Here is of the information found in the terms of use on October 1st, 2001
IV. Receiving Payments
Credit Card Receiving Limit for Personal Accounts. Personal Accounts are limited to receiving $100 per month of credit card payments. Payments funded from the sender's bank account or existing PayPal account balance will not count against the recipient's limit. Payments funded wholly or partially by a credit card are classified as credit card payments in the PayPal system.
Receipt of Payments; Risk of Reversal of Transactions; Collection of Funds you owe PayPal. When you receive a payment through the Service, unless you follow the steps necessary to qualify for our Seller Protection Policy described in Part IV of this User Agreement, you are not protected against a subsequent reversal of the transaction. In the event that the sender's transaction is reversed for any reason and you do not qualify for the Seller Protection Policy for that transaction, you will owe PayPal for the amount of the reversed transaction plus any fees imposed on PayPal as a result of the reversal. Examples of such a reversal include, but are not limited to, a credit card charge-back by the sender of the payment, and a reversal of the transaction because the sender of the payment was using a stolen credit card or unauthorized bank account. PayPal will seek to recover the funds from you by debiting your PayPal balance and, if there are not sufficient funds in your PayPal balance, PayPal reserves the right to collect your debt to PayPal by any other legal means.
Here is some more information regarding reversals. These are the six steps that you have to follow be covered under the SPP for October 1st, 2001
Seller Protection Policy
General. PayPal agrees to indemnify sellers of physical goods from chargeback liability resulting from a buyer's unauthorized use of a credit card and/or false claims of non-shipment of goods. This protection applies to up to $5,000 per year of payments received by the seller through PayPal if the following conditions are met:
The seller has a Verified Business or Verified Premier Account (U.S.). Note: While International sellers may have a status of International - Verified, they do not qualify for and are not protected by the Seller Protection Policy and therefore may be responsible for any reversals made due to fraudulent funds.
The seller ships to the buyer's Confirmed Address.
The seller can provide reasonable proof-of-shipment which can be tracked online. This documentation must show that you shipped to the Confirmed Address. (Most U.S. carrier companies offer this service, including the U.S. Postal Service.) Because comparable proof-of-shipment is not currently available for electronically-delivered items, we are currently unable to offer Seller Protection for digital goods and other electronically-delivered items.
The seller accepted a single payment from only one PayPal account for the purchase. (Multiple payments from different accounts for a single item are a fraud indicator. Sellers should not accept such payments.)
The seller ships to a domestic (U.S.) buyer at a U.S. address.
The seller cooperates in resolving disputes by responding in the following time periods: When a complaint occurs, the seller must provide complete information within 7 days of a request from PayPal. However, if PayPal is required by the credit card association to respond immediately to resolve a chargeback, sellers must provide the information within 3 days. PayPal will indicate the response time required in the e-mail message sent to the seller.
As much as I do not like the current system since PayPal will not give you the confirmed address in all transactions, it does use the term reversal in several parts of the TOS. It also uses the term Chargeback as well.
What entitles you to the SPP for your transaction? Where in the terms? You once posted you were entitled to it because you were an American. So where is it in the Constitution, Declaration of Independance or the Bill of Rights?
If your not covered by the SPP, your responsible for the reversal.
posted on October 5, 2002 04:30:00 PM new
thchaser200
Those 6 points are for "chargeback" protection. They do not apply to a "reversal"
A "reversal" is done thru Paypal.
A "chargeback" is done thru a credit card
They are not the same thing and on a contract, you must explain what is covered.
Nowhere does it say you have to follow the 6 points for "chargeback protection" for "reversal protection." until Jan 2002 and that is a proven fact by their own terms of use.
The requirments for a credit card payment are not the same as a non-credit card payment unless it says so. And it does not say so.
The word "reversal" was only in the 2001 terms in less then 10 places. In Jan 2002, it doubled and replaced "confirmed" in at least three places.
FACTS.
Fact. Paypal changed "chargeback" to "reversal" as they saw there was a reason. They changed it in at least three places. You do not change something for no reason. You do not alter a user agreement used by millions for the heck of it.
One change was under seller protection. one was under confirmed address, and one was under consumer protection.
All three made it ok for Paypal to process a "reversal" based on not shipping to a confirmed address.
Fact: to change one word in a contract, you can not apply the changed terms to a past event unless all parties agree. That is breach of contract.
Fact. The places they changed it are the SAME places I said they needed to in 2001. I pointed out all three of those section and Paypal changed them exactly.
Fact. Paypal on more then one occation tried to pass off the terms of 2002 on a 2001 reversal and claimed they were the same.
Fact. My buyer got my item at the address requested by them and Paypal reversed payment against me after it was proved they gave me that address and the item was recived there..
I don't need anyone to show me the terms of coverage on a "chargeback"
Noboday has ever shown terms of use from 2001 that say you need to ship to a credit card confirmed billing address on a non-credit card payment.
BECUAUSE IT WAS NOT THERE IN 2001. PAYPAL DID NOT PUT IT INTO PLACE UNTIL 2002.
posted on October 5, 2002 09:29:14 PM new
[SPP did not apply to your transaction (according to your logic.) ]
Again, Coonr, that is YOUR claim. Not mine.
My claim which was supported by Damon who claims he works for Paypal. My claim is Paypal offered protection from "reversals" in 2001 and he agreed with me.
Damon has said Paypal had protection from reversals in 2001. I will make him stand by that claim as he is an employee of the company. Either he was correct or is mistaken. Paypal is liable for any mistakes he makes.
Maybe they did not cover it under the section of SPP but he CLAIMED they gave sellers protection from "reversals" in 2001. So I am holding him to that claim.
So Paypal gave me protection as he claimed. So I accepted it.
Now to remove protection, they have to list guidelines. They have to have something set in the user agreement that says you may lose this protection if you do this or don't do this.
They failed to do that in the 2001 terms. This is a proven fact supported by the fact they changed the terms in 2002 to "reversal" as they saw their mistake.
In a contract, everything must be spelled out. You can not hold someone to a general claim unless it's in the contract. And any changes have to be agreed upon and can not be made retro without permission.
In the contract called Terms of USE, in 2001, there are no signs of a chance Paypal will remove "reversal Protection" by not following certain rules.
There are no rules listed to keep "reversal Protection. Only for "chargeback" protection.
And because a "chargeback" and a "reversal" are two different things, you can not use one for the other in a legally binding contract.
This is something Paypal forgot ? A multi million dollar company shown their mistakes by a customer ? (they fixed this in 2002)
My defense is paypal claimed I had "reversal protection" in 2001. And my defense is I shipped the item to the address on the payment screen and I don't care if it was confirmed as the confirmed address section did not warn of a "reversal" and only of a "chargeback"
And the payment did not warn of a possible chargeback or reversal because the buyer was allowed to remove that warning by removing the account address.
If not paid with a credit card, I don't care where their credit card bills go. Or even if they own credit cards.
But Paypal has no proof in the terms of use that they can take my "reversal" protection away. I did not offer to give it up. I did not miss any points for "reversal" protection as there were none listed. So they have no right to take away what they gave me.
Paypal messed up. They forgot to include the word "reversal" as a risk for not shipping to a confirmed address. This is a fact. The work "reversal" is not even in the section called "confirmed address" in Oct 2001 so they can not just verbally add it in as they tried to do. If it's not in there in 2001, they have no legal right to enforce it.
They saw they made a mistake and fixed it.
This is also a fact proven by the terms of use if compared word for word to each other.
However they can not use that as an excuse. Paypal messed up and reversed a payment and first tried to blame a credit card company. When they were proved wrong (that there was no chance of a "chargeback", they changed their story. They then claimed the Terms of use said you must ship to a confirmed address for "reversal protection".
Again they were proved wrong by their own legal document called the terms of use.
So Paypal changed the terms of use to include the word "reversal" in the SPP, Confirmed address section and customer protection.
The change showed they understood their mistake.
And when Paypal used the terms from 2002 against my 2001 reversal or the verbally changed 2001 terms (which they did try several time and I have dated e-mails and post to prove it), they broke the agreement made between paypal and myself.
So I owe them nothing. They on the other hand, may owe me something if I ever receive damages. As I will sue them for breach of contact in small claims court.
And Damon thepaypal will be my key evidence supplier.
He is the one as a paypal employee who claimed / posted on Bay they offered "reversal" protection in 2001.
He is the one who posted and e-mailed me altered terms of use and even claimed they were the 2001 terms. (breach of user agreement to do that)
He is the one who failed to ever show requirements from 2001 to keep the "reversal protection" he claimed they offered and kept posting "chargeback" rules and claimed they were the same for "reversal" even though the terms did not say that until 3 months after the reversal.
And I am just one of many customers. If they can do this to me, they could try it to anyone.
posted on October 6, 2002 06:54:12 AM new
I like the way you pick and choose parts of what a person says to agree and disagree with, based on whether or not they support your argument.
Damon did say they would protect against reversals, if you followed the steps listed in the SPP. There is and was only one set of steps to follow in the SPP. You chose not to follow them, and continue to argue they do not apply to you.
posted on October 6, 2002 02:05:36 PM new
See Kev - you've got it backwards.
Paypal's user agreement doesn't state all transactions are protected UNLESS you don't do the following.
It does state that all transaction are unprotected UNLESS you DO the following...
As thechaser stated above
"When you receive a payment through the Service, unless you follow the steps necessary to qualify for our Seller Protection Policy described in Part IV of this User Agreement, you are not protected against a subsequent reversal of the transaction. "
The offer you accepted was of no protection UNLESS certain steps were done. Paypal obviously points to the steps of the SPP in this statement, regardless of the word chargeback being used in the general description paragraph above. A chargeback is one example of a type of reversal. You cannot ignore the directions in this section.
You didn't EARN protection by following the steps. Therefore you are liable and accountable.
[ edited by katiyana on Oct 6, 2002 02:08 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2002 09:40:43 PM new
[The offer you accepted was of no protection UNLESS certain steps were done.]
And here are the STEPS I agreed to for "reversal protection" from the consumer protection policy :
"PayPal will investigate your claim, contact the seller and, if the seller does not present appropriate proof of shipment, a full refund or other evidence of a satisfactory resolution, PayPal will seek to collect the amount you paid from the seller. "
There was no definition of appropriate proof of shipping any where in the user agreement of 2001 listed under "reversal" and only under “chargeback” so you use the definition any reasonable person would accept.
In my case,
1. I offered Paypal and online tracking number that shows an item was shipped.
2.I showed them a e-mail and a positive feedback rating proving the item was received by the “buyer” so they can’t file a “buyers” complaint against me..
3.I offered a signed delivery confirmation with an address that matched 100% to the address on the payment notes and a e-mail re-confirming the correct address. And no warning was given on the payment of this address because the buyer was able to remove the "non-confirmed" or "confirmed" status logo. And there was only ONE address given and Paypal saw this if they looked at the payment sent like I asked them to before they hung up on me telling me I was “At Buyers Mercy”.
All show without a doubt, appropriate proof of shipment to any reasonable person (and even USPS mail fraud division as they took it and Ebay as they accepted it as a non-paying bidder and even shut down the Ebay account), and evidence of a satisfactory resolution by the buyer saying they received the item as ordered at the location requested.
[Paypal obviously points to the steps of the SPP in this statement, regardless of the word chargeback being used in the general description paragraph above.]
False. That is why Paypal changed the term "chargeback" to the term "reversal" in the SPP right after I pointed out that vague mistake.
[A chargeback is one example of a type of reversal. You cannot ignore the directions in this section. ]
True only one the first part. But a "reversal" is not an example of a "chargeback" so you CAN ignore the directions IF YOU CAN NOT GET a “chargeback”..
“Reversal” can apply to a credit card payment but a “chargeback” can not apply to a Paypal funds transfer or an E-check.. You can not receive a chargeback on a non credit card payment but you can get a reversal on a credit card payment.
You can pay for an item with a credit card, not receive the item, attempt a buyers complaint thru Paypal and IF you win, you get a "reversal". A reversal is something Paypal does. It’s not done outside Paypal and Paypal only answers to Paypal.
If paypal is not able to recover on a reversal, because you paid with a credit card, you can file a "chargeback" by contacting your credit card company. They then contact Paypal for funds back and then Paypal contacts seller for proof of "chargeback" protection. Paypal has to answer to the credit card company and their demands. Paypal hands may be tied.
But if you paid with an E-check or Paypal funds, your only option is a Paypal reversal. You have no right to file a "chargeback" as you did not use a credit card. Damon thepaypal defined a "chargeback" as a user must contact his/her credit card company to file and Paypal has no say in the issue of one.
So you can not receive a "chargeback" when paid with an e-check or Paypal funds.
So the requirements for "chargeback protections" do not apply to a "reversal" done by Paypal, until Jan 2002 terms.
So by changing the term from "Chargeback" (which only applies to a credit card payment) to the term "reversal" (all payments reversed by Paypal) in the 2002 terms, Paypal fixed the vague problem, covered both bases and clarified that all payments for physical items that can be shipped have to be shipped to the confirmed address to meet one of the points of many in the Sellers protection plan.
They gave themselves the right to process a reversal against me for not being able to PROVE the address the buyer gave me was confirmed. And now against any seller who does not ship to the confirmed address on all payment types for physical items that can be shipped.
Even if the payment is not for an item to be shipped like a hold on a personal pickup item. Paypal still requires shipping for “protection” ? Come on.....
Something Billpoint does not require. They don’t require shipping to confirmed address on non-credit card payments.
Remember, this was done like a month after I pointed out these phrases to Damon..... I claimed the terms where vague and wrong. Paypal stood my their old terms against but changed them anyways ??????
And even posted those terms against me and tried to tell me they were the ones in effect at the time of the $350 reversal. ? You can not change the terms of a contract and try to claim those changes were not done. That breaks the contract.
Paypal saw their mistake and fixed it. This change happened in at least three places !!
Sorry to have to say but this is the Paypal not everyone loves. Well I bet my buyer loves them becuase they could not have pulled the same scam with any other service.
posted on October 7, 2002 10:45:10 AM new
[These are not steps. ]
coonr.
Well if those are not steps Paypal was planning on performing, THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT PUT THEM IN THE USER AGREEMENT.
Because if they are written in the user agreement, Paypal must follow them or risk breeching the contract.
And if there were OTHER steps for reversal Protection in 2001 that Paypal wanted you to follow, they should have listed them under "reversal" and not under “chargeback”, as they are not the same thing. And Paypal knows this and that is why they changed the terms after I pointed out that fact. And in a legal binding contract, you can not make verbal changes unless all parties agree.
[I am in agreement with you more because you got the postal authorities involved in a case that PAYPAL refused to listen to]
GU1HToM
Not just USPS. Ebay all got involved and closed the account used based on fraud. They also reversed some fees as they said a buyer who reverses payment is a non-paying bidder. The buyer also tried to open a second e-bay account and we got that shut down also.
Paypal is the only one who refused to look at the proof offered and do anything for me. They just changed the terms of use and tried to claim they didn't.
Paypal only rewarded them and then changed their entire user agreement in at least three places to make what they did to me ok by the terms of use of 2002.
The problem is coonr works day and night for over a year to help Paypal and attack anyone with a complaint or a problem and has nothing to gain.
I may save my credit rating, I may totally stop someone from getting away with mail fraud, and I may take Paypal to small claims court for breach of contract. I may save other sellers from getting duped and the user agreement was changed after my "reversal" and matched ever suggestion I gave Paypal in 2001. Coonr cannot claim anything but what PSI he uses when they go on his beach walks....
posted on October 7, 2002 11:37:04 AM newI may take Paypal to small claims court for breach of contract.
Yea Yea, Right. And I may win the power ball!
You were not covered by the SPP. You have been asked and repeatedly failed to post any proof of you claim that you are entitled such protection. (Do you still think it is because your a GREAT American?)
Unless your transaction was covered your liable for the chargeback.
posted on October 7, 2002 06:04:52 PM new
[Unless your transaction was covered your liable for the chargeback. ]
coonr
I have never recieved a "chargeback" nor have I ever asked for protection from one.
See, you don't even know what you are talking about.
You must recieve a credit card payment thru Paypal get to get a "chargeback"
I recived a "reversal" which is not the same thing as a "chargeback" and Paypal knows this and that is why they changed the terms of use in EVERY SINGLE PLACE I POINTED OUT after they processed a bogus reversal against me when my buyer got their item at the address they gave me..
posted on October 9, 2002 05:32:04 PM new
[And where does it say that? You have failed repeated requests to show it. ]
Your one class act coonr.
The terms of use does not say you may die if shot in the head but you know it to be true.
Paypals terms are not the bible. They are not all knowing. Paypal can't even write them correctly and it takes their customers to show them their mistakes and they will fix them and deny the mistake.
Damon the Paypal has said paypal has no say in the issue of a "chargeback" and therefor can not apply to a "paypal funds transfer" or an "e-check" as paypal has the only say in their reversal or denial of one.
posted on October 9, 2002 09:37:24 PM new
So you admit the terms of use, does not support you claims regarding chargebacks and reversals? Show us ANY reliable source that supports your claims. (If you gonna cite Damon, we can all cite him as a dependabel source?)
posted on October 14, 2002 01:53:04 PM new
(If you gonna cite Damon, we can all cite him as a dependabel source?)
Coonr
I do not cite Damon as a credible source as far as defending Paypal. I do not cite him as a honest person either.
He has on more then one occations sent or posted the terms from 2002 and claimed they were the terms from 2001. He tried to trick me into believing him. He claimed they did not alter the terms of use in the three places from "chargeback" to "reversal" and he sent me the terms that said "reversal" even though they did not say "reversal" untill after I told Paypal they were wrong.
That is breach of contract to change the terms and apply them to past events. That means I can sue them for breach of contract if the breach caused me any damages.
However he is a Paypal employee and can be held liable for any claims he makes or mistakes he makes.
He made a mistake by claiming the terms from 2002 were from 2001. A mistake that broke the user agreement.
And he claimed Paypal does not have a say in the issue of a chargeback. And a user must contact his or her credit card to file a "chargeback". I am not going to prove him wrong like I have on his other claims becuase he is correct on the issue of a "chargeback"
If you do not recieve credit card funds, you can not get a chargeback.
So you can only get a "reversal" on non-credit card funds.
Paypal knows this to be true and that is why they took my suggestion and changed the terms of use to say what I told them it should say.
They changed the terms of use to match exactly what I claimed in should have said in 2001. And you know this to be true as you have fought to defend Paypal for about a year now...
And what have you done for Paypal lately coonr ? Warmed up Damon's coffee ?
, they changed their story. They then claimed the Terms of use said you must ship to a confirmed address for "reversal protection".