollars.

This is, quite simply, wrong. The law is straightforward and simple. The seller bears the burden of loss until delivery. Insurance or no, the rule does not change. Can the rule be changed? Yes, but it takes an explicit agreement between the parties. The auction would have to say something like, "If the buyer/winner bidder declines to pay for insurance, the seller will not be responsible for any loss or damage that occurs during delivery." Or to state that the buyer will bear all of the risk of loss, or something similar. I have not looked at the actualy auction, so I do not know if Josh states that. Since no one has suggested he does, he is out of luck. All of the rest of the discussion, is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. The chips did not arrive. The seller must reimburse the buyer 100% (not part as he suggests) of the loss, or replace the goods with goods of equal condition, value, etc.

It is really very simple. Check out the UCC.

Michael Siskin