posted on June 5, 2000 08:19:28 PM new
1-However, that doesn't explain, if credit card companies won't charge back these purchases, why
PayPal reserves the right to recover chargedback funds from their users and to lock them out of their accounts. Answer: This is in case you state a charge is unauthorized charge and you charge it back. Which they would be fine with but if they fine out it is yours they will recharge. They lock your account if you chargeback something you should not such as not getting a item because that is against the agreement. This does not mean that you will win the chargeback but they will lock up your account until it is resolved.
2-It doesn't explain why users have posted to say that they were locked out when they successfully charged back a PayPal? They may think that the chargeback is over but PayPal may not have responded to the chargeback yet. Also they may have lied and in that case they would win the chargeback.
3-It doesn't explain why a PayPal representative said they will lock out users who charge back purchases? PayPal as your bank pays fees for chargebacks and it is also against your agreement. You break the agreement why would they want you to still use their services.
4-lastly, it contradicts the section of the United States Code (posted previously) that says credit
card users are entitled to charge back purchases when they do not receive merchandise, unless the
card issuer can show that they did receive the merchandise. Ok as crazy as then may sound and as the merchants drop to the floor you can always say you never got it and even if they say here is a signed slip and you say not me. You will win the chargeback every time. THE MERCHANT IF IT IS WORTH IT TO THEM MAY TRY TO RECOVER FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CHARGEBACK SYSTEM.
You're convinced of your position. I'm convinced of mine. How about we each put up $1000. We'll do a test. I'll submit a nothing received dispute against PayPal (say $25). If I
get my money back, I get your $1000. If PayPal wins, you get my $1000. In either case, I'll give
PayPal back their chargeback+$50 extra.
Sounds great, that bet would be just fine with me if it were legal and I trusted you even a little bit. Considering you are very much out of your league on this you may want to get the facts.
Ok anyone who thinks I am wrong can do this call your credit card company and tell them you took a cash advance and took the cash and paid a person and they did not get your stuff. See how far you get with that. PayPal is the same thing when you get right down to it and if you are HONEST and tell your credit card company all of the facts they would not even charge it back. The key word would be that you are honest. Can you lie and win a chargeback yes. If you tell your credit card company that you agreed to the agreement that you would not chargeback PayPal if you did not get your stuff but you would like to anyway they will think your nuts.
P.S. It blows me away how people freak out about this so much. Check feedback and play it safe and you can use paypal. They are fast and free. Only in American would people find a way to be mad at a free service.
[ edited by winonme on Jun 5, 2000 08:27 PM ]
posted on June 5, 2000 09:22:20 PM newcall your credit card company and tell them you took a cash advance and took the cash and paid a person and they did not get your stuff. See how far you get with that. PayPal is the same thing when you get right down to it call your credit card company and tell them you took a cash advance and took the cash and paid a person and they did not get your stuff. See how far you get with that. PayPal is the same thing when you get right down to it and if you are HONEST and tell your credit card company all of the facts they would not even charge it back
Oh, so now PayPal is the same as a cash advance, huh?
Funny, PayPal doesn't tell credit card companies they're doing a cash advance. If they did, buyers who use PayPal would be charged a cash advance fee by their credit card company.
If you're right, then it's PayPal who isn't being honest. They're providing a "cash advance" service but falsely charging it as a merchant transaction, and in the process robbing the credit card companies of their cash advance fees.
Sounds like you've backed yourself into a corner: Either PayPal is enabling a standard credit card purchase, in which case chargebacks are allowed under Federal law; OR they're providing cash advances, in which case they're guilty of widespread fraud against hundreds (maybe thousands) of credit card companies.
Considering you are very much out of your league on this you may want to get the facts.
I think it's become very clear who's out of their league.
posted on June 5, 2000 10:06:23 PM newSounds great, that bet would be just fine with me if it were legal and I trusted you even a little bit. Considering you are very much out of your league on this you may want to get the facts.
winonme I'm serious. I'm willing to do this with the publicity of a major newspaper (it's a way-newsworthy story).
We can set it up so no one needs to trust the other. Either I get my money back or I don't.
posted on June 6, 2000 04:25:33 AM new
Oh, so now PayPal is the same as a cash advance, huh? No. I was trying to get you to understand that is how the credit card company would look at it if you told them the whole story.
If you're right, then it's PayPal who isn't being honest. They're providing a "cash advance" service but falsely charging it as a merchant transaction, and in the process robbing the credit card companies of their cash advance fees. You are buying the service of payment not cash. If they make the payment they have done their job.
Sounds like you've backed yourself into a corner: Either PayPal is enabling a standard credit card purchase, in which case chargebacks are allowed under Federal law; OR they're providing cash advances, in which case they're guilty of widespread fraud against hundreds (maybe thousands) of credit card companies. – I love that law thing you talk about I will promise you that you will never win a chargeback under that chargeback rule. Do it chargeback 54 claim or defense is what it is called. No one does it because it is the weakest rule out there. Yes you are purchasing a service for which they pay someone money. IF THEY PAY THE PERSON YOU WANTED PAID THEY HAVE DONE THEIR PART AND IT IS OVER!!!
Considering you are very much out of your league on this you may want to get the facts.
Yes you are call your credit card company and ask them if they have a dispute department that takes calls.
winonme I'm serious. I'm willing to do this with the publicity of a major newspaper (it's a way-newsworthy story).
We can set it up so no one needs to trust the other. Either I get my money back or I don't.
What do you say? Where do you live Vegas? I do not think I would put myself in the paper for something that is not legal in my state. Are you nuts? I have a better Idea you do it and provide me with all the information that you send in and it must be for a large dollar amount like 400.00 because you would get your 25.00 because most credit card companies write off one charge per year under 25.00. If you get to KEEP the money for good not a credit that will later be taking away I will never make another post. When you lose you never make another post. Maybe this way you will understand that I am right. You could send the dispute to me and I will work it. DECLINED!
posted on June 6, 2000 05:15:43 AM newI love that law thing you talk about I will promise you that you will never win a chargeback under that chargeback rule
You're wrong, again, because I already have won several chargebacks under that rule.
Y'know, that's the same law that in your June 5th post you said "You will win the chargeback every time." Apparently your promises aren't worth very much.
sg52 has given you the opportunity to "put your money where your mouth is", but you declined. Your posts are illogical and contradict known facts and even your earlier statements. I've more than made my points in this thread, but if you want to keep posting about how much you believe PayPal's line of reasoning, go ahead.
sg52, it's your call, but clearly PayPal themselves have no interest in responding to this thread ... maybe it's time to have it locked & move on?
posted on June 6, 2000 05:35:07 AM new
You're wrong, again, because I already have won several chargebacks under that rule.
Y'know, that's the same law that in your June 5th post you said "You will win the chargeback every time." Apparently your promises aren't worth very much. Answer: No I was taking about chargeback rule 90 and not 54 on the 5th. You have not won chargebacks on this rule call and see if they will even tell you what rule you won your chargeback on. I am sure it was 90 or maybe 53. IT was not 54.
sg52 has given you the opportunity to "put your money where your mouth is", but you declined. Your posts are illogical and contradict known facts and even your earlier statements. I've more than made my points in this thread, but if you want to keep posting about how much you believe PayPal's line of reasoning, go ahead. I have put up a legal bet and you have no clue of the rules and you know it.
sg52, it's your call, but clearly PayPal themselves have no interest in responding to this thread ... maybe it's time to have it locked & move on? Why should they? Lock it because I am right and that’s the bottom line.
posted on June 6, 2000 09:51:09 AM newsg52, it's your call, but clearly PayPal themselves have no interest in responding to this thread ... maybe it's time to have it locked & move on?
as a long time usenet poster the idea that the original poster to a thread retains some control over it seems, well, perverse. So I'll not invoke any such request, this time or any other.
However, I will start a new thread with a less inflammatory title and see if we can get PayPal to explain their side of it.
I'm also working on the "major publicity" angle. This is a real story. Tension builds readership.
posted on June 6, 2000 10:45:36 AM newWinonme could you at the very least format your postings such that one can distinguish your response from what you're responding to?
posted on June 13, 2000 08:14:27 AM new
The key issue is that users of Paypal are under the mis-conception that it is a safe transaction. It is not. It is no different then sending cash. Users need to understand this when they make the decision to use the service.
"It is Fast" - Not really, it takes longer to get paid than if the customer mailed payment.
"It is Free" - Not any more.
"It is Safe" - Not for the buyer. You surrender all of your rights as a credit card holder by using the account.
posted on June 13, 2000 08:42:25 AM new
mrjim, "The key issue is that users of Paypal are under the mis-conception that it is a safe transaction. It isnot. It is no different then sending cash. Users need to understand this when they make the decision to use the service."
If I send cash I have no record of the transaction, if I use PayPal I have records that are legal evidence of the transaction same as if I sent an electronic check, money order, or personal check. You're wrong.
mrjim,""It is Fast" - Not really, it takes longer to get paid than if the customer mailed payment."
If I make a purchase via PayPal I'll get the item 3-5 days faster than if I used a money order via snail mail, and 10-21 days faster than if I sent a personal check. Some still think that's an advantage, I do.
mrjim, ""It is Free" - Not any more."
I've yet to pay PayPal a dime, for any item I've sold or purchased. So in my case it's still free.
mrjim, ""It is Safe" - Not for the buyer. You surrender all of your rights as a credit card holder by using the account."
It isn't as safe as a credit card to a merchant account yes, you are correct. Unfortunately the options I'm given when paying via PayPal is Money Order, Cashier's Check, Personal Check, or PayPal and PayPal is as safe as any of those options.
I think it's become very clear who's out of their league.