posted on December 12, 2000 10:00:33 AM
I got ripped off by a seller and then jumped through all the hoops of the paypal agreement and did NOT get refunded like the agreement said I would. It was a VERIFIED seller and that did not matter. They got my money, I never got my stuff...simple as that! It was the old agreement that promised a full refund in 30 days after you filed the claim. The new agreement where NOW they will only pay you back what THEY get from the crook(HA!) is not worth the RBG it's written on! NEVER pay with paypal thinking your money will be refunded if you get ripped off. IT WON'T HAPPEN, I don't care what they say. Possession is 9/10'ths and don't forget it!! It cost me $375.00 to find out paypal is a SCAM!!
posted on December 12, 2000 11:32:18 AM
OK, if you HADN'T used PayPal, and just sent the seller cash/check/MO, how would you have gotten your refund then?
I can't see PayPal as being any worse than any other form of payment in this regard.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on December 12, 2000 11:36:44 AM
I do feel for you, having had a bad experience. However, without the full details, it is difficult to develop an opinion, one way or the other...
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on December 12, 2000 11:46:03 AM
One of my customers had the same thing happen. The seller used a fake address to register. The zip code didn't even match the city. Paypal kept telling him to wait and wait until I told him that if he waited any longer, the charge back deadline would run out.
As for this post:
>>OK, if you HADN'T used PayPal, and just sent the seller cash/check/MO, how would you have gotten your refund then?
I can't see PayPal as being any worse than any other form of payment in this regard. <<
The difference is that:
1) Only stupid folks send a seller cash. If you send a check or mo, you have something in your hand that you can take to the authorities and file a fraud claim. With Paypal you have nothing.
2) Paypal pays its sellers by sending them checks or electronic payments. Paypal has the ability to take back those payments. They do it when the seller is paid with a fraudulent credit card, due to PP's incompetence in the verification, so why don't they do it when the seller is an actual crook?
3) Paypal made a big noise about the buyer/seller protection they were offering. I have yet to see anyone get protected except for crooks and paypal (is that redundant?)
posted on December 12, 2000 11:48:59 AM
I had the same thing happen to me. I never got the explanation that they only refund the amount that PayPal gets from the seller, though. Thankfully, my loss was less than $30.
PayPal just put the "Pending" refund in my Inbox, but it never changed to "Completed". That way, it just shut me up for about a month, and now that I'm asking about what happened with this supposed "Fraud Protection", I'm getting no response.
posted on December 12, 2000 02:51:23 PM
Hey netlawhopeful, what if you wrecked your car and the insurance company said, "Gee whiz, I know we said we would pay but we are not going to....sorry" Would you be of the mind, "Gee, Oh well...I guess I'll just pay...seems fair to me. Duuh, if I didn't have insurance, who would pay anyway?" I don't think you would! You would be mad as hell because you got scammed just like I did! Good luck in your legal career...you have a lot of studying to do! When paypal says you are protected in their agreement with you, and then they don't follow through, that's called breach of contract. I think it would cost more than $375 to sue them and that's what they rely on. They know I'm right and they are wrong but they figure what the hell, their not gonna get sued over it!
posted on December 12, 2000 02:55:23 PM
No I didn't pay with a credit card. It was paid from funds in the account from other stuff I had sold. Maybe I'll buy something from myself under a new account and charge that back! Now I'm thinking like paypal!!!
