yisgood
|
posted on September 21, 2000 11:53:44 AM new
I cant answer for paypal, but my guess is a seller would be safe. Paypal never wanted to allow charge backs. I believe they only did it because the CC companies forced them to. Their cb policy pretty much says the CC company would make the final decision. In every case I have seen posted, PP basically said they were taking a hands off policy.
|
KateArtist
|
posted on September 21, 2000 01:03:14 PM new
My point being that delivery confirmation is not cheap and easy just because it only costs 35 cents. If I have to go to the post office for something I send, I no longer make a profit on it. My time doing that is far too expensive. I estimate that if I charged correctly, it would cost the buyer from 10 to 20 dollars extra for me to spend the time to drive to the post office during business hours, stand in line, process the transaction, and drive back. I surely can't hire someone else to do that for less.
I don't take charge cards directly, I can't afford that with the amount of business I do.
|
sg52
|
posted on September 21, 2000 10:09:11 PM new
If you use your CC to buy a money order and then use that money order to pay a crook, you can NOT charge back the transaction.
Nonsense, to the extent that this is claimed to be an analogue to PayPal.
If there was any doubt, we had several reports of exaclty such chargebacks. Originally PayPal tried to punish scammed buyers. The publicity regarding some disk drive scammer caused them to drop all such threats.
If you do buy a real money order with your credit card, you can buy one you can turn into cash. Note that PayPal requires that credit card payments be used only for payment for e.g. an auction. PayPal is a way to pay for items bought at auction.
What we have detected is that this might require moderate cleverness when establishing the dispute. One must make it clear to the credit card company that the payment being disputed was payment for the item, not anything like a cash advance.
For what it's worth, my credit card companies have never commented at all about PayPal or such services.
sg52
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on September 22, 2000 05:34:58 AM new
If you do buy a real money order with your credit card, you can buy one you can turn into cash. Note that PayPal requires that credit card payments be used only for payment for e.g. an auction. PayPal is a way to pay for items bought at auction.
Since when is PayPal only to be used to pay for an auction? PayPal can be used to send money to another person for ANY reason.
|
sg52
|
posted on September 26, 2000 11:02:59 PM new
PayPal can be used to send money to another person for ANY reason.
Read PayPal's terms.
You cannot send money to yourself, even indirectly, say as through your spouse. You have to use it to pay for something.
A "cash advance" is precisely what PayPal disallows.
Indeed, PayPal would like to have it both ways.
sg52
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on September 27, 2000 11:20:17 AM new
A PayPal user can most certainly send money to a relative, even a spouse. "Send money to anyone with an email address!" What part of anyone isn't allowed?
|
goldmanx
|
posted on September 30, 2000 11:03:26 PM new
I don't know (yet) if they'll take money out of an account without notice.. but they will "restrict" the account & freeze ALL the funds in it without notice or explanation!!! My account is restricted & frozen from withdrawals or sending for a day & a half now with NO NOTICE, NO EXPLANATION, & NO RESPONSE TO MY EMAILS!!!
|
sg52
|
posted on October 11, 2000 04:47:12 PM new
What part of anyone isn't allowed?
See term 9, copied below.
It follows from this, and other terms, that you can only use a credit card to buy something.
sg52
No Cash Advances. You agree not to engage in behavior that could reasonably be construed as providing yourself a cash advance from your credit card, and agree not to assist users who engage in behavior that could reasonably be construed as providing themselves a cash advance from their credit cards. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, a User paying someone by charging a credit card, then receiving the funds back from the original Recipient and attempting to withdraw the funds from an account. X.com reserves the right to reverse all such transactions and to terminate any accounts that are associated with such behavior.
|
dimview
|
posted on October 11, 2000 05:13:42 PM new
paypaldamon:
"Not being verified affords you no to little protection."
Hi again.
Would you please cite the exact section(s) of PayPal's terms of service that provide for *any* buyer protections afforded to buyers making PayPal payments to unverified sellers?
Thanks.
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on October 11, 2000 06:41:15 PM new
It follows from this, and other terms, that you can only use a credit card to buy something.
No, this is incorrect. PayPal built their company in part by advertising "Send money to anyone with an email address." They advocated using PayPal to pay for your part of a dinner check or a wedding gift, or to repay a loan from a friend.
I have a friend in Korea on a tour of military duty. He and his wife (who is in Georgia) send money to each other all the time. And this is exactly what PayPal advertised from the start. Of course their TOS changes more often than the phases of the moon, so who knows?
|
sg52
|
posted on October 13, 2000 11:45:29 AM new
He and his wife (who is in Georgia) send money to each other all the time.
It would be interesting to hear paypaldamon's analysis of such transactions.
sg52
|
vargas
|
posted on October 13, 2000 02:38:43 PM new
"He and his wife (who is in Georgia) send money to each other all the time."
Sounds like a person-to-person transaction to me!
|
sg52
|
posted on October 13, 2000 04:40:20 PM new
Sounds like a person-to-person transaction to me!
To be clear regarding the context here... the discussion regards a credit card being used to fund a transfer to one's spouse, such that it could or would be considered a "cash advance".
No one suspects that PayPal would be hostile toward moving money already in one's PayPal account to one's spouse.
sg52
|
deraha
|
posted on October 13, 2000 10:50:18 PM new
I have never used my credit card or used my
bank to make a payment, yet my account
is restricted (administrative restriction)
since 9-22-00. I consider this a hostile
action by paypal...
This is a problem not resolved yet...
I have made enough emails and phone
calls even got a response from
paypaldamon. Nothing is happening...
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on October 14, 2000 06:20:10 AM new
To be clear regarding the context here... the discussion regards a credit card being used to fund a transfer to one's spouse, such that it could or would be considered a "cash advance".
Please explain the logic behind this sentence. A transfer can be construed as a form of a cash advance just because the recipient is a spouse? I don't think so.
|
