The seller has already replied to the buyer that he doesn't want to confuse PayPal by bringing this matter to their attention. The seller obviously knows about the mistake and his response to the buyer is a clear indication that he is not going to co-operate in getting the overpayment back to the buyer. This most certainly is fraud if seller refuses to refund. Instead of waiting for seller to get in touch with PayPal, PayPal should be calling the seller. I know that you have his phone number. Of course you could be right. He could be at the beach spending the buyer's money after all this time has elasped. PayPal should:
1) Freeze seller's account (temporarily)
2) Call the seller. I imagine the call could go something like this:
rrrring... Hello? Hi Mr. XXXXX. This is Ms. YYYYY with the PayPal.com fraud prevention unit (you do have one right?). I'm calling to clear up an issue of an overpayment supposedly made by a Mr. ZZZZZ to you for the purchase of eBay item #1234567890. I just wanted to get both sides of the story and have both parties send all documentation pertaining to this transaction to us for review before we start the investigation. Mr. ZZZZZ has already given us his version of the events and now we just need yours in order for us to decide how to proceed. Now, was the PayPal transaction in question for anything else in addition to the auction item? If so, what exactly is it that made the price jump by $1000?
Uhhh.... Well... I think Mr. ZZZZZ just made a mistake. I'll beam the difference back to him right now. Sorry for the trouble.
Bye...
Bye...
PayPal would not be accusing anyone of anything here, just asking for information and documentation from the seller to validate the $1000 additional charge.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Aug 23, 2000 08:32 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2000 08:52:53 PM newwe still don't know what happened
Indeed you are correct, paypaldamon. For all we know the entire story is a fabrication, a troll if you like.
Even if so, it makes for a fine test case. PayPal's analysis of this continues to demonstrate financial naivete beyond belief for a claimant to the status PayPal aspires to.
If PayPal continues with this analysis and the case is true, PayPal will completely deserve to eat the inevitable chargeback (and will most likely eat it). If for no other reason than that, PayPal's analysis simply makes PayPal look like the CEO was out drunk and his 14 year old kid showed up making decisions instead.
sg52
posted on August 23, 2000 09:54:02 PM new
Whew...
Well this has been a mess of a day.
(timing with midnight shifts and all really messed things up...)
Plus am amazed at the size of this discussion.
OK: it's not as much but here's the results of the what _was_ done. Mainly because I screwed up and didn't get ahold of the seller during yesterday/Wednesday).
The "request for payment" was sent along with very detailed notes regarding what it was for,etc. Nothing in what was sent through Paypal was "questionable" for the seller...even if it went to another person altogether, it had enough info to figure out everything.
Now, if I remember right, when sending a request, the "requestee" (who receives the request) has a certain amount of time to authorize the transfer, or can decline/reject the transfer. If this certain time passes (I was thinking it was 24 hrs or maybe slightly more-2 days or such) Paypal it will automatically then decline/rejects the transfer. (Haven't had experiences with this side of it to remember right away).
Well, the request for payment was sent Tuesday at basically 08:30 PM. Wednesday I received the email at 01:52 PM stating that this person "cancelled" the request.
There wasn't any further e-mails from him through the day + so on asking what's up, or explaning,etc. Just plain outright cancelling/declining of the request.
(Unfortunately, I'm midnight shifter, and ended up sleeping through practically the entire day-and didn't get ahold of him directly phone-wise). So haven't been to follow-up further at this point.
Re: various comments...man there were a lot. Yes at this point it's still tricky. It's still a buyer-to-seller issue.... but at the same time this could be construed as "theft".
If I was to go to a store, buy a 5$ item. Reach into my wallet, go to grab a 10$ bill, but instead hand them a 100$ bill, I still should expect to be able to get 95$ back. By handing the clerk a 100$ (whether I knew it or not) I may have authorized a transfer of said funds (handing the money to the person) but just by doing that does not entitle the clerk/store to keep the 90$ extra funds.
There is more physical protection here (clerk being able to mention "this is $100,
or if the place doesn't take anything above a 20 or 50, then they'd mention that, and I'd be able to see and say 'whoops, I meant to give you this $10' and continue the transaction.
If Paypal's legalities fully isolate it from having any responsibility for being the '"hand" that hands the money across the counter' which is in one respect proper...(but makes it a pain to deal with external people for issue resolvements (bank,legal people,etc) then it basically makes this into what should be describable in all legal ways as a clerk "keeping the change" and thus theft.
Now trying to describe this whole thing to bank,legal people,etc in that way that emphasizes that fact (so that people are only looking at the interaction between seller + buyer) is the real toughie....
Anywho, I still need to talk to person hopefully today. (After work today I'm on my "weekend" so can get something done).
I halfway am still trying to take any future actions into account with this, and with any call I place to him. If it comes down to no money back from bank or paypal, then what's left is dealing with it in a litigation form, possibly through other means in genersl. Seems I'd heard other groups have been setup recently to help/aid in "internet fraud" matters, dunno if that's true or anyone in that realm would be able to help.
I may be wrong with the thinking on this,etc but figured I'd try to stay all within legal bounds. (etc, recording vocal conversation-specifying that this is a recording before we start discussion,etc and having that available). Whether it's all extra that wouldn't be able to be used,etc in a literal litigation against the person I don't know (and if it would even be able to be brought into litigation is unknown. There's a lot of time-related issues that intertwine so it's hard to track.
(e.g. 30 days to wait for delivery of product to attempt thru Paypal's protection), Having only 60 days to do any claims/investigations brought up with bank level actions, any other tie-ins with eBay, or any specific legal action time limits involved for starting up a literal litiagtion procedure against the seller.
Anyways, with having to "wait" for a lot of these processes, I'm also leery of "losing" the capability to place claim against this person if I do wait for these various 30 days,etc...
Now if I get the tape and no refund,etc then apparently there will be no action from Paypal due to the result (tape received) and the only thing left would be bank/litigation level methods. I just hate to delay this, and the fact that if I get a tape on day 29, and lose _that_ avenue, then the rest of the actions will look to anyone in a court or bank investigator's mind that "well it apparently wasn't bad enough of a problem as he didn't start this fight until so long after the transfer...."
Anyways, it just seems that waiting the length of time might actually aid the "seller" in this case but who knows.
Likewise, I could attempt to start proceedings with the bank, eBay, and if a form of litigation is available, then if that tape is still not received I might get refunded, and whether Paypal would "take over control" of any litigations,etc I'm not sure. It's all speculation at this moment, and I'm sure it would be probably be uniquely looked at within paypal before figuring what to do.
At the same time, if the bank did authorize a chargeback (although it sounds slim) I hope I'd be able to present my case to paypal in full to explain the situation (and not have it come down on me because I requested this). It somewhat could be a no-win situation in that regard for me.
Well, sorry for typing so much again. I hope it's all understandable point-wise as I've typed this between handling some issues here at work, so the train of thought gets derailed at times ^_^.
1 other thought though in this (that maybe paypaldamon would be able to answer, maybe not). If the 30 days passes, and tape doesn't arrive, and that protection kicks in.
Based on the legality/arrangement for this new procedure, would paypal literally "look at" the entire $1,015.39 sent or only look at the auction listed amounts....
...just seems that in some legality arrangements, they might be able to "claim" against the auction specifics, but whether this is fully binding against overpays like mine might be another sticky situation....
Just wondering.....
tired 'o'typing ^_^ (hope I didn't overwork some ideas here...kinda just rethinking things through as I type...so get too desciptive at times).
-Datcha
posted on August 23, 2000 10:49:10 PM new
Well, from this thread and a couple of others on these boards, it has become quite apparent that PayPal's only interest is in protecting PayPal (by making users verify their bank account so that PayPal can retrieve the money in the event of a chargeback). And the kicker is that they say they are requiring the verification in order for users to feel comfortable, safe, and secure with using the PayPal service. Well I guess this thread has put that theory to rest.
Basically, the users are on their own when there is a problem, even when the problem can be easily and quickly resolved (as this one most certainly could if PayPal had the desire to do it).
I agreed completely with HCQ's assessment of the new PayPal policies. But I felt that she may have been a little hasty in her decision to quit offering PayPal as an option for her customers. I guess I tend to give others the benefit of the doubt in most situations. I felt confident that PayPal, given the user feedback and (hopefully) legal counsel, would quickly step up and dig themselves out of the hole and regain credibility with the users. But it seems as if they are just trying bigger and bigger shovels and going deeper and deeper into the hole.
HCQ, you were right and I apologize for thinking you reacted too quickly. You were just able to see through the fog a little more clearly than some of us.
After my current auctions end, I will place a statement in my new auctions to the effect that, at least for the time being, I will no longer be able to accept PayPal as a payment option. And when the bidders inevitably ask why, I'll just point them to this thread and a couple of others. I really don't think I'll have to explain.
This is such a shame. I really liked and appreciated the service that PayPal used to provide. I was more than happy to upgrade to a business account because I felt that the 1.9% transaction fee was a bargain. I regret very much that the PayPal we all knew and loved is no longer available. The folks at Billpoint and BidPay must be doing a happy dance.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:28:09 PM new
Yup, I bet the folks at Billpoint are doing just that. While PayPal was scratching their heads trying to come up with yet another new TOU [or clarify what they have?] Billpoint was working on getting their service up & running for Canadian sellers.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:34:38 PM new
Just a couple other quickies as I read thru the recent replies.
Re: paypal account freezing:
I am doubtful that there would be a legal "base" to stand on in ordering a freeze on the seller's account (in this case). Yes, there technically is enough info that would be viewable by anyone at Paypal (look at auction, look at amount sent and that it was "accepted" by seller). But as the funds in the Paypal system is acting essentially more or less as a "bank" (funds storage + retrieval) it seems it would take literal court orders to do this. Just like I couldn't call up the seller's bank "just because I had an issue with the seller" and tell his bank to "freeze the funds" the bank wouldn't really be "caring" what was occuring with the funds. It isn't until police/federal involvement that funds would get froze. Concurrently if Paypal were to "freeze" accounts in totality for _any_ timeframe, they might open themselves up to lawsuits by the people getting froze. (seems there's a term I'd heard before on this, but can't think it up right now). As it is they "might" be able to freeze only the one specific amount under investigation, but even this capability might have to be spelled out more in the usage aggrements signed when the account's created. "Paypal has the right to freeze individual transactan amount funds if a sispute is presented between seller and buyer..." or somesuch. I haven't re-looked up the agreements to investigatie this side if it as it's all just discussion at the moment anyways.
bkmunroe > this is what I was mentioning first off. Similar to having set limits on ATM cards to help against stolen cards,etc - when I know 99% of my auction wins are at 100$ or less, having a "unique" way of verifiying I want to send bigger amounts over a set limit would "alert" better than the general "charge will be placed" screen. But anyways...
barkrock&sg52> Yes, I also thought about talking with bank office. I have discussed it to a certain extent with the person over the phone (who eventually referred me to mailing a statement into a specific department) and although I think any person at the local bank will probably do the same thing in having me mail it in, it might we worth re-discussing it again.
The trick is in being able to discuss it with them and keep information tied to the original contract with seller side of things as opposed to step-by-step-ing them through describing the entire paypal process...it seems to only make banks consider the amount I "directed" to paypal and that's it....as opposed to it being able to be considered a transaction between seller + buyer.
Kind of bad in a way:
Payer's Bank considers it to be between Bank and Paypal (who charged the card).
Paypal considers all to be between Seller and Buyer.
Basically both sides of the group with the real "power" to handle the funds aren't able to look at the transaction in full detail.
eBay might be able to view it from transactional standpoint, but they don't have the "power" with regard to correcting financial problems.
In a way (and in a perfect world (heh)) as there's issues with both paypal and eBay's sides of things, it would have been nice to be able to coordinate resolvements with having them involved. Someone else around work here mentioned that it would've been great to even have personnel (supervisory/fraud investigation/whatever) all in conference when this phone call occurs to the seller. So they themselves would be able to hear if the seller is going to refund the money when I ask an outright question "so since you have my $1,015 for this $13.29 auction, and from the cancelling of my request for the refund of the difference, does this mean you will not be refunding my difference at all? "
In one respect it seems that both side's investigative teams would want to know this answer firsthand rather than rely on just "what the one side reported" but it's up to them. If they got involved after the fact they eventually might get the same equivalent response but it just would take more time to "process" their investigation.
In a literal sense, I have all materials involved + so on that's set for any investigative team. (full-headere'd emails, descriptive summaries, + if I can get tape recordings, I'd be able to even send them through to whoever needs them. (Alhough I'd be able to legally tape the conversation with a proper announcement at the start of the conversation that it's being taped, I dunno about legality of "distributing" that to investigative teams such as eBay or Paypal's...)
I believe as the seller refuses to reply to any emails (since sending his last one last Friday) and has by selective decision refused to pay me back (request for money cancelled by choice before it expired due to inaction...he could've just let it "time-out" or "expire" from inaction and thus remained "ambiguous" with this.
(His selective choice not to send the money here too also proves he wasn't on vacation or somesuch....)
But anyways technically there's enough "proof" that would hold up anywhere that he is not wanting to refund the money. The phone call should "seal" it and whichever way I'll be dealing with it afterwards.
Oh well...
...better stop typing and get back to work ^_^ -Datcha
posted on August 23, 2000 11:41:21 PM new
HI datcha,
Please contact me at [email protected]. I will check this in the morning. I will also pass along the thought for transactional caps. ($100 maximum transaction as the example)
posted on August 24, 2000 12:40:41 AM new
damon: sent the email to you from work here. Appreciate whatever you can see in this.
re:100$ limit, it just seems it'd be nice to have a user-selectable limit (unless you wanted to do globals, but don't think that'd be amecable all around) so that if I wanted to send money higher than the limit, pop you to a screen where you have to truly validate you want to send it (with re-typing in your login password or somesuch). Much easier to "recognize" when you have to spend some time typing a password again instead of being able to click-through w/mouse IMO....
-Datcha
I thought I would add my .02 to this conversation. I do not think that Damon should have to respond anymore in this matter. He has stated PayPal rules correctly and cannot reverse the transaction. Everyone that signs up for PayPal is responsible for the mistakes they make, not PayPal. I am sorry for what happened, but you made the payment, not PayPal. It was your mistake not theirs and I believe that you should take responiblity for this.
posted on August 24, 2000 03:11:24 AM new
Mighty nice for Paypaldamon to finally decide to take a look at things...of course by now the money is probably long gone and never to be seen again. But then they made some money on it...the seller made a lot of money on it...the only one really out anything here is datcha. Two out of three isn't bad I suppose.
Nice to see a company leap into action during a rough situation. Wonder if the media, who loves to jump in and look at cases of supposed or inferred internet fraud and theft would like to know about Paypal's attitude toward the situation?
As for Paypaldamon not having to respond anymore, you're correct. He shouldn't have to. He doesn't have to. But either inaction would be tantamount to supporting the use of his company to support dishonest sellers (which is what it looks like datcha's seller is turning out to be).
posted on August 24, 2000 03:20:27 AM new
Why is it PayPals fault that he made a mistake??? They are not supporting a bad seller or a good one. They are supporting what is wrote in TOU. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a bad state of affairs, when people like him do not send the money back. That is wrong, wrong, wrong, But it is even worse when people dont take responsiblity for there own actions.
posted on August 24, 2000 04:49:12 AM new
mrcorgan: Understand that Yes, the mistake was done. That fact is there and present. I do not blame Paypal,etc for this (although the entry "process"es capability for error are there, plenty comments have been made regarding this to improve it. There _is_ enough capability to tell you of what you are sending. It is just easy for me to double click thru and send w/o recognition of such a drastically abnormal amount. A lot of people don't "zip" through PC operations like me, so these types of screens are perfectly fine. Hence the discussion for possibly being able to pop a limit to generate a drastic "not just click the mouse" approval method for these cases.
Anyways,
That's neither here nor there.
What is left is the function of being able to retrieve the funds back from this seller.
In this section is also where the "lacking" of ways to handle this type of issue is where things have drug on...
While Paypal isn't "responsible" for being involved and wouldn't want to controle these situations, in some opinions they would _want_ to be a bit involved so they can identify, and deal with any users that are "improperly using" their service and giving/generating a bad name for them.
What aid,etc they'd be able to do is questionable. At the same time, they'd be able to verify certain specifics regarding this.
For example, say if a call is done to the seller, he verbally refuses to deal with me and refund the money. My 3 choices/actions probably would be
1) involving eBay (notification of the situation and passing user-mis-information to their watchdog group)
2) sending in the official request to the bank to look at it from the credit card/debit card point ov view and if they'd be attempting a chargeback
3) Failing all that there is direct litigation against Seller for the theft of the funds. (however that would be arranged/worked out I am unsure of specifics at this time).
Regarding both 2 + 3, if it got to these and there was literal lawyers/courts involved,etc I would believe they would want to have any specific information on record, due to the event of a chargeback if it occurs, and/or as a potential "witness" (sorta..however that works out...I'm not a lawyer so am not proficient with that).
There also is the potential for upcoming non-receipt/non-shipment of goods as well which would probably be "testing" their new poicy as well.
Anyways, that could be construed as what their "interests" in this would be. They may not be able to "help" in any direct way - but it's hard to say. Because of the "direction" of the funds, it's an odd situation.
I'm not sure if they legally would be able to even state that a seller "violated" anything in Paypal's agreement by refusing to refund. If there was a literal identifyable "violation" then I would think they would want to "witness" for themselves the fact that the seller is responding this way.
It's all new ground.
The short end of it though is that this seller is "stealing" these funds. Like mentioned earlier, yes, I sent the funds to him. But for him to not return the amount not involved in our "contract" (the eBay auction) and to retain it is and should be able to be considered as "theft".
But while I agree that I initiated this situation, I do not agree that I have to sit back and say "oh well...I goofed. He's entitled to the money now".
_I_ certainly would want any change back from giving bigger bills to a store....If one refused to give my change back a suit could be charged against that retailer.
This is still the same thing....just longer distances involved and a different "hand" (Paypal) that passes the money to him.
Oh well. Heading back home....long night @ work ^_^
-Datcha
Just want to commend you on your incredible patience with this situation. It must be terribly frustrating, and I am amazed and very impressed with your attitude, especially concerning PayPal.
You have not degenerated to the constant barage of insults against PayPal, and you're the one involved in this situation. You have been very forthright that you made a mistake (which any of us could very easily have done), and instead of focusing on the negative, you are focusing on how to correct this problem, and offering suggestions on how this could be avoided in the future.
I really hope that PayPal is able to help you with this situation. I'd be pulling out my hair if I was having to deal with the seller that you're dealing with. Maybe we can start a small campaign and have everyone email your seller letting him know he'd better refund your overpayment ASAP?
Anyway, best of luck, and thanks again for keeping us apprised of this situation. If there's anything I can do to help personally (besides sending you $1000 ), please don't hesitate to ask.
posted on August 24, 2000 09:26:06 AM new
I concur. datcha has shown superhuman patience and good humor throughout this hideous situation.
YES, it is indeed datcha's fault that s/he input the wrong amount and OK'd it reflexively.
YES, the seller is committing theft by keeping the erroneous overpayment.
YES, paypal is in seriously deep doodoo (if not legally, which I think it may be, then with respect to PR and customer relations) if it sits by knowing there is a problem and refusing to take any action at all - even investigating the matter.
No apology necessary, abingdon. I spent a lot of years in corporate law and litigation, and saw the misery of both big and little guys when potential problems were not addressed from the get-go in unequivocal language, so I'm hypervigilant on this sort of stuff.
posted on August 24, 2000 10:25:57 AM new
Hmmmmm...interesting thread. I am stunned by PayPal lack of response to the problem. I am sure it wasn't the 1st time someone made this type of mistake. Sure it isn't PayPal fault but a little help would be the right thing to do. Looks like they are leaving the buyer twisting in the wind. Not impressed by their attitude at all. I think I have some deleting to do on my auctions...like the part where I accept PayPal.
Jeez when I go to the ATM to make a deposit and it is over a certain amount they always ask again.....if it is the correct amount (I do love when I get to see that screen ). Why not on PayPal? I hate when a CS person (or anyone) uses the "well if it was....a bank,Kmart, Macys" or whatever excuse to make their point. Argh!
I hope it works out for you Datcha.
posted on August 24, 2000 10:33:21 AM new
Does anyone know what this post is about?
paypaldamon
posted on August 23, 2000 11:41:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI datcha,
Please contact me at [email protected]. I will check this in the morning. I will also pass along the thought for transactional caps. ($100 maximum transaction as the example)
posted on August 24, 2000 10:33:28 AM new
Just a question for consideration (and this is not, in any way, shape or form a critisism of any of the above posts or posters)...
How many "Are You Sure?" screens would be enough to insure against this happening?
posted on August 24, 2000 10:38:10 AM new
>>How many "Are You Sure?" screens would be enough to insure against this happening?<<
I would suggest that when someone signs up for Paypal, they get a screen that asks, "How dumb are you on a scale of 1 to 10?" The number they pick is how many times they are asked if they are sure.
Years ago I read an article about writing software that is "idiot proof." The author gave an example that went like this:
program: are you sure you want to do that?
user chooses yes
program: are you positive?
user chooses yes
program: remember that once you do this, you can't go back and change it. Confirm or cancel.
user confirms
program: the last time you did that, you changed your mind later and it was too late. Is that your final answer?
posted on August 24, 2000 10:42:08 AM new
Perhaps not another screen, but instead a redesign so that it is clearer and the relevant information is more prominent on screen.
If it happened once, it will likely happen again if there are no changes.
posted on August 24, 2000 10:54:05 AM newYears ago I read an article about writing software that is "idiot proof."
I have a program (it's meant as a joke) that I received from a friend a couple of years ago that takes 25 clicks to get out of. Maybe that would be enough...
posted on August 24, 2000 11:19:11 AM new
HI carinibaby,
I am in touch with the user. It is not that I don't care, but we don't even know what has happened with the seller and I don't think that they are trying to bilk anyone and they are probably not aware of the mistake. I checked the auction and the feedback (all superlative). To be truthful, if we were able to change the transaction amount after a payment is sent, it would open a whole new area of problems for the sellers.
The illustrations I made were to point out only how careful you have to be and why. It may not be the popular answer, but it is the correct one.
Here is the screen after you first enter the amount you want to send and the email address.
Please check that the information displayed below is correct and click "Send Money."
Recipient
[email protected]
(This recipient is not yet registered or verified. He or she will receive the money after opening an account with this email address.)
Amount
$0.01
It asks you to check to see if the information is set before hitting the SEND MONEY button (which processes the transaction)
posted on August 24, 2000 11:41:04 AM newHe has stated PayPal rules correctly and cannot reverse the transaction
Let's ask paypaldamon what happens when it appears that buyer was not authorized to use the credit card, and this is quickly detected by PayPal (say in about the same amount of time that this buyer took to recognize his mistake).
Does PayPal claim in such circumstances that the money has already passed to seller, and there is nothing PayPal can do to get it back?
posted on August 24, 2000 11:51:27 AM new
HI SG52,
The card holder has the right to dispute any transaction placed against their credit card. The verification is protecting sellers up to 5000.00 per year against these circumstances.
posted on August 24, 2000 01:47:53 PM new
How about on the confirmation screen, instead of just clicking a "Send Money" button, which would be easy to do accidentally anyways, how about having the sender enter the amount a second time...if it matches the first amount entered on the previous screen, done deal...if it does not match, the sender is returned to the beginning of the transaction to try again. This method is already being used by many website's registration screens to ensure that the user is not mis-typing their password...why not use it to prevent accidental typo's in $ amounts? It would be a lot harder to accidentally enter the same incorrect amount twice than it would be to accidentally click on a "Send Money" button. Just a thought.....
posted on August 24, 2000 02:01:43 PM new
Well, just the brief summary of what was found out (since so many have been watching this...)
1) The number he provided to eBay went to a flower shop. No, the shop didn't recognize either of the seller's name(s). No, I didn't order any flowers.
2) The 30 day paypal fraud protection is a moot subject now...the tape did arrive. (sure could've been a better quality tape for what I ended up paying for it.....)
(heck for what he got out of me he could've even had the case gold-plated.....)
So from this standpoint, and from paypal's "view" with this, I believe, they'd more or less only be able to consider the fact that he "followed through with the contract obligation" and that's it.
I am providing full detailed info however to Paypal, and will now be feeding this/reporting to ebay's safeharbor as well.
The only other steps I know of at this time will be to
1) report to eBay.
2) Report information to a literal legal/federal group for investigation.
and the only other one is to proceed to
3) officially file with bank and see what they decide....
Well, I will say this has been (and continues to be) a unique experience. I definitely thank all for the discussion here. It brought up a few points I didn't think of (heh and of course a whole-lotta rehashing of some of the same points over 'n' over..^_^)
The only thing other than that that I was going to possibly post would be a link to the auction itself in here. I don't think it'd serve much however...
(and in a legal litigation sense, it might be considered a form of "slander" as I'd be identifying the seller in a "public forum". I might be wrong about this, but am playing on the safe side for now).
I have passed the auction + other infos to Damon and like mentioned ebay's group will get same info as well.
Will still let everyone know what responses I get from ebay,etc...
