OT; PayPal fees

[elf]

I just got the notice from PayPal. It says "For “Significantly Not as Described” claims under our Seller Protection Program, we are clarifying that the item may not be returned to sellers or sellers may be required to accept the returned item and pay for the return shipping costs."

Trying to find what actually changed isn't easy. You may have more luck than I finding in their legal documents:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/legalhub-full?locale.x=en_US

[lakeside53]

On paypal you can set the default to CC. I have a bank account, cash with PP and 2 CC's. No issues having default to CC.

[Paul Alciatore]

I have said it many, many times. If you are going to buy something using PayPal, ALWAYS, ALWAYS fund that PayPal payment with a CREDIT CARD. There are strong protections in place which the credit card companies (the banks) must follow. One very strong protection is against fraud or false charges. I have personally disputed charges on one of my CREDIT cards and when the CC company/bank investigated, I received 100% of my money back. That refund was for multiple charges over the course of months. And it was about a year later when I got the final refund, but I DID get it. I do not trust PayPal to be that fastidious in the buyer's behalf.

Always pay for any purchase on the internet with a CREDIT CARD. Not a debit card. And do not allow PayPal to use the default that they want: which is your bank account. Go to the trouble of changing that choice and check it every time you use PayPal for a purchase. And if there is a problem, notify BOTH PayPal and the credit card company at once. That prompt notification is a really important point here. Don't give them a way out by delaying it.

So PayPal may be a arbiter, but they do not need to be the final one. If they don't provide satisfaction, the CC company probably will.

By the way, by making all the purchases that I can by credit card, I get a refund of $500 or more in cash-back each and every year. Not only does that fraud protection not cost me a single cent, but they pay me for using their credit cards. My credit cards are always my first choice for paying for anything. I even use my USAA MC to pay my USAA insurance bill and get a 1.5% discount by just doing that. They give me a discount on their own bill. I have been doing this for over 15 years now and it is 100% legal and honest. Talk about win, Win, WIN!

Paypal is the arbiter. Whether or not you trust them is an entirely different issue.

[boats]

Almost all buy sell transactions have fees. Worst case high dollar sales like real estate. I look at net to me and don’t worry about EBay or PayPal fees. Big tool flea markets charge for tables. Add in classifieds cost too. Other option sell in the driveway yard sale. Not going to move many machine tool parts that way.

Ebay & PayPal have given our hobby a big boost. Access to tooling Home shops never had.

Boats

[Mcgyver]

So you're saying honest buyers should have to pay for dishonest buyers. That doesn't sound like a fair deal for honest buyers. If sellers can't document their items beyond a reasonable doubt, they shouldn't be in the business.

and just how would you do that, beyond a reasonable doubt? Use the widget scenario above. Hint: you can't.

enough time on this, I can explain commerce but I'm not going to argue it.

[elf]

So you're saying honest buyers should have to pay for dishonest buyers. That doesn't sound like a fair deal for honest buyers. If sellers can't document their items beyond a reasonable doubt, they shouldn't be in the business.

[Mcgyver]

Paypal is the arbiter. Whether or not you trust them is an entirely different issue.

" who determines" was a rhetorical question - asked to make a point. Of course paypay is the arbitrator, but who cares? Its hardly about trust, its they have no reliable way to determine fault or see through a he says she says. What discourages scammers in either direction is economic cost to running the scam, and have something other a 1:0 balance of power

Imagine you are paypal. A buyer and seller each have two widgets, one perfect, one badly damaged. Seller sells and ships a widget to the buyer. Buyer says it is a POS and I'm sending it back. Who do you side with? See? its not trust, it simply that there is no possible way to determine who's the scoundrel. Having some small cost to the buyer in returning is a disincentive dissuading abuse. Zero cost and its open season. "the box arrived empty, etc". There is already ample incentives for the seller to not misrepresent - he looses the sale and the shipping.

I've never had an issue in either direction, but this new policy is an incentive for increased buyer scams

[elf]

Paypal is the arbiter. Whether or not you trust them is an entirely different issue.

[Mcgyver]

Why should the buyer have any pain when that pain was entirely the fault of the seller?

to repeat myself, who determines it was entirely the fault of the seller? Some sort of balance of power is going lead to less abuse. If there was some magical way to determine who was entirely at fault, by all means....but how exactly is that accomplished?

So long as its you who gets to determine who's entirely at fault, life is peachy....but what if you're the seller and the buyer is unethical/crooked?. You have to try and understand both sides position to effectively negotiate or resolve conflict. There is no perfect solution to a he said/she said but one party having 100% say in the matter opens up all kinds of unintended consequences. sort of surprised this wasn't just intuitive, commerce 101.

[Mike Amick]

PayPal fan here.

[pinstripe]

Why should the buyer have any pain when that pain was entirely the fault of the seller?

I agree. If the item is clearly not as described, the seller should pay.

[elf]

According to who? That's the whole point, when there is a little bit of pain for each side it stops the worst of the abuse

Why should the buyer have any pain when that pain was entirely the fault of the seller?

[Noitoen]

I have a campervan for sale on a regular sales website and last week I received an off from someone from an eastern country to buy it. He didn't even discuss the price and asked for my bank account number so that he could transfer the funds. I smelled a rat and decided to play along and send him all the information he asked except for the address. A few hours later I received an email from him stating that he had transferred the amount I asked plus an extra 1100€ that was the transport fees to his home. Soon after, I received an email from "PayPal" stating that a transfer to my account was 99% completed and all I had to do was to transfer the 1100€ to the transport company and show the proof and the money would enter my account. All the necessary account information was supplied so that I could send my money first.

Reading a little about this online it seems that this type of scam is quite common.

[Paul Alciatore]

It sounds to me like that $200 was a state sales tax that was collected as part of the sale. Friday I had a sale of a book I have on E-Bay for $0.99. E-Bay shows the "details" of the sale as:

$0.99 Book
$4.25 Shipping
$0.07 Tax
__________
$5.31 Total

I use PayPal to collect the funds from my sales. PayPal shows:

$4.75 Payment Received
-$3.33 E-Bay Shipping
__________
$1.42 My Profit (Yes, I know that's pitiful.)

With a little math I figured that E-Bay and PayPal combined must have charged me $0.49. That came out of the $5.31 total. E-Bay provided a break over the USPS advertised rates. I figure that helps cover the packaging costs.

[Mcgyver]

I'd say the seller should pay all costs if the item isn't as advertised.

According to who? That's the whole point, when there is a little bit of pain for each side it stops the worst of the abuse