posted on September 16, 2001 04:12:16 PM new
I only discovered this site today, or I'd have been here much sooner.
Several months ago I used Paypal to pay for 2 silver trays on eBay that were represented by the seller as sterling silver. The amount of $225 was not charged to a credit card, but from the cash balance in my PayPal account (a mistake I won't make again for any purchase over $20!). I did not discover until I received the trays that they were NOT sterling, but cheap silver plate. I contacted the seller to request a refund (less shipping charges) and told her I would return the trays at my expense. She replied that she not only would not refund my money, but would refuse them if I returned them. I promptly filed a complaint with PayPal, only to be told that PayPal's protection does not extend to issues of "quality."
The difference between sterling silver and silver plate has nothing to do with quality! When I asked PayPal if they'd also consider a cubic zirconium represented as a diamond to be "quality" dispute, and asked to be referred to someone in PayPal management, I received no reply.
I've filed a fraud complaint with eBay, but they can't make PayPal refund my money. Nor can eBay force parties to negotiate a settlement. So unless "Damon" can do something, I'm out $225 for two worthless silver plate trays.
posted on September 16, 2001 07:53:32 PM newWhen I asked PayPal if they'd also consider a cubic zirconium represented as a diamond to be "quality" dispute,
Did you ask them if the Pope was Catholic, and become disappointed when they declined to answer?
Your problem is the essence of a quality dispute. What did you imagine a quality dispute would be like? They go like this "seller says it's silver","buyer says it's not silver". Or "seller says he never claimed it was silver", "buyer claims seller claimed it was silver". Or "seller claims he sent silver", "buyer claims to receive not silver". Get the pattern? That's what a quality dispute looks like.
PayPal doesn't know if it's silver. PayPal doesn't know if you bought it as silver. To figure those things out would cost PayPal over a thousand dollars for each case, by the time the investigation was done and the lawsuits factored in.
PayPal does not get involved in quality disputes, you have to deal with the seller.
posted on September 16, 2001 08:04:13 PM new
"Quality"--at least IMHO--is "seller represented as 'mint condition," it was beat up." I don't have a problem with the quality of the trays...they're in fine condition. But they're NOT sterling silver--and that's what the seller said they were. Is a CZ a diamond?
<sigh>...I know, I know...unless Damon is a reasonable person who actually has some clout, I got a $225 education in how the REAL world of online payment works.
Peggie Hall, Atlanta GA
posted on September 16, 2001 09:33:01 PM new
Peghall;
Your new here so let me explain, roofguy is a PP chearleader and they can do no wrong in their eyes even if they would have sent you a rock, that would not be a quality dispute either.
I feel for you for you for using PP funds. I made the same mistake also but mine was only about $40.00.
Here is good advice, read more threads, file a complaint with the BB which you will see the address in several threads here. Wait for Damon to come along cause he is a good person but not sure if he can do anything for you.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:07:23 PM new
peghall: You're SOL as far as paypal's concerned unless that seller was stupid enough to leave $$ in his existing PP account.
Search the PP board for "quality of goods" or "quality of merchandise" to get the awful details.
Ebay itself allegedly has an insurance plan that may be of some help, but it may only apply if you paid through Billpoint?? (Not really sure right now as I've never use it or BP).
And do listen to LaneFamily's advice about roofguy's posts: He writes mainly to see if he can get an outraged reaction from others here. We tolerate him because...well, because we have no choice.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:38:39 PM new
Peg
roofguy has only been around since April 15 and has determined,in his 634 posts that he is an authority on paypal. Just wait until something happens with his account---if he has one. I suggest clicking on his name an putting him on ignore. We should all do that,as his advise comes with no authority.
posted on September 17, 2001 05:39:21 AM new
... and lastly -- you touched on it briefly -- NEVER buy anything using the cash balance of your account. If you purchase using a credit card, your credit card company WILL support you in a claim of 'quality'.
The wise thing to do is to always use a credit card for purchases, and to immediately clear out any balances in your account if you sell items.
posted on September 17, 2001 07:02:55 AM new
Thanks for all the good advice! I have e-mailed Damon--whether he can help or not, I certainly have nothing to lose by trying--and I'll file a complaint with the BB as soon as I can figure out how (no problem...I just have to find the instructions and follow 'em). As for small claims court, that's a little difficult...I'm in GA, the seller is in CA. Hmmmm...I wonder if Judge Judy would be interested...
As for eBay's insurance, it MIGHT have covered it...however, a claim has to be filed with Lloyd's within 90 days of the auction close. Between trying to negotiate with the seller, PP's delay (over 45 days) in telling me I was SOL, and the time it took the seller to respond to my fraud complaint on eBay, I missed the deadline.
If Damon can't help, I guess I'll just have accept the fact that some educational experiences cost more than others.
As for "never use cash, check or MO"...not for any "mail order" purchase--which is basically what you're doing when you buy on eBay.
Thanks again, everyone...at least I know now that my experience with PayPal is anything BUT unique!
Peggie Hall, Atlanta GA
[ edited by peghall on Sep 17, 2001 07:07 AM ]
posted on September 17, 2001 08:22:25 AM new
Sorry for the unsympathetic tone of my previous response. In particular, the Pope line was unnecessary, and I apologize.
I do understand the disappointment one would feel when they find that their assumption of protection in this kind of case is invalid.
I am still out of the office for several more days, but I am checking on the issues.
Our Buyer Complaint Process does not cover quality issues because we can't control the listings offered at another venue by a seller. The issue really does become between the buyer and seller. The terms, as well as the conditions, of the Buyer Complaint Process are on the web site.
A simple question to ask? If you had paid via check, cash, money order, or cashier's check, would the institutions processing the drafts get involved in a dispute they can't control? The answer is "No."
My sincerest apologies for the problems you have had with this seller, but I hope that it explains why we can't get into these kinds of disputes.
posted on September 17, 2001 03:35:35 PM new
Thanks for your reply, Damon...especially at what I have learned since I wrote is a very difficult time for you. My heart goes out to you and everyone who's lost someone.
> I am still out of the office for several more days, but I am checking on the issues.
I understand why PayPal cannot cover quality issues...my dispute with PayPal has apparently come down to the definition of "quality" vs. a deliberate attempt to mislead and defraud.
PayPal's definition seems to include any and all differences between what is described vs. actual.
My definition of quality would be a piece represented as an "antique" that turned out to be something from Walmart...or "mint condition" that turned out not to be.
But sterling silver is as different from silver plate as a CZ is from a diamond, or Orlon fake fur is from mink. And whether an item represented as a diamond is actually a CZ, or whether Orlon is represented as mink is NOT a "quality" issue. A CZ is NOT a diamond, no matter what the quality of the CZ...Orlon is NOT mink...and not even the best quality silver plate is sterling!
Furthermore, she KNEW that at least one of the trays I bought from her was not sterling by the time she offered it to me. I was the high bidder on one, the high bidder on the other backed out and I was the second highest bidder. I exchanged som e-mail with him and learned that he backed out because he was smart enough to ask her--but only after the auction--who the mfr was and whether it was marked "sterling" (as all sterling silver must be). And he TOLD her that's why he would not honor his bid. So not only did she know that the tray he'd refused to take was not sterling, but had enough information from him to know that all of her "sterling" pieces were in fact silver plate. And I have correspondence to prove it.
> A simple question to ask? If you had paid via check, cash, money order, or cashier's check, would the institutions processing the drafts get involved in a dispute they can't control? The answer is "No."
Not necessarily. My bank would have stopped payment on a cashier's check upon my request (leaving me and the seller to fight it out, but at least I'd still have my money!) Had I used my Citibank card, THEY most certainly WOULD have gotten involved. And PayPal CLAIMS to be as safe as using a credit card, which is why I used PayPal instead of sending her a check, cash, or MO.
> My sincerest apologies for the problems you have had with this seller, but I hope that it explains why we can't get into these kinds of disputes.
I don't want PayPal to get into the dispute, I just want my money back. Then she can sue me if she wants to.
Again, my sincerest condolences for the loss of your friend. And when you're able, I'd appreciate your assistance.
posted on September 17, 2001 05:26:08 PM newI don't want PayPal to get into the dispute, I just want my money back. Then she can sue me if she wants to.
You should hear the racket around here when a seller loses a quality of merchandise chargeback. Most posters to this forum are sellers.
The credit card companies do not, in essence, get involved in quality of merchandise disputes either, they just make the buyer jump through a few hoops to see if she's serious, then declare the buyer the winner of the dispute. Sellers hate it.
I'm sorry you're disappointed, peghall. However, your interpretation is inconsistent with that used by the industry. Credit card companies bundle "mint vs used" and "silver vs non-sliver", or "CZ vs diamond" exactly the same way that PayPal does: cases where the buyer is disappointed in the quality of what was received.
posted on September 17, 2001 10:53:05 PM new
Wrong.
As alluded to, a quality dispute is not ordering a Sony DVD player and receiving a bag of rocks instead.
Ordering a Sony DVD player and feeling that it is a lousy player is a quality dispute.
If you order a diamond ring and receive a cubic zirconium this is not, is not, a quality of merchandise dispute. Any reputable credit card company would laugh out loud at such a supposition.
I don't believe PayPal's determination is a good one, but I believe it is their call to make - unless it was a case of a significant amount of money worthy of going to arbitration.
posted on September 18, 2001 05:25:20 AM new
Did you ask this seller before the auction ended if they were sterling? My mother-in-law had a poster in her kitchen that said, don't trust anyone over the age of 2.
posted on September 18, 2001 07:03:59 AM new
Unfortunately I was naive enough to believe that an item listed as a "Vintage Sterling Silver Tray" would BE a sterling silver tray.
So no, it never occurred to me to ask whether the seller was lying.
And loggia...I don't know whether you consider $225 a "significant" amount...I do. The seller refused my offer of arbitration/mediation. She refused to accept return for a refund (less all shipping charges). She'd made a fraudulent killing and she's determined to keep it.
Peggie Hall, Atlanta GA
[ edited by peghall on Sep 18, 2001 07:10 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2001 09:25:25 AM new
Just to be clear, I am in total agreement with you, Peg. Yours is not a quality of merchandise dispute.
What I meant is arbitration with PayPal over their Terms of Use and their determination. Unfortunately, going that route would probably cost you more than the $225. I do think it is a lot of money and I know how you feel....
posted on September 18, 2001 10:51:40 AM new
There's nothing to arbitrate. The situation is not covered. Read the description of the coverage, and you will find that it covers not receiving the goods, and does not at all cover "not being pleased with the goods".
(Click on "consumer protection programs" when you get there, sorry, I don't know how to make a link which goes directly to the quoted text)
For purchases made on eBay using PayPal, PayPal offers domestic users an additional layer of protection if you pay a Verified seller but do not receive your goods.
Nothing there about whether buyer approves of the goods.
This Additional Protection does not apply to disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods, ...
posted on September 18, 2001 02:27:55 PM new
Sellers want to accept credit cards without any responsibilities, buyers want to make free electronic payments and have the protection of an escrow service.
Neither will ever happen, and many will never understand why.
posted on September 18, 2001 02:33:00 PM new
I'm not one of them. I owned my own business for 15 years...we accepted ALL credit cards. It wasn't free, and I don't expect it to be. I only ask that PayPal actually provide the protection it claims to provide.
Peggie Hall, Atlanta GA
posted on September 18, 2001 05:43:12 PM newThis Additional Protection does not apply to disputes about the quality or attributes of delivered goods
"Attributes" could mean anything. It's another vague PayPal loophole.
Roofguy, you state that PayPal covers "not receiving the goods." In fact, they don't even do that if the seller has proof of shipment. Once again, shipping a box of rocks would do just fine.
Moral of story: don't pay from PayPal funds. Pay through your credit or debit card and receive the protection of the Fair Credit Billing Act or the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, respectively.
posted on September 18, 2001 06:26:46 PM newAttributes" could mean anything.
It not only could mean anything, it DOES mean anything. Any attribute. Such as "silver" vs "not silver". How else would you interpret it?
The point is, nowhere in the description of this protection does it make the slightest hint that this kind of situation would be covered.
The description is not misleading, not ambiguous, and very deliberatly leaves no determination to be made by PayPal as to whether such a case is or is not covered.
You don't get your goods, you have a claim. Otherwise you don't.
posted on September 18, 2001 07:20:00 PM new
Sorry...I really sympathize with ya, but WHAT does a lousey seller have to do with PayPal??
If I buy something EXPENSIVE, I use a CREDIT CARD because there is protection backed by LAW!
If I buy a video or book or BB card, I use PP because it is convenient & I would be able to LOSE the $20.00 bucks!
When Eastern Airlines went belly-up, folks who bought their tickets with CC's got their money back via charge-backs! Cash and check payers got NOTHING
IMO, PP never should have even hinted at a Buyer Protection Program because it is IMPOSSIBLE to adminster! It should be SIMPLY and ONLY a system for one person to email moola to another person, AND NOTHING MORE!
Once folks want any of these programs to GUARANTEE happiness with their purchases, I think ALL the programs will be DOOMED to extinction and then EVERYBODY will lose!
posted on September 18, 2001 07:41:01 PM newPP never should have even hinted at a Buyer Protection Program
Yes, but it's so much easier to convince buyers to sign up (and then pester sellers to accept) if you can get them to believe that you are offering some sort of protection...
posted on September 18, 2001 07:50:24 PM new
I disagree...I doubt that PP has any problems signing-up new folks -- they didn't BEFORE the so-called Buyer Protection Program!
I feel that it is the WORST move they ever made (other than getting rid of the EASY $10.00, that it is!! hee!hee!)!
They should change the rules to TOTALLY 100% ABSOLVE THEMSELVES FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL!!
They should be ONLY a method for one person to email another person moola and NOTHING ELSE!
They should state that if ya use their service, you forfiet the right to whine to them about pocket-books or tea-services or ANYTHING!! Ya can call the cops or the Postal Inspectors or the Tooth Fairy...BUT NOT PayPal! Because...they DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG!!!!
The money went from Buyer "A" to Seller "B" and that is ALL THEY SHOULD HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE for!!
In a year, when all these payment services have folded, THAT's when the REAL WHINING will begin!!
posted on September 18, 2001 08:41:10 PM new
Roofguy, once again you mistakenly state "You don't get your goods, you have a claim." Not true. If the seller can prove they shipped it, you are out-of-luck even if you didn't get it.
The point is, nowhere in the description of this protection does it make the slightest hint that this kind of situation would be covered.
I think you miss the point. Basically, virtually nothing is covered.
The description is not misleading, not ambiguous
It is the essence of ambiguous. I'm tired of going round-and-round. Good luck in this thread.
