posted on August 2, 2001 03:24:03 PM new
Roofguy wrote: There is no refutation possible. If the buyer is disappointed in the quality of the merchandise, buyer is allowed to return the merchandise and get the charge removed.
Very wrong and overly broad. Quality of merchandise dispute does not equal automatic victory for buyer. Returning merchandise does not equal automatic victory for buyer.
posted on August 2, 2001 04:16:34 PM newIn some cases someone would only want to use a tool once, or read a book once.
People who run stores would be able to point out that they have had this problem all along, but their way of handling it was to not talk about it, so as to not encourage more of it.
posted on August 2, 2001 05:11:12 PM newPeople who run stores would be able to point out that they have had this problem all along, but their way of handling it was to not talk about it, so as to not encourage more of it.
Those people could also point out that they have determined that it was in their best interest (for whatever reason) that their way of "handling it" would be to accept the chargeback, even though they had the option of disputing it.
posted on August 2, 2001 06:42:35 PM newIn some cases someone would only want to use a tool once, or read a book once.
People who run stores would be able to point out that they have had this problem all along, but their way of handling it was to not talk about it, so as to not encourage more of it.
Not in the women's evening/formal wear departments of department stores.
Most department stores plainly state in clear signage that they do NOT ACCEPT RETURNS of evening wear once the tags have been removed. It's also clearly printed on the receipt.
That old "wear it once, return it" routine doesn't work nearly as often as it used to.
posted on August 7, 2001 08:42:15 PM new
While this limited audience is debating with an obvious sock puppet (IMO obviously established so PP can argue w/o being held accountable for the statements, but only IMO), another little scenario occurred to me.
It sounds like a fair number of skeptical PP users are in approximately my position: I haven't been damaged or inconvenienced yet, I deal in material not in a price range especially attractive to scam artists among buyers, but am trying to cover my ass by drawing account balance down to zero fairly often, and w/o allowing any access by PP to a credit card OR any bank account with funds in it. OK, so if some day something like this purse incident (chargeback that IF seller dealt directly with card company would be disallowed but with PP's non-protective stupidity IS allowed and charged to the PP balance) happens to me, I figure I just walk away from Pay Pal and let THEM keep whatever the item was that they accepted for me. They try to mail it to me, I refuse to accept and it goes right back to their HQ building.
So they thrash around trying to glom up payments for a few weeks and I put in bold in my listings : "If you pay me by PP, you lose your money. Period." Eventually they hold an empty bag and I go on dealing in checks and MO's only. This sound like what some others of you sort of plan on if it should come to that?
What if PP sues? What if that goes into your credit report? Think about HOW unresponsive credit services are and how hard it is to get incorrect ratings changed once they propagate from one service to another?
Brrrr and double-brrrrrr. Maybe it's not so smart to just try to CYA as opposed to closing it all down? I will watch with great concentration for anything in this direction developing. Remember, they'd have maybe 3 years to file a collection suit.
