# Sales and Payments



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I've been watching an interesting thing happen on the forums these days. I always check out what's for sale. Most buyers use paypal to exchange funds for plants. Probably 98% of all transactions are wonderful and everyone is happy. I see a new trend has been developing.

1. No credit card payments - not to new. It costs the seller a little more for this payment. Some buyers offer a tiny more to cover fees. By paypal rules state that a seller can't charge more to cover paypal fees, but accepting an offer is fine. He can refuse cc payments. While 2-3% (I forget what the extra fee is) seems insignificant to me, at least the seller is up front about things. Buyer still has rights and so does seller. 
2. Seller asks people to send "gift" instead of payment for goods. In this case seller is handing over money and has no guarantee through paypal. If he doesn't get his item it's too bad. This is just supposed to be a free service that paypal does for family members, friends, etc. Paypal describes it like this. Seller is not liable for anything. He can't refund this gift. Sellers are not being honest in asking for the "gift". They have agreed to abide by Paypal rules when they signed up. They want to use Paypals services for free. I think it's interesting that they aren't selling their stuff for free. Paypal is a convenient service. They should be paid. Buyers need to beware that if the seller is willing to be dishonest for a few cents or dollars to paypal why should they be trusted with the entire purchase price? 

Buyers beware. Sellers be honest. Everybody be happy!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi Tex Gal,

I agree with you, there was a thread on this site a month ago for RCS and Plants where the seller requested the buyers pay by PayPal "Gift". There were problems and buyers were unable to get their money back from PayPal because payment was sent as a "gift" and not therefore contestable. As a buyer, to protect ourselves, we should not sent the seller "a gift".

Just thought that everyone should be aware of this. Not sure if it's possible to put something in the FS/FT guidelines to warn potential buyers?"


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

HA! Tex, you are a step ahead of me every time!! I just posted a thread quoting you from another post on this matter. Feel free to merge them or leave separate at your discretion. In the meantime, I'll link this thread to that one in the FS forum.

-Dave


----------



## Neon Shrimp (Apr 26, 2006)

First off, thank you APC and it's Mods for allowing this open and honest discussion of a topic that needs to be addressed.

There is a simple and honest solution to all of this. When choosing to use the *Personal* transfer tab after selecting to send money you have other categories/options to choose besides gift. This includes *Payment owed* and *Other*. You should also use the "Subject" and "Message" areas to specify/document the transaction details for later reference/proof if needed. I know from experience that if *payment owed* is chosen then the seller can refund payments up to 60 days after the transaction. This way the fee can be avoided and there is proof of payment. So yes buyer beware and honest by using the *Payment owed* and *Other* categories and not "gift", unless it is a gift.

Here is a link to the Paypal Fee structure:

http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside



> They want to use Paypals services for free. I think it's interesting that they aren't selling their stuff for free. Paypal is a convenient service. They should be paid. Buyers need to beware that if the seller is willing to be dishonest for a few cents or dollars to paypal why should they be trusted with the entire purchase price?


I agree that Paypal is a convenience service. But I also think that it is a big business that takes in revenue through all those pop-up adds and affiliations with the hundreds+ stores/businesses that use Paypal. They are not starving or struggling like some independently owned businesses or sellers, who have to count their pennies to survive. In fact Paypal was deceptive in their practices when they switched over to the new Fee Structure. There were no notices sent to users/account holders and we all learned by being hit with fee(s) even if we were using cash from our own bank accounts. When the issue was brought up they did not refund the fees or admit this was wrong but instead went on their way using the new fees and counting what they collected from us during the sneak transition.



> Buyers beware. Sellers be honest. Everybody be happy!


I agree 100% :thumbsup:

Thank you very much.


----------



## marrow (Mar 4, 2007)

I think this is pretty much a personal decision and should be left that way. However others should not be required to do the gift thing if it in some way is an affront to their personal sense of ethics. They can always keep walking. The amount that usually goes to plant transactions is typically 20 or thirty bucks at most and I would be unlikely to contest that and go through that process anyway. I just wouldnt deal with that person again. I am sympathetic if others have ethical concerns regarding using paypal at all and I often accept money orders etc. To demand that others adhere either way can only be a suggestion and even then I think it is intrusive. To suggest that ones decision to deny paypal their bit of flesh are somehow untrustworthy on a global sort of scale is a pretty horrible generalization. I am sure there are those who could argue that using and forcing others to use paypal by stating paypal only are not trustworthy as they are dupes/proxies for the evil corporate entitity that demands that others have the mark of the paypal beast tied to their bank accounts or be unable to buy. I use paypal by the book of course and do not have concerns but what occurs between two consenting informed adults is their concern. Paypal can afford their own gestapo I dont intend to volunteer for the job. Stating that others not mention these details in their publicly accessible adverts is not an unreasonable position for a website/forum to demand but in private mail to demand this would make it not so private mail. No disrespect to any person intended.


----------



## taz81 (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't think its a huge leap to say that people who are being dishonest in their transaction could be dishonest in their transaction. In other words, people who use paypal agree to abide by their rules. If they don't like it then they can go elsewhere. The fact is however, they didn't, they have agreed to abide by these rules. Therefore, using the "gift" portion of paypal for the purpose of actually making a sale is being dishonest in their transaction. Therefore it is not a great leap in logic to state that they could continue to be dishonest in their transaction with "you." I don't see any judgments on a global scale, just in terms of the transaction.

Suggestions provide knowledge, ideas, and a pathway for those who may not understand the intricacies of paypal. I do not understand how such suggestions could possibly be construed as intrusive except in situations where a person is extremely impressionable (young children or the developmentally disabled). As for the "requirements" or "demands" it is required and demanded by Paypal. So again, if anyone has a problem with that they can take it up with paypal through customer service or by not using their service.

Basic rules of ethics demand that people live up to that which they agree. This foundation is a key element of our legal system as well as our culture. To make judgments based on this ethical code is completely in line with our culture, ethics, and legal code, and as such should be applauded, not criticized, from my point of view anyways.

If I sound particularly harsh it is only because this is an incredible sore spot with me. I am so beyond sick and tired of people (especially my generation) saying they will agree to something, or promising this or that and not living up to these promises, while typically blaming the people to whom they made the promises.


----------



## TAB (Feb 7, 2009)

I personally, will not use pay pal. had a prob with them years ago, never again.

another, relatively safe option is postal money orders. while not perfect, commiting fruad with them is a very big deal... you don't mess with the post office.


----------



## marrow (Mar 4, 2007)

Come on your statements are a prime example how these things inevitably lead to global judgements of others behavior. You went from 
(1)the individuals transaction with Paypal to 
(2)their transaction with the other person either buying or selling the item to (3) accusing those who intentionally and for their own reasons deny paypal their tithe as being somehow not following a"Basic rules of ethics" and thus being somehow out of line or opposed to "our culture, ethics, and legal code", 

Additionally you wish there should be no dissent from any who disagree with your paypal/global views and those defenders of the paypal faith "should be applauded, not criticized, from my point of view anyways." and then you 

(4 or is it 5) go on to to complain about these people ( I think you mean more then the nefarious paypal resistance) who are making you "sick and tired" for "not living up to these promises while typically (dangerous word typically) blaming the people to whom they made the promise. I would say you went in a pretty ballistic fashion went to "global" judgments of others based on a single decision they made. 

I am sorry you have such a tender "sore spot" and that I may have contributed to increasing your inflammation. As your cardiologist will tell you chronic inflammation anywhere in the body is a significant factor in the etiology of cardiac disease.

Sorry if this has upset anybody and as I had feared this discussion has become divisive and pointless. At this point I think I will exit this discourse and if any want to communicate further I will happily respond to private mail.


----------



## taz81 (Jul 13, 2009)

First of all I did not make any global judgments in people in regards to paypal/transaction behaviors. I made a logical step from one behavior to another. If a person is interested in going against an agreement (i.e. paypal agreement) for their own financial gain they may do so in other settings (i.e. your agreement for the exchange of money and plants). If someone wants to make a global judgment at this point that is their choice, but not one I have made.

This does not mean that there are not cases in which not abiding by a contract/agreement/etc will also be accompanied by the same person abiding by another contract. My (and perhaps TexGal's) point is that their willingness to abide by contracts/agreements is suspect more than a person who necessarily abides by all contracts/agreements. In a situation where you have incomplete information your understanding of a person's willingness to abide by agreements is limited, and therefore you can only go on what you know. When you are only exposed to the knowledge that a person is not willing to act according to the agreements he or she has made, you cannot assume that a person will abide by an agreement with you. Adding to the complexity is of course our iTrader Ratings, but i won't get into that.

There are no global judgments in understanding that a person who has stated they will not abide by their agreements...will not always abide by their agreements. Thats not to say they will NEVER abide by their agreements, simply that they will not always abide them. On the other hand, we cannot say that a person will always abide their agreements if they abide the paypal one, but (given no other information) we have no evidence to the contrary.



marrow said:


> Additionally you wish there should be no dissent from any who disagree with your paypal/global views and those defenders of the paypal faith "should be applauded, not criticized, from my point of view anyways." and then you


To clear up my statement, I hope that arguments which demand/support/argue for ethical behavior should be applauded and not criticized. Whether or not it is my view is irrelevant. The "From my point of view, anyways" statement was a phrase indicating that the statement was from my point of view, NOT that my point of view should be applauded.



marrow said:


> (4 or is it 5) go on to to complain about these people ( I think you mean more then the nefarious paypal resistance) who are making you "sick and tired" for "not living up to these promises while typically (dangerous word typically) blaming the people to whom they made the promise. I would say you went in a pretty ballistic fashion went to "global" judgments of others based on a single decision they made.


This statement was meant as a context of my frustration. You have no idea from where that came, so assuming that any judgments I have made of others are from a "single behavior" is completely unfounded. Further my frustration, as I put it, was with the behavior. I did not state if or how it applied to the person. There is a difference between a person's behavior and they themselves, and a BIG difference between a person judging a person's behavior vs judging a person. If your judgments of people stem from their behavior, that is your right, but that is not how I have stated my arguement nor how I see things.



marrow said:


> I am sorry you have such a tender "sore spot" and that I may have contributed to increasing your inflammation. As your cardiologist will tell you chronic inflammation anywhere in the body is a significant factor in the etiology of cardiac disease.


I am sorry if you have interpreted my response in this way. My "inflammation" comes from people not abiding their agreements, not by you or this discussion. Such discussions are actually well received by me as it allows me to have a constructive outlet, instead of wanting to scream at my boyfriend's friends.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I think by now everyone understands what's going on. It's up to each person to decide what they want to do. This thread is not intended to be a discussion about whether you like Paypal or whether you don't. It is not intended to discuss whether paypal is the best solution in paying for purchases. This thread is to inform people of their rights to recourse when they pay by certain methods. No one has suggested that anyone is monitoring members private pm's. 

For the purpose of clarification , below is the paypal position on this, copied from their web site.

Making a purchase, i.e. goods, services, or eBay items 

* All payment methods- 
Free to sender
Fee for receiver 1.9% to 2.9% + $0.30 USD

You only have recourse through Paypal for purchases if you use this option. You may have proof of a payment and seller can refund by personal payment owed in certain other payment options, but Paypal will not mitigate unless you declare you are purchasing. The purchaser does NOT pay a fee. The seller pays the fee for receiving money. This fee - according to paypal, is supposed to be built in to the price of the item you purchase.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi All,

Just a reminder about using PayPal Gift to pay for items and the issues involved.


----------



## Reamer (Mar 3, 2010)

hmm good to know


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

It's getting more and more rampant. People are being scammed - sending payment, not getting what was stated. If we just stop buying from these people then it will go away. Remember you have NO recourse through Paypal for a guaranteed product.


----------



## csmith (Apr 22, 2010)

Would it be possible to specify who "these people" are so we can avoid them? Maybe start a blacklist or something?


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

csmith said:


> Would it be possible to specify who "these people" are so we can avoid them? Maybe start a blacklist or something?


It's easy. If you respond to a ForSale thread and they ask you to pay by the personal gift, just say no and walk away. If enough people do that they will have to start accepting payment for "goods" where the buyer has recourse through paypal. There is always someone else eventually selling the same items.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi csmith,

I think the point of this thread is to be aware that individuals that request a "PayPal Gift Payment" are doing so for their own benefit, not mine. 

If they fail to deliver goods or services; or deliver items that are not as advertised; I have no recourse through PayPal if I used a "Gift Payment". As a result, I simply will not purchase from those individuals.

The iTrader rating system is another tool for evaluating a Seller or a Buyer, but it is not perfect. There is no recourse through the forum.


----------



## csmith (Apr 22, 2010)

Ah, understood. I mistook what Tex Gal said as just general shenanigans as far as selling went.


----------

