Bad Bad deal with Deja_vu7 in the Automatic Exchange

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I feel that the seller is in the right here as the buyer did not follow the stated conditions of the sale, knowingly or unknowingly.

Any financial shortfall arising from the buyer's failure to follow those conditions, intentional or otherwise, should be his responsibility.

(This is a separate issue from PayPal's guidelines regarding the return of fees.)

My personal opinion, not a stated position as a staff member here.
 
benchwarmer380 said:
The buyer, being a user of PayPal, also agreed to their terms.

The buyer failed to meet the terms of the deal so the seller refunded the money.

PayPal keeps the fees for the transaction and refunds the rest, as per their policy.

Why should the seller be out money and not the buyer in this situation?
Click to expand...
What did the buyer do that's against Paypal's terms?
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I think it's an excellent reason to use a service other than PayPal, but that was the seller's choice. Again, I certainly don't think the buyer was doing right, but the seller chose to deal with PayPal and agree to their terms. Bad action by the buyer doesn't invalidate that. If you're selling something it's your responsibility to be familiar with the policies of the entity you're going through and, if you're unhappy with them, to find a different entity.
Click to expand...
Sadly we don't really have a better service, even though that's a reeeeeaally low bar. I think the field is ripe for a small payment processor similar to PayPal that specializes in guns, knives, and other things that PayPal disallows or has conflicting and vague policies regarding.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Passing transaction fees onto the buyer is against their TOS last I read. And that's not getting into offering a F&F deal for G&S.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, really, but on the other hand the seller used the mechanism PayPal created for refunds in the exact way he was supposed to do.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Passing transaction fees onto the buyer is against their TOS last I read. And that's not getting into offering a F&F deal for G&S.
Click to expand...

He didn't. PayPal did with their refund policy.

Does this not apply to the buyer as well?

"you chose to do business through PayPal and and financial loss or frustration with their policies is the result of your choice."
 
benchwarmer380 said:
He didn't. PayPal did with their refund policy.

Does this not apply to the buyer as well?

"you chose to do business through PayPal and and financial loss or frustration with their policies is the result of your choice."
Click to expand...
Apologies, but no, that's not how this works. You charge you asking price, PayPal deducts the fees. If you refund the money, it refunds the full asking price, but PayPal pockets the fees. If you subtract the fees or refund less than the full asking price, you are passing them onto the buyer, as happened in this case.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Passing transaction fees onto the buyer is against their TOS last I read. And that's not getting into offering a F&F deal for G&S.
Click to expand...
Leaving F&F out of this, since the transaction was with G&S...

...As I see it, there would have been no transaction but for the simple fact that the terms of the sale were not followed. Therefore, the error (or willful neglect) leading to the loss was on the part of the buyer.

(In other words, no loss would have been incurred if there were no transaction. There'd have been no transaction if the buyer's location was known in advance.)

It's not enough money to lose a lot of sleep over, but as a matter of principle, I feel that the error is with the buyer and they should be gracious enough to accept responsibility for the shortfall.

Indicating a Delaware location does nothing to further their argument for not being responsible, imho.

YMMV.
 
Blues said:
Leaving F&F out of this, since the transaction was with G&S...

...As I see it, there would have been no transaction but for the simple fact that the terms of the sale were not followed. Therefore, the error (or willful neglect) leading to the loss was on the part of the buyer.

(In other words, no loss would have been incurred if there were no transaction. There'd have been no transaction if the buyer's location was known in advance.)

It's not enough money to lose a lot of sleep over, but as a matter of principle, I feel that the error is with the buyer and they should be gracious enough to accept responsibility for the shortfall.

Indicating a Delaware location does nothing to further their argument for not being responsible, imho.

YMMV.
Click to expand...
I've got no real issues if the buyer gets dinged, as they definitely should have, at minimum, communicated that a forwarding address was being used. But from a PayPal claim perspective, I would absolutely expect them to side with the buyer because their TOS covers essentially this exact situation.
 
LastRodeo said:
I'm curious about the rules on this. If the deal is cancelled, but the seller is out the fees (he will not be made whole in the transaction), seller can still leave negative feedback, but buyer can't?
Click to expand...
Short answer would be you’re correct.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I've got no real issues if the buyer gets dinged, as they definitely should have, at minimum, communicated that a forwarding address was being used. But from a PayPal claim perspective, I would absolutely expect them to side with the buyer because their TOS covers essentially this exact situation.
Click to expand...
PayPal is always going to resolve any matter according to their guidelines and in their best interest. They are not in the charity, sympathy or losing money business.

I was not addressing PayPal policy in my posts above...as I indicated.

Anyway...
 
Blues said:
PayPal is always going to resolve any matter according to their guidelines and in their best interest. They are not in the charity, sympathy or losing money business.

I was not addressing PayPal policy in my posts above...as I indicated.

Anyway...
Click to expand...
Agreed. My thinking is pretty much always that if you're acting in good faith you abide by the rules you agreed to abide by.
 
Deja_vu7 said:
Hello guys, I always run an honest business. I paid $ 312 G / S. I didn’t try to offend or deceive anyone. But you could write, my friend, there is not enough $ 3, since the commission is more than expected, throw off more. The bottom line is that you squeezed $ 3, I squeezed 15. This is also a matter of principle.
Click to expand...

"This afternoon I posted a few Microtechs for sale. And I had Deja_vu7 emailed me and claimed a Delta Dirac. As per the rules I put in the $300 FF and the $312 GS price. And in my for sale thread I always include the term "USA only", For good reason."

DV7: Would you care to elaborate on this part of the OP; the part where the OP clearly stated in his sales thread TOS: "USA Only" ?

Had you respected & followed his simple, clearly worded terms, this thread wouldn't exist.
 
Seller is in the right here. We can quote PayPal policies, blah blah blah. The buyer ignored/skirted sellers terms. No way I would have followed through on that sale either. Especially looking at the online comments the seller posted about the forwarding agent. The additional PayPal fees incurred complicated this slightly, but again that is on the buyer. Seller should not be out any money. That is just my opinion.
The buyer might win with paypal,.....but I suspect THEY WILL NOT WIN HERE.

We all have the ignore feature.
 
Deja_vu7 said:
Hello guys, I always run an honest business. I paid $ 312 G / S. I didn’t try to offend or deceive anyone. But you could write, my friend, there is not enough $ 3, since the commission is more than expected, throw off more. The bottom line is that you squeezed $ 3, I squeezed 15. This is also a matter of principle.
Click to expand...

Talking about your business and commission, shouldn’t you have a “dealer” membership if you’re buying knives from here to resell over there?
 
Blues said:
Personally, I feel that the seller is in the right here as the buyer did not follow the stated conditions of the sale, knowingly or unknowingly.

Any financial shortfall arising from the buyer's failure to follow those conditions, intentional or otherwise, should be his responsibility.

(This is a separate issue from PayPal's guidelines regarding the return of fees.)

My personal opinion, not a stated position as a staff member here.
Click to expand...
...... this pretty much.

The obfuscation of the sellers location was one thing but also International Transaction Fees are higher, obviously *I* know this and anyone buying from outside the US or working across international borders knows this as well.

The difference in cash (refunded) in this case is dictated by the medium used for the transaction and PayPal now do not refund fees. The Seller refunded exactly what he received. All this would have been avoidable had the buyer been more transparent about his location in the first instance. I have certainly used a "proxy address" in the US but not a commercial service such as in this case. It has always been a good friend and my end of the deal is always that I am happy when the knife is safe in that person's hands (not when it eventually finds it's way to me).

This was messy no doubt but I think the seller handled it appropriately when the full facts were known to him.
 
Last edited:
Insipid Moniker said:
Apologies, but no, that's not how this works. You charge you asking price, PayPal deducts the fees. If you refund the money, it refunds the full asking price, but PayPal pockets the fees. If you subtract the fees or refund less than the full asking price, you are passing them onto the buyer, as happened in this case.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's how it works now. Basically I believe what happened is that the buyer paid, and the OP received what was paid less fees, as per normal. Then the OP refunded using PayPal's refund option. But now PayPal only refunds the net amount that the seller received to the buyer. There was no manual change of the refund amount by the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top