# Paypal "Gift" = No buyer protection? Ethical? OK for CPFM?



## EngrPaul (Sep 27, 2009)

I have recently witnessed multiple WTS threads in which the seller asks you to send the money as a gift instead of as a purchase.

I guess this is risky as a buyer, you have no recourse if the sale or delivery goes sour.

In my opinion, Paypal provides a service and deserves the appropriate share of the transferred funds. Using a "gift" for a sale is abuse of the system, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

If we circumvent the established arrangement, are we no better than the people who download music illegally, or the people who leave the grocery store paying for 2 items when they really carried out 3.

I looked around the web to find out if others are commenting on this topic. I didn't find an appropriate discussion. I figured the cafe is a good place to find some clarity.

:tinfoil:


----------



## vb14 (Sep 27, 2009)

What's the difference between "gift" and the other options? They don't take a paypal fee for it even if the recipient has premium acct?


----------



## EngrPaul (Sep 27, 2009)

Paypal gift, if funded by bank or available funds, results in a completely fee-free transaction, if I read correctly.

I won't point out anybody's particular thread. You might find it interesting to see the following search results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=paypal+gift&sitesearch=cpfmarketplace.com


----------



## LEDobsession (Sep 27, 2009)

I probably wouldn't do it. Not that I would want to offend someone on here but its just that there is protection in doing it the right way.


----------



## curtispdx (Sep 27, 2009)

I agree. I was thinking about buying a D20 that I saw listed until I got to that part of the post.


----------



## paintballdad (Sep 27, 2009)

There was a thread showing how to pay thru the "payment owed" option. I think this is similar to using the "gift" option. I commented that this would probably not provide any protection for the buyer while saving the seller the fees. And paypal would probably suspend your account if they found out your using it for purchases. paypal provides a service and if you want to use it then i think they deserve the fees. 

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=242394


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 27, 2009)

I think PayPal should and will find out about all these accounts and terminate them, or eliminate this option. It is clearly an abuse.


----------



## Black Rose (Sep 27, 2009)

Something else that irks me lately with some of the WTS threads is that folks are stating "add X% for CC".

PayPal charges the same fees for Bank/Debit and CC funded transactions now. 

I have no problem incurring PayPal fees when folks pay me for something I am selling - it's part of using that service.

Any items I may be interesting in buying that request payment via PP Gift will get not get my money.


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 28, 2009)

Not sure what you guys up in the arms about. Paypal used to have a free option for purchase but not anymore, so now people use the new free option, no different from the old CC+4%, which is also against paypal rule. The ones who choose to use it made the decision to give up buyer protection, it's their decision not yours. If YOU want to use the commercial payment offer to cover the fees, I'm sure the seller wouldn't mind, just like before the change when you are paying with CC. 

By the way you don't have to choose gift, any of the option on personal tab would be fee free if you use bank funded paying a non-premium user.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 28, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> Not sure what you guys up in the arms about. Paypal used to have a free option for purchase but not anymore, so now people use the new free option, no different from the old CC+4%, which is also against paypal rule. The ones who choose to use it made the decision to give up buyer protection, it's their decision not yours. If YOU want to use the commercial payment offer to cover the fees, I'm sure the seller wouldn't mind, just like before the change when you are paying with CC.
> 
> By the way you don't have to choose gift, any of the option on personal tab would be fee free if you use bank funded paying a non-premium user.



I think we are "up in arms" because it doesn't seem right. I didn't know that it was also against PayPal's rules for a buyer to charge extra for credit card payments.

Just for the heck of it, because I have complied with the extra CC fees people charge in numerous sales threads, I called PayPal and asked them in general terms what is their policy on these matters--to take it out of this 'gray zone.' 

Suffice it to say that when PP recently launched the personal payment tab options this was not to be used for sale of merchandise, and they are actively going after cases that do this. They are closely monitoring people who are getting payments in this manner for merchandise and locking or closing their accounts pending investigations.
*
The main point that people need to be aware of as buyers is if you use the personal tab options, you cannot file a dispute, and have absolutely no protection...not even if the package gets lost in the mail. 

It is up to the buyer if they wish to report sellers abusing this feature, and that PP told me they will take action against them for either the added 4% addon, or requesting payment from personal tab from buyer to avoid fees.*


----------



## sygyzy (Sep 28, 2009)

Black Rose said:


> Something else that irks me lately with some of the WTS threads is that folks are stating "add X% for CC".
> 
> PayPal charges the same fees for Bank/Debit and CC funded transactions now.
> 
> ...



Black Rose is correct. It is and has been completely illegal and against Paypal TOS to charge a surcharge for credit card payments. People know better and still do it here. Would you like it if Sears charged you 4% to pay with your Mastercard? Oh wait, they do, but it's factored into their prices. Hint hint.

Also, remember there are Personal accounts and Premier accounts. On the latter, the fee charged is the same for cash or credit transactions. On the former, you cannot accept credit transactions but you can accept cash and if you accept cash there is no fee charged. Black Rose - are you saying that personal accounts now are being charged for cash as well?

It's funny people haev an issue with this new scam sellers are using but have no problems with the practice of the 4% surcharge for Paypal transactions that has been going on for years. Offering the ability to pay by CC is a service to the seller as much as it is to the buyer. Some people may not have $500 cash lying around for a McGizmo and they might not otherwise buy it if Paypal CC was not an option. [Fiscal responsibility issues aside]


----------



## EngrPaul (Sep 28, 2009)

Thanks for the info, and the "extra credit" research too.


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 28, 2009)

sygyzy said:


> Black Rose is correct. It is and has been completely illegal and against Paypal TOS to charge a surcharge for credit card payments. People know better and still do it here. Would you like it if Sears charged you 4% to pay with your Mastercard? Oh wait, they do, but it's factored into their prices. Hint hint.
> 
> Also, remember there are Personal accounts and Premier accounts. On the latter, the fee charged is the same for cash or credit transactions. On the former, you cannot accept credit transactions but you can accept cash and if you accept cash there is no fee charged. Black Rose - are you saying that personal accounts now are being charged for cash as well?
> 
> It's funny people haev an issue with this new scam sellers are using but have no problems with the practice of the 4% surcharge for Paypal transactions that has been going on for years. Offering the ability to pay by CC is a service to the seller as much as it is to the buyer. Some people may not have $500 cash lying around for a McGizmo and they might not otherwise buy it if Paypal CC was not an option. [Fiscal responsibility issues aside]



It's not illegal, I'm sure paypal would love to make it that way but they are not making the law yet. 

Paypal just changed their whole fee system and you get charged regardless, that's the whole point of this thread. And this is not a "scam" as you are claiming, just people trying to avoid paypal fees.

Please go read the new paypal policy before making any further accusations.



LuxLuthor said:


> I think we are "up in arms" because it doesn't seem right. I didn't know that it was also against PayPal's rules for a buyer to charge extra for credit card payments.
> 
> Just for the heck of it, because I have complied with the extra CC fees people charge in numerous sales threads, I called PayPal and asked them in general terms what is their policy on these matters--to take it out of this 'gray zone.'
> 
> ...



It still comes back to my point it's a decision between seller and buyer, if they chose to do it that way why are you so against it?


----------



## Patriot (Sep 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor*
> 
> 
> _I think we are "up in arms" because it doesn't seem right. I didn't know that it was also against PayPal's rules for a buyer to charge extra for credit card payments.
> ...





jzmtl said:


> It still comes back to my point it's a decision between seller and buyer, if they chose to do it that way why are you so against it?







....because of the spirit of the rules and the fact that service is being rendered that the servicing party fully intends to make a commission on. Lux made it pretty clear that PP did not intend for the personal tab options to become a way for PayPal's service to be used freely during merchandise purchases. Just because it's possible to exploit PP out of their intended profit doesn't mean that it's at all dependent upon buyer/seller agreements.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 28, 2009)

Interesting. I think the word should get around to those who are requesting the added 4% for credit card paypal purchases, as I think that most of them do not know it is against paypal policy. I personally think that paypal is overcharging for credit paypal payments, and the fee should be paid by the buyer, not the seller. I currently have the premium account and am charged for all paypal payments I receive, credit or cash. I might just drop the premium and go to cash only. This may preclude some potential buyers, but I at least will get getter value for the product I am selling.

Bill


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 28, 2009)

Patriot said:


> ....because of the spirit of the rules and the fact that service is being rendered that the servicing party fully intends to make a commission on. Lux made it pretty clear that PP did not intend for the personal tab options to become a way for PayPal's service to be used freely during merchandise purchases. Just because it's possible to exploit PP out of their intended profit doesn't mean that it's at all dependent upon buyer/seller agreements.




But if a buyer and seller chose to do that what's it got to do with anyone else other than them? Spirit of the rules and laws are being broken every second, I just don't see why this particular matter is anymore significant, especially consider nobody said a thing about the paypal + x% practice for years?


----------



## KuKu427 (Sep 28, 2009)

Buyer protection? What protection? Has anyone actually ever got their money back from PP if the seller sent the wrong/different item?


----------



## MarNav1 (Sep 28, 2009)

I guess I'm ignorant, I didn't give it a thought to check the gift box. As far as the charging extra 4% for CC payments, I have done it before, not to rip anybody off but I was just trying to recoup my fee. With some of the lower priced items for example say $20-30 even forty dollar range, by the time you buy an envelope and pay postage and then pay the fee it almost wasn't worth the effort to sell. Nobody's fault in particular, just how it is. Since I found out about it being against PP policy I have tried to make more adjustment in this area. Haven't found a perfect solution though. I agree with BullzeyeBill and I may drop the premium account too.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 28, 2009)

I am all for buyer protection (caveat emptor was back when men were men and sheep afraid of them!) but how about seller protection? There are some real wingnuts out there who are buyers, and who or what protects the seller from them? :nana:

I recently received funds from a CPF member and he mentioned that they were provided as a gift. Well cool because prior to that, I had mailed him a gift of a light. I didn't request this and I didn't realize that I could even receive fee free funds with my account. Well damn me! I should probably be shot at sunrise and some good citizen should get Pay Pal on my case immediately? Ignorance is no excuse!! I should have denied the funds and then not have the money but at least I would be doing the right thing.

Cool, could you send someone a gift payment and then turn them in and have their account seized? 

On a lighter note, I suspect Pay Pal is doing just fine in these times of economic slumps and many loosing their jobs. I do appreciate the service they provide and I have no plans of denying them their toll. I can rest well knowing that Pay Pal protects the consumers and that the consumers protect Pay Pal.



IMHO, PayPal has taps on all sorts of revenue streams and it is in their better interest to insure that funds travel in one direction. They are tapped into me and they provide a service I am willing to pay for. I don't consider this fee as going to buyer protection but if that is covered as well, fine. If it were _only_ for buyer protection and a buyer was willing to wave such protection then I am not clear why Pay Pal should have any claim or cause to call foul? :shrug:

Most of my business is simply none of their business and vise versa. Hopefully the overlap is in an agreed upon manner and with no unseen strings attached. (all that fine print is something to keep one awake at nights about....)


----------



## MarNav1 (Sep 28, 2009)

"Most of my business is simply none of their business" Quoting McGizmo. Amen to that sir!


----------



## sygyzy (Sep 28, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> It's not illegal, I'm sure paypal would love to make it that way but they are not making the law yet.
> 
> Paypal just changed their whole fee system and you get charged regardless, that's the whole point of this thread. And this is not a "scam" as you are claiming, just people trying to avoid paypal fees.
> 
> ...



Please don't lecture me on what is legal or not. Both eBay and Paypal (who are one and the same) state it is illegal to charge surcharges. In fact, years ago eBay cut down on this by making it illegal to state a surcharge in an auction, or similarly, offering a "cash" discount. 

What's right and wrong does not change simply because you say so. People are just "trying to avoid fees"? Maybe the same way a thief tries to avoid paying for a laptop they steal? Give me a break.

What's confusing to me is you said yourself in your first post of this topic that the 4% surcharge is against Paypal rules, now you are reversing your opinion.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 28, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> But if a buyer and seller chose to do that what's it got to do with anyone else other than them? Spirit of the rules and laws are being broken every second, I just don't see why this particular matter is anymore significant, especially consider nobody said a thing about the paypal + x% practice for years?


 
There is a certain validity to your logic, but your post above is the first time I ever heard it is a violation of PayPal rules to tack on a 4% CC fee for a seller--that it can lead to their account being closed if reported. It was what prompted my phone call to PayPal.

The validity of your logic may not rise to the level of illegality as say a blackjack dealer colluding with a player and splitting the profits, but that doesn't make it a morally right thing to do once there is an awareness of it violating the terms of your paypal account.

I sincerely believe that like me, many sellers who asked for an extra fee for CC payments, did not know it was in violation of PP rules and could lead to their account being terminated. According to the escalated service person I spoke with, all it takes is a single report of this being done that can be verified for an account to be cancelled...and there are many many sales threads that have their + CC fee policy posted for all to see. 

Sellers need to include the 4% fee in their price. If they get some cash account payments without a fee, then so be it. That's not a violation of the PP rules.



KuKu427 said:


> Buyer protection? What protection? Has anyone actually ever got their money back from PP if the seller sent the wrong/different item?


 Yes. Four times to date. Two from Ebay purchases. Full refunds, one of which was $2,800

McG--seller protection is a valid issue, but yet another cost of doing business. Your best protection is using a certified, insured, signed delivery method. For the prices of your items (which are justifiable), I would only sell that way. I had one (non-CPF) instance of a buyer non-delivery claim filed against me, and I prevailed because of a track record history with PayPal, and shipping documentation.


----------



## csshih (Sep 28, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yes. Four times to date. Two from Ebay purchases. Full refunds, one of which was $2,800


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 29, 2009)

sygyzy said:


> Please don't lecture me on what is legal or not. Both eBay and Paypal (who are one and the same) state it is illegal to charge surcharges. In fact, years ago eBay cut down on this by making it illegal to state a surcharge in an auction, or similarly, offering a "cash" discount.
> 
> What's right and wrong does not change simply because you say so. People are just "trying to avoid fees"? Maybe the same way a thief tries to avoid paying for a laptop they steal? Give me a break.
> 
> What's confusing to me is you said yourself in your first post of this topic that the 4% surcharge is against Paypal rules, now you are reversing your opinion.


_
Main Entry: 1il·le·gal 
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\
Function: adjective 
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal
Date: 1538

: not according to or authorized by law _

Last time I checked paypal does not make the law yet. I have no idea where you read that I said anything is right or wrong, or reverse anything. Don't putting words in my mouth. 



LuxLuthor said:


> There is a certain validity to your logic, but your post above is the first time I ever heard it is a violation of PayPal rules to tack on a 4% CC fee for a seller--that it can lead to their account being closed if reported. It was what prompted my phone call to PayPal.
> 
> The validity of your logic may not rise to the level of illegality as say a blackjack dealer colluding with a player and splitting the profits, but that doesn't make it a morally right thing to do once there is an awareness of it violating the terms of your paypal account.


I guess we just see things differently. For me it's simply a case of "none of your (or my) business", there are too many more important things to worry about this, for me anyway.


----------



## baterija (Sep 29, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> Buyer protection? What protection? Has anyone actually ever got their money back from PP if the seller sent the wrong/different item?



I did. Purchased a laptop hard drive off ebay and recieved the wrong drive of significantly lower capacity. I had zero communication after purchase with the seller despite trying. I had zero communication when I reported the problem to them - I even offered to maybe make a deal and keep the wrong drive for a partial refund. I got nothing when I started the Paypal process. I basically got nothing out of the seller but the wrong item shipped almost 2 weeks after the auction closed and negative comments on Ebay. I'm "ebay scum" by the way. 

*I did get my money back from Paypal though.*


----------



## baterija (Sep 29, 2009)

...and to the meat of the thread.

I didn't have a big issue with buyer's and sellers agreeing on a CC surcharge despite it being a violation of the paypal agreement. The buyer knows up front, the seller doesn't need to pad their price to everyone to cover possible paypal fees, and *paypal actually made a little bit more money* because they charged their fee out of the bigger amount. I doubt the practice is actually illegal in my area since when gas spiked up towards $4 a gallon last year there were gas stations switching to separate cash and credit pricing on gas. With the fee structure changing I was surprised it was still common in the marketplace. Shows how often I shop there - I think I have made 3 deals there in my entire time in CPF.

I would have a big problem if someone asked me to send payment as a gift. One I lose buyer protection. The practice is only slightly up in buyer safety from "send an envelop full of cash" as the only payment option. Call me untrusting but it's probably not going to happen. Two it's asking me to actively lie in a financial transaction with Paypal. That lie actually costs Paypal money under their new fee structure. So I am lying to a party in a business dealing to cheat them out of money they have coming in the deal. I'm no lawyer but that sounds suspiciously like something that is illegal here. It certainly doesn't seem very ethical.

I won't mark it as a "gift." Putting that on a listing will make me pass.


----------



## vb14 (Sep 29, 2009)

I think the main point of this thread is if this practice of paying as "gift" is ethical or not, and if it's ok to to CPFM community. Ethical? Definitely not since it's against PP rules. But I believe many here doesn't really care about it. Just like the "add 4% for CC payment". Those that doesn't have that in the text of their sales thread doesn't mean they're not doing it. They're just smart enough to include it in the sales price in the first place. 

The bottomline here is if *I* don't like what *I* see on a sales thread, *I* just don't buy it. Now if someone feels strongly about that practice and you have enough time in your hands (and not enough things to worry about), then watch every sales thread and report it to paypal once you see it... ;-)


----------



## HarryN (Sep 29, 2009)

It's useful to look at the whole electronic payment system and see what one might think is a "reasonable" fee for use, and what you get in return, both as a seller and buyer. I have looked at this pretty hard, as I had some interest in accepting credit card payments, and pp is one method of doing that. It is of course useless if you are a large merchant, but useful for small merchants.

Buyer side protection

As a buyer, clearly you are more protected in a transaction with pp than a seller, in fact, sellers get virtually no protection at all. I don't accept the concept that this is "part of the cost of doing business" - that is just BS. My son lost hundreds on some transaction by people that "play the games". No way can he make up for this loss by over charging everyone else, nor is that really ethical for the other buyers.

You get this same buyers side protection with pretty much an cc transaction except under some very unusual circumstances, so it isn't PP so much as the CC companies that force the protection.

As a seller - I just will not use PP until they offer some kind of protection to the sellers. Any loss of business is nothing compared to just a few bad transactions.

FEES and who pays them

Credit card companies, and PP kind of have merchants by the short hairs in this area. It costs real money - as in substantial, to accept CC transactions, even more to accept PP, and even more if it is a transaction crossing a border. The CC companies make a lot off of high consumer interest rates, so they want to encourage CC use and debt - so they force - by rules - not law - that the merchants can't charge more. You can; however, offer cash discounts.

In an example transaction, pay someone $ 1,000 using PP or CC - you are well into $ 50 minimum, and easily pushing $ 100 in some cases. 

Pay the same person with a walmart money order - 50 cents IIRC.

Is there really THAT MUCH more value added to the transaction to doing it all electronically vs by hand to charge 200X more? IMHO - no. It has to be certainly no more expensive to do a fully electronic transaction than one that includes paper + electronic transaction.

If someone wants the pleasure and convenience of PAYING via CC or PP, then IMHO, they can pay the fees themselves, buried in the price I guess, and everyone else gets a cash discount.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Sep 29, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> Last time I checked paypal does not make the law yet. I have no idea where you read that I said anything is right or wrong, or reverse anything. Don't putting words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> I guess we just see things differently. For me it's simply a case of "none of your (or my) business", there are too many more important things to worry about this, for me anyway.



it may not be directly stated in the US Constitution that you are not allowed to cheat paypal out of money that they are owed for a service, but you agreed to pay them when you signed on. If they can prove in court that you didn't pay what you agreed to pay, I doubt that you would win that case.

I say whatever. Everyone who sells using paypal already adjusts their prices, so it's not like it makes it hard to compare deals... I like not having to give my CC number to some random website in China.


----------



## Kestrel (Sep 29, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> I think the word should get around to those who are requesting the added 4% for credit card paypal purchases, as I think that most of them do not know it is against paypal policy. I personally think that paypal is overcharging for credit paypal payments, and the fee should be paid by the buyer, not the seller.


+2, I agree with all of this.


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 29, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> it may not be directly stated in the US Constitution that you are not allowed to cheat paypal out of money that they are owed for a service, but you agreed to pay them when you signed on. If they can prove in court that you didn't pay what you agreed to pay, I doubt that you would win that case.
> 
> I say whatever. Everyone who sells using paypal already adjusts their prices, so it's not like it makes it hard to compare deals... I like not having to give my CC number to some random website in China.



I have no idea what you just posted got to do with anything.  US constitution is about the furthest related to topic. Paypal does not make the law, thus circumvent their fee is not illegal, I thought this fact is pretty easy to see. Bottom line is don't throw around scary words like "illegal" to try to put more weight in your argument. 

No clue where the random website in China even came from...


----------



## Essexman (Sep 29, 2009)

On another forum I use it was noticed that the "gift" or "Money Owed" option was being asked for in sales threads. After some thoughtful discussions between forum members, the forum changed it's rules to stop anyone asking for the PP payment as a gift. Any sales thread asking for PP payment via gift will be removed, end of story.


----------



## flashfan (Sep 29, 2009)

Paypal's rules against charging the buyer the fee for CC payments _has_ been discussed in CPF before, IIRC. But it's been awhile, and perhaps it was only on CPFM. Never heard about the "gift" provision though.

As noted earlier in this thread, Paypal regulations are just that, rules set by a private company (as opposed to governmental laws). I think the use of the word "illegal" may be a misnomer.

In any event, I _assume_ that anyone using Paypal, had to agree to their particular terms of service...and while circumventing Paypal rules themselves may _not_ be covered under governmental laws, to what extent I wonder, could Paypal go after violators for misrepresentation or fraud? (Any attorneys out there who could shed "light" on this issue?)

As I recall from previous CPF thread(s) (and as suggested elsewhere in this thread), the solution is to raise the selling price to cover Paypal fees, then offer a discount to cash buyers. (Caveat! I don't know if Paypal rules prohibit such a practice, so do _not_ take my word for it.)

In the end, I think that those circumventing Paypal rules may be doing all of us a disservice. In the same way retail stores raise prices to cover _losses_ (for whatever reason), we _all _pay in the form of higher prices. The seller has to pass those costs on to the consumer, if they want to stay in business for the long run.

BTW, I'm _not_ a fan of Paypal. To date I have _avoided_ Paypal altogether, having read too many horror stories about the arbitrary way they seem to do business. By not joining however, I know that I've lost out on some incredible deals/products.

If you don't like Paypal's rules, don't use them. Or to quote another popular CPF saying: "Vote with your wallet."

Sorry to be so preachy...off the soapbox now.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 30, 2009)

HarryN said:


> I don't accept the concept that this is "part of the cost of doing business" - that is just BS. My son lost hundreds on some transaction by people that "play the games". No way can he make up for this loss by over charging everyone else, nor is that really ethical for the other buyers.



Harry, you made a number of good points in your post. Since I said this "part of the cost of doing business," let me just clarify what I meant. 

I was not being selective to PP or any other payment system. If you are in business, there is a certain % of your sales that will be losses. Either something is lost/damaged in the mail, and you can't absolutely prove item received, or you didn't get adequate insurance. Some instances will be people who are intentionally ripping you off, including sending you a bad money order that your bank does a charge back rejection + bank fee at some point later when it goes through the system. 

If someone pays you by Visa/MC, and later claim they received an empty box or the wrong product, you can still lose as the seller. That is what I meant by a certain amount of losses that will be a cost of doing business. There is no way around it, even though I agree PP has less protections than some other methods.



HarryN said:


> Pay the same person with a walmart money order - 50 cents IIRC.
> 
> Is there really THAT MUCH more value added to the transaction to doing it all electronically vs by hand to charge 200X more? IMHO - no. It has to be certainly no more expensive to do a fully electronic transaction than one that includes paper + electronic transaction.
> 
> If someone wants the pleasure and convenience of PAYING via CC or PP, then IMHO, they can pay the fees themselves, buried in the price I guess, and everyone else gets a cash discount.



There is a lot more protection for the buyer if they use PP or a credit card--vs. a money order or bank wire transfer, and the item is legitimately defective, not received, or some other problem. It is nearly impossible to recover your money using a money order/wire transfer/western union.

*jzmtl*, I think the point is that you are violating a contract that you freely entered into. Contracts are legally binding, and it is a civil matter if PayPal wants to go after people who are violating their terms. My phone call with them indicated that they cancel accounts when they have verification that a seller is violating their agreement contract. I understand your point that there are more important things to worry about...but it did come as a shock to me when reading your earlier post that +CC is not allowed, given how widespread it is.

I agree the main focus about this thread is the demand for "personal" category, because I would bet that most buyers do not realize they have zero protection when they do that method.

I agree with Essexman that it should be a forum policy to protect buyers in such an obvious abuse and violation of PP's rules.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Sep 30, 2009)

It's not impossible to get a transfer back, at least not in Europe. You have to move fast, but the option is there. 

Paypal "gift" is *not* free for the sender. I recently sent my brother some cash so he could send me a package. £20 --> fee of £0.99. It's very, very stupid that UK banks charge so much to transfer money around, because otherwise Paypal would have very little reason to exist. It's also not free - at least here - to either send or receive credit card payments, and I'm not convinced that cash ones are free either. 
Oh, and I also had someone try and remove cash from my bank account after the details were published for payments; paypal would not expose those numbers.

I don't think it's completely OK, but if you want prices on all mods put up by 5%, then fair enough....

Bret


----------



## Essexman (Sep 30, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I agree with Essexman that it should be a forum policy to protect buyers in such an obvious abuse and violation of PP's rules.


 
I guess it had to happen one day Lux, we've found something we agree on at last! 

Back on topic - How bad would this fourm look if a new member purchased an expensive item via PP gift and it all went wrong. No come back what so ever. 

Before I'm flamed, yes I know it's not the forums fault if that happeneds, but we should be looking out for each other and helping new members (and old) earn trust and respect with others on the forum.


----------



## Twinkle-Plank (Sep 30, 2009)

TBH dont use pay pal there buyer protection is a load of crap you'd be amazed with the number of sellers out there who have had funds taken out of there account because the buyer did not like there purchase. Even if you send it in registered mail and have the post office receipt and confrmation of delivery and sow pay pal this information they side with the buyer even after they claim a laptop went "off" during transit.


----------



## London Lad (Sep 30, 2009)

2 points.
When a purchase is of second hand goods and between two private individuals can it not be argued that it is in fact 'money owed' ?

Re: 'Illegal'
As previously stated PayPal's rules are just that, PayPal's rules. They are certainly NOT the law. In the UK and I would think the US and everywhere else, a law is something created by government and not by a private company (no matter how big they may be)

There is a creeping danger here. Recently I have heard a lot of people, especially young people, refer to terms and conditions and rules using terminology such as 'It's illegal' Companies and low level semi authoritarian bodies would love to be in a position to create laws, don't let's encourage them by treating their rules as anything more than they are.

WWII fighter Ace Group Captain Sir Douglas Bader CBE, DSO, DFC said:-

*"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."*


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 30, 2009)

London Lad, if you read the PP agreement and description of the "Personal" payments (including payments owed), they are not to be used for selling merchandise, new, retail, used, etc. It is clearly spelled out, and people are twisting it because they don't want to pay fees to PayPal. Well if that's the case, then don't use PayPal either to sell or buy.

It is not a matter of legality, as has been said numerous times in this thread.

It is also not just a "rule" or "guideline." The agreement you willingly enter into with PayPal is a contract. It is further codified because it involves monies being exchanged. That puts it in a different category than say observing the posted rules of this CPF forum, but violation of either entity has consequences that can be (and are) enforced. 

PayPal has terms they require if you choose to use their service. If you violate the terms of a contract, the other party can take actions to protect their interests.


----------



## London Lad (Sep 30, 2009)

OK well first I should make it clear that none of this affects me personally as I always cover all fees when I sell and never buy from people who want extra for PP fees.

You will notice I put a question mark at the end of my first point, it was just a question, nothing more.

Second point: I am afraid it is a question of legality as people here are saying things are 'illegal' when they are not, that is my only point, not necessarily related to PP but to any incorrect use of the word 'illegal'.

I out of here now :laughing:


----------



## Grumpy (Sep 30, 2009)

You might as well toss a coin in the air and call heads or tails as depend on Paypal buyer protection.

I had a perfect ebay feedback rating until someone I purchased from never sent the item. After many attempts to communicate with them I filed for papal buyer protection and was denied because the person went ahead and mailed me the wrong item but gave paypal the tracking number showing "something" was delivered to my address. Paypal decided in their favor even though they had several negative feedback showing that others had been done the same way as me and I had perfect feedback of over 300 transactions.

To sum it up "Don't depend on Paypal buyer protection"


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 30, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> *jzmtl*, I think the point is that you are violating a contract that you freely entered into. Contracts are legally binding, and it is a civil matter if PayPal wants to go after people who are violating their terms. My phone call with them indicated that they cancel accounts when they have verification that a seller is violating their agreement contract. I understand your point that there are more important things to worry about...but it did come as a shock to me when reading your earlier post that +CC is not allowed, given how widespread it is.



I'm not disputing that, I think we all agree it is a violation of their rules. The whole thing started when somebody claimed it's illegal, which irks me for reason London Lad said.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Sep 30, 2009)

Grumpy said:


> I had a perfect ebay feedback rating until someone I purchased from never sent the item.



Whenever buying on ebay, check their rating, but also check how long they've been a member and how many sales the rating is based on.

Whenever selling on ebay, configure your account to disallow buyers who have new accounts, non payment reports, and subpar ratings.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 30, 2009)

Having never studied the rules closely for PP use, and not being a big buyer on ebay, or here, I never thought twice about those sellers that used two paypal accounts, one for cash and the other credit, and asked for 4% additional for credit sales. Wanting to have a broader buyer base, I bought on to the Premium PP account, and was never ever able to price my products high enough to make up the difference in the 4% or so that I was charged for each and every transaction, cash or credit, because I had to base my products prices (lights and flashlight parts, etc) on what the market would bear for such items, and never on that 4% fee. Now, of course, after reading this thread, I see the errors of my thinking. :naughty:

Bill


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 1, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> I'm not disputing that, I think we all agree it is a violation of their rules. The whole thing started when somebody claimed it's illegal, which irks me for reason London Lad said.



Cool. I understand that point, and believe we have that flat now. Thanks.


----------



## HarryN (Oct 1, 2009)

I should probably add a small but important point about PP fees. While I personally think they are high, I have taken a serious look around for lower cost ways to do similar things - and I really didn't find one.

I looked at amazon pay, google pay, and a variety of CC processing firms. Amazon and Google pay have nearly identical costs to PP, and the CC companies make a lot of sense IF you are at least at $ 20 K every month - otherwise, the others make more sense.

It is certainly a very profitable business model - amazingly so. What is amazing is that more firms have not figured out how to play in this market.


----------



## Linger (Oct 1, 2009)

I find it interesting that some people who have previously expressed an 'out of my dead hands' ideology in response to interference in what they perceived as private matter, have in this thread expressed a viewpoint that I read as more corporatist, seemingly against the individual who would take matters into her/his own hands to recompense they may.

For me, when 'Gift' is selected the confirmation screen has a check-box which defaults to "I will pay the fee" with the total listed beside, presumably un-checking the box has Paypal's usury charge come off the other end.

Annecdotes: The creater of Paypal and I share an alma matter. His wife was my partner's best friend. 
He also selected the lithium 18650 for his electric car


----------



## vb14 (Oct 13, 2009)

I emailed paypal asking whether or not this practice is against their policy or not. I was kinda expecting a YES or NO answer, but this is what i got. :shakehead

I guess it means it's not against their policy. 

_Thanks for writing to us. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you
with your questions._
_PayPal offers Seller Protection for qualified eBay transactions on
claims, chargebacks, or reversals based on:
* Unauthorized Payments
* Items Not Received
Seller protection does not provide protection for:
* Significantly Not as Described (SNAD) claims, chargebacks, or
reversals.
* Items that you deliver in person.
Seller protection is available for transactions with buyers everywhere
PayPal is accepted.
Protection Coverage:
* There is no annual limit on protection.
* PayPal will provide protection for the full amount of the eligible
claim, chargeback, or reversal and waive the Chargeback Fee, if
applicable.
Eligibility Requirements:
* Ship the item to the shipping address on the "Transaction Details"
page.
* Follow the shipping requirements listed in the User Agreement.
* Respond to PayPal's requests for documentation and other
information in a timely manner.
* The transaction must be marked eligible or partially eligible for
seller protection on the "Transaction Details" page.
For the Terms and Conditions of Seller Protection, click the "Legal
Agreement" link at the bottom of any PayPal webpage and click "User
Agreement"._


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 13, 2009)

Looks like an email version of those automated phone banks that keep saying "so I heard you say..."


----------



## wykeite (Jan 11, 2010)

As Paypal only make rules not laws, how many requesting "gift" payments would be prepared to reciprocate with a "gift" shipment? I mean of course internationally.


----------



## Kestrel (Apr 14, 2010)

for an interesting thread.

I just came across the following post from here:


ElectronGuru said:


> PayPal has requested we stop accepting personal/cash payments through their system.


I personally don't have an opinion on this either way, but I was wondering if PayPal has modified their policy, had this possibility been discussed a while ago here?

Any thoughts?
K

Edit: OK, I guess their official policy might be unchanged, but I wonder if they are now changing how they implement it?


----------



## vb14 (Apr 14, 2010)

Using "paypal gift" as payment to a sales transaction is against paypal policy. Problem is who's going to implement it?


----------



## Empath (Apr 14, 2010)

This topic has been discussed numerous times. It is best discussed on the CPFMP board. Here's an active thread there dealing with the topic.

We'll close it here. Please continue your discussion there.


----------

