Tricky eBay Transaction

[JimR]

snip

[snip]

[snip]

If you have a problem with a seller, pay by credit card and challenge a fraudulent charge, E-Bay will block you from rating the frauduulent seller or from further buying on E-Bay. IOW, use E-Bay onbly if you're willing to give up on normal credit card protections. I guess it hurts their image when a supplier gets a low grade.

E-Bay is trying to operate outside of the normal credit card business plan with which consumers are familiar and it appears if you use a credit card through Paypal you lose a significant amount of consumer protection. If you charge directly to a credit card to get normal cc protection and have to challenge a purchse (e.g,, for non-delivery, or faulty merchandise), E-Bay will prevent you from rating the bad supplier. Because negative ratings may be blocked, one must assume that reported ratings may be artificially inflated.

Example:

-- Textbook purchased on an E-Bay site and charged it to a credit card;

-- the seller failed to deliver;

-- E-Bay wants the consumer to wait 45 days before making a decision on a problem, but the credit card cycle is 30 days. Consumer protection dictates a challenge within 30 days. E-Bay would like to eliminate this consumer protection.

-- E-Bay said it is against their (!) policy for customers (!!) to challenge credit card purchases.

-- The credit card company said E-Bay's policy is a violation of the credit card agreement with e-bay.

-- After the credit card challenge, E-Bay blocked the buyer from contacting or rating the seller, so the seller still carries an artificially good rating even though he hasn't delivered the goods

There are too many other reliable sources of stuff to worry about questionable sources on e-bay, questionable credit card policies and unreliable supplier ratings.

[Poppin Fresh]

"Gini" wrote

Gini,

Your response can be aimed towards a multitude of posters on here, you know the ones. They believe what they write to be true, but in fact, it's only their belief.

Too many of them would rather foam at the keyboard blabbering, than to actually learn something useful. It appears they believe arguing and ignoring the truth, makes what they believe is fact.

Your time and knowledge is too valuable to waste it on these types.

[trader4]

Include yourself in that lis that claims to know what is true. You claimed that Frugal would be protected from loss through Paypal for purchase. No worry. And I provided you with the link to Paypal where it clearly says that the basic Paypal protection is $200. To get the higher $2000 protection a specific list of criteria must be met. The first is the seller must have more than 50 feedback. Doh! The guy Frugal is dealing with has only 10.

And Frugal also reported on his discussions with VISA, that made it clear that if you use a credit card through Paypal as just a standard transaction, you aren't covered. They did tell him if he did a special transaction, upfront notifying them of who the money is ultimately going to via Paypal, sending VISA the contracts, invoices, etc BEFORE the transaction, etc, then they would hand hold the transaction and provide protection, essentially through some type of escrow.

That is way different than the claims the you and Gini made, which is that just use a credit card through Paypal and everything is peachy keen, you're protected just like if you used the card with a VISA merchant.

As I reported earlier, I myself went through this exact experience. I used a Citibank VISA through Paypal to pay for an Ebay purchase, which turned out to be fraud. Citibank told me exactly what I posted previously. That their transaction with Paypal was legitimate and it was not their problem as to Paypal then sending the money to some party that Citibank has no relationship or knowledge of. I suppose you think if you take a cash advance on a credit card from an ATM, then take the cash and buy a watch from somebody that turns out to be fake, VISA is going to take that loss too?

Now, some credit card companies and banks make react differently. But to tell folks that they can just pay with a credit card through Paypal and they are protected is hogwash. And go try pursuing it with Paypal. Unlike VISA, where you can call and speak to a real person, you'll find that with Paypal you're dealing with an email server robot. Eventually a real person gets involved, but even then, I could never speak to anyone. Ultimately I wound up out about $40 on a $175 Paypal/Ebay transaction, and that was becasuse the seller finally relented and made the refund.

I also have a problem with the attitude, "It;s as I say. I don't need to support it with a link, go look for one yourself." That isn't very helpful. Nor is providing links that have nothing to do with the obvious question. When Bigbackpaker said it's a violation of Ebay rules for a seller to take Western Union, what did you do? You posted links to avoiding Ebay fees. Those links said nothing at all about Western Union. All you had to do was provide the correct link, which would have avoided a long heated discussion. Instead you starting hurling vulgarities at me. Real impressive.

[Poppin Fresh]

Need I say anymore about foaming at the keyboard?

You just proved my point. LOL

[<h>]

As several of us have said, click eBay, Help, search "western union", and you will find several topics covering the many questions (is it legal, is it fee avoidance, etc.) you asked about WU. You can do that for every single question being asked by the many voices in your head. How much more freaking documentation do you need? Plonk.

[Frugal Farmer]

no, you do not see my problem, that&#39;s the problem. You need to go and have your eyes checked. MY problem is spelled out at the beg>===

well, it a>eBay&#39;s

Nobody&#39;s getting paid enough here. Show me one that is.

"G>==

I&#39;ve been given wr>to discard them demanding a "link" that is clearly your responsibility to

For one, nobody here was "demanding" a link. You were asked to provide a link to support your statement. Had you ever gone to college or written a research paper, you would understand that any claim needs to be supported by a reliable source - referenced and cross-referenced. For example, all non-fiction books and literature have sections called &#39;references&#39; or &#39;bibliography&#39;. But how would YOU know? And that is the reason why you dance like a comanche around hot fire and keep sending us on wild goose chase. Trader4 asked you to support your statement. I asked you to reference your source. Yet you choose to point to some "help" files. You might as well point to the congress library.

your choice is:

1) support your claim/statement by providing a specific reference 2) withdraw your statement 3) qualify your statement as an uneducated >to eBay Help, not

I certainly can see now that alt.home.repair was the wrong group to ask eBay question with the likes of you hanging around.

[Frugal Farmer]

the WU is NOT the issue here at all. Gini/Popinn have already established the restriction on WU use and Trader4 admitted he missed that point and apologized. What Trader4 and I am asking for since Oct

27, 2:31 pm is this:

Gini ( Oct 27, 12:40 am) answered "YES" to Trade4&#39;s question:

== Yes. ==

and then again

Gini ( Oct 27, 11:16 am) to Trader4&#39;s question: I asked if I sell

(gini): I answered YES. You must be reading every other line.

and that is also what I am asking as there is no point reporting anything if Trader4&#39;s example:

Is not a documented, undisputable, fact.

I am not lazy. I looked and I couldnt find it, which of course doesnt mean it is not there. If Gini knows where it is, she should be able to provide that reference within seconds.

[Gini]

"Frugal Farmer" wrote

== ROTFL! You want *me* to do *your* damn research and cross-referencing? Damn that was funny! (The questions were *yours,* remember?) Apparently *you* haven&#39;t gone to college or written a research paper or you&#39;d know how to find embarrassingly simple answers without my holding your hand. Did you demand someone else do your research and writing for you in, what, was your highest grade--perhaps 8th? I&#39;ll put my academic and published writing credentials up against yours anytime, and I&#39;ll be damned if I&#39;m going to spoonfeed a couple of lazy asses who can&#39;t even find their way to Help files. Now, go on over to alt.marketing.online.ebay, and quit making a complete fool of yourself there. They&#39;d love to play with you ;-) Sheesh. You could have found those Help files 20 times in the amount of time you&#39;ve spent here making yourself look totally silly. == ==

[ds549]

smart buyers have payment figured out to suit them before they buy. i hate it when a buyer wants to rewrite the payment terms he agreed to by bidding after the sale. but it takes all kinds..

[trader4]

Frgual, by now it&#39;s obvious Gini realizes that she can&#39;t back up her claim, because if she could, she would have provided it by now. The assertion was that if a seller lists 15 boxes of shingles on Ebay and in the course of that transaction, learns that the buyer also wants a case of nails, that the seller must then list those nails and put them through Ebay too. What&#39;s easier and establishes that she is correct? Supplying a simple link to Ebay that shows she is right or making post after post of nonsense about how it&#39;s up to someone else to prove?

And she and Poppin Fresh were dead wrong in leading people to believe that if you just use a credit card through Paypal you&#39;re automaticaly protected by the credit card company in the case that there is a problem. You verified that is false with your calls to VISA, where they told you that unless you follow a special procedure, including notififying them ahead of time, sending them copies of the contract, sales invoice, etc BEFORE doing the transaction that you are not covered. And as I reported here, I went through that exact scenario with Citibank VISA when I had a frauduantly purchase through Ebay/Paypal and the answer was there is no protection from Citibank, because their transaction wtih Paypal was legitimate, authorized by the card holder and that is where their responsiblitly ends. They had no control over who the money was ultimately sent to by Paypal.

Poppins advice was even worse, because the basic Paypal coverage, as I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve seen, is only for $200. For the max Paypal coverage of $2000, the transaction has to meet a bunch of criteria, one of which is that the seller must have at least 50 feedbacks. The guy you&#39;re dealing with has 10. So, listeneing to these two, you&#39;d have a whopping $200 of coverage on a $3500 purchase. On, and as another shining example of how you can get screwed, in the Paypal coverage fineprint it says it is only for tangible items. So, if you ordered some concert tickets and got screwed out of $500, that ain&#39;t covered at all. Sure, Paypal will try to help if it&#39;s indeed fraud, but if the guy refused to refund the money, you&#39;re SOL. If you paid for those tickets with a credit card directly, there is little doubt VISA would make good on it.

So, folks can decide for themselves who is right and who if you listen to, you&#39;re gonna wind up screwed.

[Frugal Farmer]

- yes, the questions were mine; however, the answers - and the claim I would like you to support was yours, not mine.

- no, I didnt. but at least I know what bibliography or references are.

- please, I dont mind being embarrassed. find it for me, pretty please. I will thank you.

- do they include bibliography or references? Or every time you make a stupid claim you tell your readers:

- dont worry. I have already seen what a friendly group those people are. And how you conducted yourself there, for example in the "Ebay tips on how to not get ripped off". Are those the published "writing credentials" you talk about? Real beauty.... I give you that....

- I know where the files are and I think I read all there is except I couldnt find anything to support your affirmative claim - specifically the example that trader4 gave you. So please, educate me.

[Frugal Farmer]

au contre. Trade4 is not the one foaming at the keyboard. his points are very analytical, specific and clinical as far as showing you where you (Poppin Fresh) and Gini are/were dead wrong. He is not the one using obscene language and he was the one that was not afraid to admit he was wrong when shown, i.e. WU.

-dont laugh. show credibility and rebuttal his point. and then laugh if that&#39;s what will make you feel better. mature individuals usually dont laugh when they are in a position to share their knowledge. did teachers in your school laugh at you? Or were you always this smart!