posted on March 2, 2001 12:31:20 PM newWhat risk-free forms of payment do you accept?
To me, Personal Checks and Paypal are the 2 WORST, and RISKIEST forms of payment out there.
I accept several other online payment methods. True, they may have "a risk" like almost all payments do... BUT.. I have decided NOT to accept the 2 forms of payment that I find are the ABSOLUTE WORST.
If I go to an auction I'm interested in and someone says they don't take Achex, I have enough of sense to respect that person's personal decision not to accept it. I don't condemn them for not taking it! I don't email them asking if they'll make a decision. And I don't send them a Achex payment, hoping they will just take it and not complain. Everyone has their own reasons for accepting or NOT accepting certain payment methods and I can respect ANYONE'S decision. I just with others would have the same common sense and decency.
[ edited by ExecutiveGirl on Mar 2, 2001 12:32 PM ]
Im not trying to cause trouble here but I am trying to understand something from your post above. In it you say:
"I just got off the phone with Bank of America. Man am I mad at them. I clearly state on my auctions NO PERSONAL CHECKS and what do I get in my mail today? A personal check drawn on Bank of America! How can they let their customers send me this when I clearly don't accept it!"
So your mad at them because one of your auction winners did not follow instructions and sent a personal check.
ExecutiveGirl:
"well, I know all the horror stories about Paypal, but let me risk it anyways! If they freeze my account and get into my bank account and won't let me get the money you have Paypaled me I'll chaulk it up to a bad business decision".
I've been trying to catch up on these things would you or anyone for that matter, send me an e-mail sometime why PayPal or anyoher service, is a risk.
I take PayPal and have for some time but maybe there is a good reason I should not. I have seen where some of you are mad about then not sending checks to PO Box anymore but taht does not affect me since mine is sent ACH.
I am trying to learn here and not make anyone mad.
posted on March 2, 2001 12:49:25 PM new
Geez, I've been around here too long. I can actually hear LC's voice saying, "I have freakin' had it..."
I agree that Paypal should not take funds if the seller doesn't have an account. It would tick me off, too. They are part of the problem, in that they are enabling these buyers who do what they damn well please.
But, the real problem, is buyers not reading your TOS. What can you do, but enforce your TOS when replying to them. Do not give in to blackmail.
-------
BTW, I was going to buy something from stan41, but since he doesn't take Betty Crocker coupons...
posted on March 2, 2001 12:53:44 PM new
My auctions clearly state "Checks and Money Orders". Nothing wrong with someone sending me a money order. This is very clear to me.
Paypal is interfering with the conduct of my business.
To me it would be the same thing if I mailed the item to the customers local fire station and then emailed them and said "I mailed it to your fire department. Go by there and pick it up."
posted on March 2, 2001 01:09:17 PM newstan41My auctions clearly state "Checks and Money Orders". Nothing wrong with someone sending me a money order. This is very clear to me. Paypal is interfering with the conduct of my business.
Stan,
Let's suppose your terms were "USPS Money Order Only", (some require that because they can cash it at the post office). If the buyer sends a Western Union Money Order is Western Union or the clerk that sold the money order guilty of anything?
posted on March 2, 2001 01:14:49 PM new
I am not going to argue about it, but the proper thing should be that when someone wants to pay Paypal for my stuff Paypal should email the buyer with "Sorry, we can not accept payment for Stan41 since he is not a registered Paypal user."
posted on March 2, 2001 01:23:54 PM new
I'm sure the folks who don't accept checks would like banks to do the same thing. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
posted on March 2, 2001 01:37:30 PM new
ExecutiveGirl- I looked at the latest spam mail from them, and when I hit the button for headers the paypal email addy was there. I will try the link and see what happens. I am also going to email eBay and see what they think about it. I will let you know what I hear.
stan41- Spam is a minor offence compared to the other stuff they do. Every week there is more articles about their poor business ethics.
lanefamily- Here is the latest article I have on paypal. I email my customers these articles when the wonder why I dont accept it. I have gotten many thanks for it too.
posted on March 4, 2001 05:50:02 AM new
We emailed the customer asking him to cancel the payment and to please send the payment in another form that we do accept. Haven't heard boo from him. Too bad as it's over $200 that we can really use. He may or may not pay now, who knows.
Other news on the home front: received my first hot check in over 2 years of good transactions. Amount of $47 and change, including shipping. I called the man and he says he will make good and pay an extra $8 for our bank fee on the check. It's been over a week and we don't have it yet (I'm still hopeful though because of his good feedback of over 100). Yes, I already left him glowing feedback when we got his payment. OK, now I see the wisdom of not leaving feedback immediately. Since I did already leave feedback I suppose there is not much I can do except write it off if he doesn't pay.
posted on March 4, 2001 05:57:18 AM new
I've found something that works for me with the PayPal issue. I've put in my EOA that we no longer accept PayPal payments due to the unsatisfactory rating given PayPal by the Better Business Bureau. I've gotten a lot of "holy *$#%. I was going to ask if you'd take PayPal, but now I'm moving to a new service too. Thanks for letting me know." type responses. So far since I've put that in my EOA no one has even tried to send me a PayPal payment.
posted on March 4, 2001 06:27:59 AM new
Yes, it is true. I don't know how to do links, but here is the search form from the Silocon Valley BBB office:
http://209.128.79.238/search/search.asp
Just enter "paypal"
They are considered unsatisfactory BUT the BBB does state that paypal responds to ALL complaints brought to the attention of the BBB.
[ edited by kidsfeet on Mar 4, 2001 06:29 AM ]
posted on March 4, 2001 09:48:32 AM newIf the buyer sends a Western Union Money Order is Western Union or the clerk that sold the money order guilty of anything?
Bad analogue, uaru.
Here's a better one.
A woman is walking down the street, in no way suggesting a desire to be propositioned.
Across the street is a pimp.
Pimp doesn't know the woman at all.
Pimp points her out to potential john, "you like that one? $200 up front and she's yours."
John says ok, gives the pimp $200.
Pimp crosses street, approaches woman, says "you've got cash".
In my analogy I tried to give an example of a payment being received via a vehicle other than those in the sellers TOS.
Let's suppose your terms were "USPS Money Order Only", (some require that because they can cash it at the post office). If the buyer sends a Western Union Money Order is Western Union or the clerk that sold the money order guilty of anything?
So via your analogy it would seem Western Union or the clerk would be in the same league as the pimp as you site in your example.
posted on March 4, 2001 10:27:42 AM new
Back to the basics.
Buyer is responsible to deliver payment to seller, seller is responsible to deliver the stuff to buyer.
Purchasing a money order is clearly not "delivery of payment".
PayPal offers payment delivery, as a service. The problem is, they offer to deliver payment to sellers who don't accept such payment, they even offer delivery to sellers who have very concisely asked them not to harass them.
The pimp analogue is correct. PayPal is offering a service which is offensive when the recipient has expressed no interest.
posted on March 4, 2001 10:27:57 AM newauctionqueenieNo, paypal would be the pimp.
Okay, if payment is made via CitiGroup, Western Union, or PayPal when they aren't part of the seller's TOS then PayPal is acting like a pimp and though CitiGroup and Western Union offer EXACTLY the same option they wouldn't be pimps.
I suppose it must have something to do with the number of vowels in the company's name.
From CitiGroups email payment service:
Become a c2it member today to begin sending cash to anyone with an e-mail address.
From Western Union's email payment service:
You can send funds to anyone with an email address by using your MoneyZap.
posted on March 4, 2001 10:46:17 AM new
Sorry sg52, your pimp analogy is wrong. An Ebay seller is offering a product and wants to get paid. The woman walking down the street isn't offering anything for sale. Your analogy is more like an Ebay seller offering goods that he doesn't have.
If you don't accept PayPal and the buyer sends payment by PayPal, it's not PayPal's fault.
If you don't accept checks and the buyer sends payment by check, it's not his bank's fault.
If you don't accept non-postal Money Orders and the buyer sends payment by a Western Union money order, it's not Western Union's fault.
I'm sure you see where this is going, but in case you don't, I'll put it simply - It's the buyer's fault.
posted on March 4, 2001 10:53:17 AM newI'm sure you see where this is going, but in case you don't, I'll put it simply - It's the buyer's fault.
Buyer has indeed contracted with an unreliable delivery service, a delivery service which cannot deliver as promised. Buyer remains responsible to deliver the payment, so in that sense buyer is "wrong".
PayPal however is guilty of a deceptive business practice, contracting to provide a service which they cannot supply.
We might discuss varying degress of "wrongness", but PayPal is surely misbehaving in this story.
posted on March 4, 2001 10:54:37 AM new
Bidpay is fine with me. I have been paid a couple of times with it. All that occurs with them is they send me an email saying that they are mailing me a money order for my item. A couple of days later I get the money order. Since my auctions state that I take money orders this is fine. I don't have to go to a website, furnish information, give them a cut, or anything.
posted on March 4, 2001 12:02:14 PM new
Myself, I hold the buyer responsible for not abiding to my TOS. If I state "USPS Money Orders only" and the buyer uses BidPay to send me a money order I don't hold BidPay at fault, nor would I hold Western Union at fault.
This company liability issue over misuse of a product has been something I've never understood. I've never understood why Smith & Wesson has been sued when their product was used in a homicide, but it happens.
posted on March 4, 2001 12:52:51 PM newI've been trying to catch up on these things would you or anyone for that matter, send me an e-mail sometime why PayPal or anyoher service, is a risk.
If I sent you an email with all the reasons why PayPal is a risk your mailbox would probably not be able to hold it. So I won't even try. Just go the Partner Services PayPal board and spend a couple of hours reading the threads.
posted on March 4, 2001 01:06:03 PM new
It seems to me there is a lot of mixing of apples, oranges and rocks here...with a prostitute and a pimp thrown in for good measure.
Checks: If I open a checking account with Bank of America, I do so knowing, and BOA knows, that there are certain people and/or facilities who will not recognize my personal check as payment. I issue checks at my discretion to whomever, and BOA is not responsible, by any stretch of the imagination, if I try to purchase something with a check from someone who refuses to accept it. But when someone does accept my check for payment, BOA does not require that that person or business (the payee) be a customer (or member) of BOA, nor do they "take" a piece of that payment, from the payee, as a "fee", thus presuming and imposing a relationship with the payee which simply does not exist.
Bidpay: To get really technical here, Bidpay does not have to involve itself with the seller at all. They do it as a courtesy and convenience to their customer (the buyer of the money order), which sometimes enables the seller to ship sooner than they would if the buyer simply emailed "I'm putting you a Western Union money order in the mail today." On the buyer's word only, probably 99.9% of us would wait until we actually received said money order, and that is also an option with Bidpay. So if we accept money orders, then all a buyer really has to do is email Bidpay with the necessary information to start the money order process. All of the relationship and/or financial obligation is on the buyer. So if you accept Western Union money orders as a form of payment, you really can't deny Bidpay....you just don't have to ship until you receive payment.
Paypal imposes a relationship between Paypal and the seller, which the seller may not want for various reasons, as well as a financial obligation on the seller (or payee) before they will deliver the payment which the buyer contracted with them to deliver.
The Pimp in the above scenario has offered a service which he has no right to offer, and accepted payment from the unsuspecting victim (the "john". He has his money, and runs around the corner to hide. The unsuspecting "john" approaches the woman, who is shocked at his suggestion; he insists he has paid for her, has a right to her, and forces her into an act she doesn't want to commit. Afterwards, the pimp reappears and tells the lady, "Now you owe me .35, plus 3% (or whatever the current rate is) of what I collected for you, and here is what's left...that's your payment." Then the john complains to the pimp that, since the lady was not co-operative enough, it really wasn't all that good, and he wants his money back. So the pimp refunds him 100%, then takes off after the lady, chases her down, knocks her to the ground and snatches her purse, from which he promptly extracts not only the money he just gave her, but any additional money she may have in it as well, while he decides what to do about her business practices.
. He has his money, and runs around the corner to hide. The unsuspecting "john" approaches the woman, who is shocked at his suggestion; he insists he has paid for her, has a right to her, and forces her into an act she doesn't want to commit. Afterwards, the pimp reappears and tells the lady, "Now you owe me .35, plus 3% (or whatever the current rate is) of what I collected for you, and here is what's left...that's your payment." Then the john complains to the pimp that, since the lady was not co-operative enough, it really wasn't all that good, and he wants his money back. So the pimp refunds him 100%, then takes off after the lady, chases her down, knocks her to the ground and snatches her purse, from which he promptly extracts not only the money he just gave her, but any additional money she may have in it as well, while he decides what to do about her business practices.