posted on August 8, 2001 12:16:17 PM newHowever, anyone using Endicia.com or other bulk mailing/preprinted programs is apparently NOT going to be covered because their items weren't scanned in at the PO at the beginning of the package's journey (Proof of Shipment). Even if the package shows as having been delivered (Proof of Delivery), Damon has said that this is NOT the same as "Proof of Shipment", so the seller protection program would be void.
But, HarryWhitehouse (head Endicia dude) has posted here that the "Postage Log" funciton within Endicia was carefully created and designed to meet some sort of USPS Logging standard. In other words, Endicia and the USPS consider the postage log to be an official record of mailing. That coupled with a confirmation of delivery would presumably be sufficient for Paypal.
Note the key word "presumably", though. Someone, sooner or later, will be a test case. I hope they post their tale here. (And I hope it's not me!)
posted on August 8, 2001 12:23:57 PM new1. We've never heard from the purse buyer, so we don't know what the buyer might say. On its face, we find that buyer thought the purchase involved a $2500 value purse but received a $1000 value purse.
Not quite. We find that another auction ended for $1,000. Not a reflection of the 'value' of either purse. The buyer chose to bid the $2,500 of their own free will, and should live with the consequences of their actions. PayPal should at least try to fight this chargeback.
We have all 'won' and item on ebay, only to see a similar item go for less later on. Should we all have the rights to re-negotiate our buying price?
Or should we all have carte blance return privleges, just because we felt (in retrospect) we overpaid?
How about a little personal responsibility for once!
2. Seller REFUSED to take it back. No sympathy here. Total control over that decision, bad decision. No one can expect PayPal or anyone else to cover the cost of such a decision. This point is the core of the entire discussion. PayPal cannot accept financial responsibility for seller's refusal to accept the return.
No, not a 'bad decision'. The buyer was fine with the price paid and the item received, until they see something similar go for less. Too flipping bad. 'They' had control over how much they bid. Unless the item was misrepresented (and I haven't heard any claims of this), the buyer should live with the consequences of their own actions.
Should all sellers offer the following guarantee?
"If the winning bidder on this auction ever notices a similar auction end for less then your winning bid, you are free to return the item for a full refund, no questions asked". That's what it sounds like you are advocating.
[i]3. Control of how a description is interpreted is much like the control over a car exercised by a driver. Loss of control is the result of driving badly. Some drive recklessly on purpuse, and some simply do not
anticipate the conditions they are about to face. In all situations the loss of such control is the responsibility of the driver.[/i]
This is why potential bidders have the ability to ask questions before placing a bid. Anyone bidding $2,500+ on an item has the responsibility on them to be sure they are interpreting things correctly.
But anyway, this is not really relevent here. No one that I have seen has claimed the item is anything less than advertised, and to assume so is not logical. the only problem here is that the buyer saw a similar auction end for less. Too bad for them.
Lastly, and repeating, it's pointless to analyze statements made by PayPal before they tightened up, and it's deceptive to claim that they were made with any form of malice. Damon and others reported contemporary expectations. The expectations changed.
PayPal trumpeted the 'seller protection plan' far and wide as a way to avoid chargebacks. The 'expectations changed' and it is announced quitel and ambiguously on a couple message boards. How about as much publicity for the 'limited plan' as there was for the old plan? Just asking for a little consistency from PayPal...unreasonable, I know.
[ edited by purplehaze1967 on Aug 8, 2001 12:25 PM ]
I don't know where the post from the Endicia head honcho is, so I strongly suggest that you start a new thread with this as your lead topic. I doubt Damon will see this buried down here in a different topic heading.
posted on August 8, 2001 12:32:40 PM newOh... and one more thing from the original seller's post (purplehaze will certainly be able to relate):
2 weeks ago I get an email from her stating that she disputed the charge with her credit card company and that she won! 1 week ago Paypal takes out my account over $2500 and puts it in pending until further investigation. I swiftly call paypal explain the situation, the rep tells me I should be covered by their so called protection plan and the money will come back to me.
Of course, it didn't quite work out the way the customer service rep said it should. I guess good help is hard to find these days...
I bet the seller simply misinterpreted what the rep told them. No way could any rep ever give out misleading, false, or non-TOU compliant info. Just ask PPD...
[ edited by purplehaze1967 on Aug 8, 2001 12:33 PM ]
posted on August 8, 2001 01:13:33 PM newvobistdu, I have actually asked this question of paypaldamon on numerous threads both in the paypal area and on the eBay area and never gotten a response. So I was a little shocked to see his response on another thread (which you started?) that suggested that endicia's form of DC was acceptable.
I planned to post a clarifying question tonight in that thread, along with an example of endicia's DC and see what he says (if anything).
I am contributing about this to mrpotatoheadd's post, but I didn't start one. If you can pull your postings from other threads together into that new one you plan for later today, that would be great.
Damon really doesn't want to define all the elements that paypal requires for a package to be "tracked online". This requirement--must be tracked online--seems such a simple statement that we shouldn't have to be worried about convoluted logic and "gotcha" exceptions--but we know better, I'm afraid.
posted on August 8, 2001 07:45:25 PM new3. Control of how a description is interpreted is much like the control over a car exercised by a driver. Loss of control is the result of driving badly. Some drive recklessly on purpuse, and some simply do not anticipate the conditions they are about to face. In all situations the loss of such control is the responsibility of the driver.
Oh come on. Interpretation is entirely in the mind of the interpretor. My perception of any given politician likely is very different from yours. Is that the politician's fault? Or is it simply a matter of my expectations being different from yours?
Most of us who've been selling on eBay for any real length of time have had buyers who expected one thing and got something less -- even if we are meticulous in our descriptions.
They want so badly for something to be what they evision that anything that's even slightly less is fatally flawed.
Heck, I've been disappointed by items I've bought online. But it wasn't the sellers' fault -- it was mine. I had raised my expectations to an unrealistic level. In each of these instances, I got exactly what I paid for -- nothing more, nothing less. It just wasn't what I'd dreamed it would be.
Personal responsibility should be exercised by sellers, but should also be expected of the buyer.
[ edited by purplehaze1967 on Aug 8, 2001 12:33 PM ]