A funny thing happened on the way to this forum.... (re PayPal "Gift" Payment Info)
ProfHaroldHill
Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭
I've spent a good bit of time recently, conversing with PayPal reps, trying to nail down some policy facts, especially regarding what I *used to* refer to as a fraudulent activity, (and a violation of contract.)
Specifically, the use of PayPal Personal Payments for purchases over on the BST. (PayPal uses the term "Personal", not "gift", notably.)
It took awhile to get, (in writing, of course,) the facts, and when I did, I was surprised to learn that I had been wrong.
At least for those of us with 'Regular' or 'Premier' accounts, PayPal does *not* forbid the use of "Personal" payments for **purchases** from our coin selling/buying associates.
I was told... (and remember, I have this in writing,) that PayPal, "strongly discourages" such payments, but they do *not* forbid them by contract/agreement.
They went on, (and on and on,) about how this might be 'dangerous' since we will "not be protected by the Buyer Protection Program" nor will the seller be "protected by the Seller Protection Program".
There are actually three full paragraphs where they warn about the hazard of buying/selling this way, compared to one sentence where they indicate it's not forbidden, (but it's "not encouraged".)
We all know their concern is for us, and not the fee they'll lose, naturally. That's why they went on for so long, even giving theoretical "bad guy" scenarios, to impress upon me what may befall me if I stray onto that dark path. (I'd only recommend using it if you have full trust in the other party, BTW.)
So, clearly it's now time for me to "man up" and apologize to all those who took offense when I called it "cheating" and "fraud" over on that never-ending ASE thread on the BST. It is neither of those things, and that is according to PayPal. You do have my apology. (And I'll find that post where I laid it out & put in a link to here.)
As far as "Business" accounts are concerned... I don't know either way, since I was asking questions regarding only the contract/agreement for the type account I have, ("Premier") and about "Regular" account users.
And there you have it Marcus.
Specifically, the use of PayPal Personal Payments for purchases over on the BST. (PayPal uses the term "Personal", not "gift", notably.)
It took awhile to get, (in writing, of course,) the facts, and when I did, I was surprised to learn that I had been wrong.
At least for those of us with 'Regular' or 'Premier' accounts, PayPal does *not* forbid the use of "Personal" payments for **purchases** from our coin selling/buying associates.
I was told... (and remember, I have this in writing,) that PayPal, "strongly discourages" such payments, but they do *not* forbid them by contract/agreement.
They went on, (and on and on,) about how this might be 'dangerous' since we will "not be protected by the Buyer Protection Program" nor will the seller be "protected by the Seller Protection Program".
There are actually three full paragraphs where they warn about the hazard of buying/selling this way, compared to one sentence where they indicate it's not forbidden, (but it's "not encouraged".)
We all know their concern is for us, and not the fee they'll lose, naturally. That's why they went on for so long, even giving theoretical "bad guy" scenarios, to impress upon me what may befall me if I stray onto that dark path. (I'd only recommend using it if you have full trust in the other party, BTW.)
So, clearly it's now time for me to "man up" and apologize to all those who took offense when I called it "cheating" and "fraud" over on that never-ending ASE thread on the BST. It is neither of those things, and that is according to PayPal. You do have my apology. (And I'll find that post where I laid it out & put in a link to here.)
As far as "Business" accounts are concerned... I don't know either way, since I was asking questions regarding only the contract/agreement for the type account I have, ("Premier") and about "Regular" account users.
And there you have it Marcus.
0
Comments
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
I figured if it were outright forbidden, they would have closed that supposed loophole long ago.
In the past, I always used the "pay for goods or services" personal tab instead of the one that said "gift", anyway.
And if buying a coin off BST isn't paying for goods, I dunno what is, right? Of course you do have to remember to give the person your shipping address if you go that route.
No buyer's protection? Well, I sorta figured that.
PS- good on you to "man up" and admit a mistake, BTW. And thanks for the clarification, since I never really read the fine print.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>consider it a 2.9% insurance premium. >>
It's too bad they don't offer shipping insurance at favorable rates like ship and insure.com does.
<< <i>It's good to get clarification. However, for goods purchased, especially PM's, it would be a cold day in heck if I'd ever agree to a Gift option as payment. >>
You're a lot better off if you know who you do business with rather than what you do business with; see Timbuk3.
<< <i>Wow, I'm surprised. Thanks for the clarification. >>
+1
Also -- thanks for coming up with the most clever thread title I've seen in quite a while.
So -- just so I am clear -- if you pay someone on the BST with PayPal (not the Gift" option but the regular way) and he never ships you the goods, PayPal will reimburse you?
Has anyone ever had this experience of being refunded this way by PayPal (not on eBay, as PayPal & eBay are the same company)?
<< <i>I've spent a good bit of time recently, conversing with PayPal reps, trying to nail down some policy facts, especially regarding what I *used to* refer to as a fraudulent activity, (and a violation of contract.)
Specifically, the use of PayPal Personal Payments for purchases over on the BST. (PayPal uses the term "Personal", not "gift", notably.)
It took awhile to get, (in writing, of course,) the facts, and when I did, I was surprised to learn that I had been wrong.
At least for those of us with 'Regular' or 'Premier' accounts, PayPal does *not* forbid the use of "Personal" payments for **purchases** from our coin selling/buying associates.
I was told... (and remember, I have this in writing,) that PayPal, "strongly discourages" such payments, but they do *not* forbid them by contract/agreement.
They went on, (and on and on,) about how this might be 'dangerous' since we will "not be protected by the Buyer Protection Program" nor will the seller be "protected by the Seller Protection Program".
There are actually three full paragraphs where they warn about the hazard of buying/selling this way, compared to one sentence where they indicate it's not forbidden, (but it's "not encouraged".)
We all know their concern is for us, and not the fee they'll lose, naturally. That's why they went on for so long, even giving theoretical "bad guy" scenarios, to impress upon me what may befall me if I stray onto that dark path. (I'd only recommend using it if you have full trust in the other party, BTW.)
So, clearly it's now time for me to "man up" and apologize to all those who took offense when I called it "cheating" and "fraud" over on that never-ending ASE thread on the BST. It is neither of those things, and that is according to PayPal. You do have my apology. (And I'll find that post where I laid it out & put in a link to here.)
As far as "Business" accounts are concerned... I don't know either way, since I was asking questions regarding only the contract/agreement for the type account I have, ("Premier") and about "Regular" account users.
And there you have it Marcus. >>
Perhaps you could invite a PP rep to join here and truthfully/factually answer any questions that forum members might wish to ask him/her.
<< <i>consider it a 2.9% insurance premium. >>
<< <i>So -- just so I am clear -- if you pay someone on the BST with PayPal (not the Gift" option but the regular way) and he never ships you the goods, PayPal will reimburse you? >>
That is correct. BST is a miniscule player. It also applies to the thousands of merchants that accept PP as a form of payment. You're covered.
<< <i>
<< <i>So -- just so I am clear -- if you pay someone on the BST with PayPal (not the Gift" option but the regular way) and he never ships you the goods, PayPal will reimburse you? >>
That is correct. BST is a miniscule player. It also applies to the thousands of merchants that accept PP as a form of payment. You're covered. >>
I assume they will try to recover funds from the seller.
Seems I was wrong regarding this policy.
I was going with my instinct for what I considered 'fair play' and the definition of a gift.
That is all
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>So, clearly it's now time for me to "man up" and apologize to all those who took offense when I called it "cheating" and "fraud" over on that never-ending ASE thread on the BST. It is neither of those things, and that is according to PayPal. You do have my apology. (And I'll find that post where I laid it out & put in a link to here.) >>
I wasn't involved in that particular thread, but I'll accept your apology on behalf of all the
misguided moralists on this forum who insisted that we have an obligation to pay large
corporations for services we don't actually need (i.e., buyer/seller protection in SOME
transactions).
Thanks for "manning up".
' "So, clearly it's now time for me to "man up" and apologize to all those who took offense when I called it "cheating" and "fraud" over on that never-ending ASE thread on the BST. It is neither of those things, and that is according to PayPal. You do have my apology." '
I only considered it fair for you (OP) to apologize for taking up your crusade about Paypal policy within the thread for which the issue about undelivered merchandise had absolutely no connection, since the aggrieved had paid by money order. If your crusade in this case isn't a prime example of the vulgar practice of thread hijacking, I can't imagine what would be.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
"Well aren't we special"
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Sooner or later, the PP gift payment will disappear, the percentage derived from gift transactions will become an item to add to the bottom line, as profits wane.
A free lunch now, that'll stop.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you perchance confirm that casual sales such as those done between members on the BST are afforded full protection if regular PP is used? They don't like it, but they realize it is part of the cost of doing business. Makes good business sense just like the barkeep who serves one up on the house once in awhile. >>
They've been beating that drum for some time, BAJJERRFAN! They went to great length to point out the "safety" in their BPP and SPP.
I *didn't* ask them about chargebacks that bypass the Seller Protection Program though.
Wonder how they'd answer THAT query.
Others have said here that they aren't covered. Just want the straight skinny.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you perchance confirm that casual sales such as those done between members on the BST are afforded full protection if regular PP is used? They don't like it, but they realize it is part of the cost of doing business. Makes good business sense just like the barkeep who serves one up on the house once in awhile. >>
They've been beating that drum for some time, BAJJERRFAN! They went to great length to point out the "safety" in their BPP and SPP.
I *didn't* ask them about chargebacks that bypass the Seller Protection Program though.
Wonder how they'd answer THAT query.
when a CC is used to make a "gift" payment, the sender pays the paypal fee on the amount. Not sure if this invokes protection for the sender, but lack of paypal protection is irrelevant to a CC company pursuing a chargeback.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
One other thing, I know at Bank of America, you can send wires to fellow Bank of America customers (people who have bank accounts with BOA) for FREE, which is essentially no different than what Pay Pal does. The only difference is Bank of America isn't exclusively in the "transferring money" business, but the situation is the same more or less.
Everyone knew there weren't protections, but we didn't know it was legal.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>They might be content to have the money flowing through the lines. A certain percentage of those receiving these types of payments will leave it sitting in their Paypal account at least for a few days. That makes Paypals balance look good and they probably have a way of leveraging it. That all my be my imagination, but it's how I've alway slept at night over it over them seemingly not getting anything while providing me a service.
Everyone knew there weren't protections, but we didn't know it was legal. >>
How does legal come into play here? There is no "law" being broken. PP's TOS are not the same thing as law/legality.
1. Paypal has no problem with gift payments for non-gifts, but buyer making gift payment has no paypal buyer protection.
2. Buyer paying with gift payment has to pay the 2.9% paypal fee if he funds payment with a credit card. If CC is used to make a gift payment, buyer can elect to have the 2.9% fee added to the CC charge or have it deducted from what the seller receives.
3. If buyer does make gift payment via his CC (and pays the 2.9% fee) seller can still face a CC chargeback.
Sound about right? Leave anything out?
Appears that a buyer willing to pay the 2.9% fee directly to paypal to use a CC (and have CC protection) would be better off if he had seller just add the 2.9% to the purchase price and send a paypal invoice. This way he has paypal protection and can also have CC protection by funding the invoice payment (which already includes the paypal fee) with his CC.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>so, to summarize:
Paypal has no problem with gift payments for non-gifts, but buyer making gift payment has no paypal buyer protection.
Buyer paying with gift payment has to pay the 2.9% paypal fee if he funds payment with a credit card.
If buyer does make gift payment via his CC (and pays the 2.9% fee) seller can still face a CC chargeback.
Sound about right? Leave anything out?
Appears that a buyer willing to pay the 2.9% fee directly to paypal to use a CC (and have CC protection) would be better off if he had seller just add the 2.9% to the purchase price and send a paypal invoice. This way he has paypal protection and can also have CC protection by funding the invoice payment (which already includes the paypal fee) with his CC. >>
I bolded that last part as, to me, that is key.....I have felt that way for quite awhile.
I am VERY hesitant to deal with someone who doesn't allow that option (ie...they emphatically state "PPG ONLY" when referring to any type of PP payment).
To me, if I am willing to pay that 2.9%, then I should be able to, so in listings, it would behoove people to add that option. Else, it really makes me wonder about them and dealing with them. I don't care their reasons, I don't care their excuses, if they take PP at all, they should be openly willing to take regular PP IF the buyer is willing to pay the added cost.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>so, to summarize:
Paypal has no problem with gift payments for non-gifts, but buyer making gift payment has no paypal buyer protection.
Buyer paying with gift payment has to pay the 2.9% paypal fee if he funds payment with a credit card.
If buyer does make gift payment via his CC (and pays the 2.9% fee) seller can still face a CC chargeback.
Sound about right? Leave anything out?
Appears that a buyer willing to pay the 2.9% fee directly to paypal to use a CC (and have CC protection) would be better off if he had seller just add the 2.9% to the purchase price and send a paypal invoice. This way he has paypal protection and can also have CC protection by funding the invoice payment (which already includes the paypal fee) with his CC. >>
IIRC the buyer who uses a CC to fund a PP gift payment can choose to absorb the fee or have the recipient absorb it. So if you are dying to send me $100, but you don't have any funds in you PP or linked bank account you can send $103.20 [$.20 + 2.9%] so I get the whole $100 or you can send $100 and and I will get $96.80. Donating $100 to the Red Cross and having them eat the fee might portray you as a cheapass.
Generally when paying for bullion, it's hard to find a deal in which either party is willing to eat the fee thus that's an area where PP gift abounds.
<< <i>To me, if I am willing to pay that 2.9%, then I should be able to, so in listings, it would behoove people to add that option. Else, it really makes me wonder about them and dealing with them. I don't care their reasons, I don't care their excuses, if they take PP at all, they should be openly willing to take regular PP IF the buyer is willing to pay the added cost. >>
Might have something to do with the how it affects or how they perceive it affects their $20K threshold that triggers an annual 1099 tax form. A seller who states PPG only is most likely to accept a non-gift payment provided the buyer offers to additionally pay the fee. BST sellers stating "PPG only" but are willing to let the buyer pay the fees should probably change their payment method to say "PP non-fee" payment.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>IIRC the buyer who uses a CC to fund a PP gift payment can choose to absorb the fee or have the recipient absorb it. So if you are dying to send me $100, but you don't have any funds in you PP or linked bank account you can send $103.20 [$.20 + 2.9%] so I get the whole $100 or you can send $100 and and I will get $96.80. >>
Corrected earlier summary.
Question: if buyer elects to have seller absorb the paypal fee on the CC funded payment does that invoke paypal buyer protection since the fee got paid?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>
<< <i>so, to summarize:
Paypal has no problem with gift payments for non-gifts, but buyer making gift payment has no paypal buyer protection.
Buyer paying with gift payment has to pay the 2.9% paypal fee if he funds payment with a credit card.
If buyer does make gift payment via his CC (and pays the 2.9% fee) seller can still face a CC chargeback.
Sound about right? Leave anything out?
Appears that a buyer willing to pay the 2.9% fee directly to paypal to use a CC (and have CC protection) would be better off if he had seller just add the 2.9% to the purchase price and send a paypal invoice. This way he has paypal protection and can also have CC protection by funding the invoice payment (which already includes the paypal fee) with his CC. >>
I bolded that last part as, to me, that is key.....I have felt that way for quite awhile.
I am VERY hesitant to deal with someone who doesn't allow that option (ie...they emphatically state "PPG ONLY" when referring to any type of PP payment).
To me, if I am willing to pay that 2.9%, then I should be able to, so in listings, it would behoove people to add that option. Else, it really makes me wonder about them and dealing with them. I don't care their reasons, I don't care their excuses, if they take PP at all, they should be openly willing to take regular PP IF the buyer is willing to pay the added cost. >>
I doubt very few would refuse you if you wanted to eat the fee.
<< <i>I doubt very few would refuse you if you wanted to eat the fee. >>
I personally would avoid anyone who refused to let me pay the fee. It's a good indicator that they don't want their buyer to have paypal protection that would recover money from a bad seller.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>
<< <i>I doubt very few would refuse you if you wanted to eat the fee. >>
I personally would avoid anyone who refused to let me pay the fee. It's a good indicator that they don't want their buyer to have paypal protection that would recover money from a bad seller. >>
You can doubt it all you want, and I don't have any example of the opposite, as I have flat out avoided them.
I have seen BST sellers state "PPG ONLY". Once they put something like that, I won't even bother to contact and ask.
Maybe they have a certain type of PP account and that is why. I haven't paid enough attention over the years as, once I moved to where I am at with PP, I stopped caring enough about other types of accounts. Doesn't matter to me though. You either do NOT accept PP at all (I am cool with that), or you prefer PPG but will accept PP (with fee and then it is a negotiation who pays the fee). Stating PPG ONLY is a way to immediately lose people like me.
I love coins, but they are not my lifeblood that I have to have no matter what.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>IIRC the buyer who uses a CC to fund a PP gift payment can choose to absorb the fee or have the recipient absorb it. So if you are dying to send me $100, but you don't have any funds in you PP or linked bank account you can send $103.20 [$.20 + 2.9%] so I get the whole $100 or you can send $100 and and I will get $96.80. >>
Corrected earlier summary.
Question: if buyer elects to have seller absorb the paypal fee on the CC funded payment does that invoke paypal buyer protection since the fee got paid? >>
That I don't know. You'd need to ask PP or the OP. In a goods deal, both sides would need to agree to terms. In a true gift/donation situation, I think the RC would gladly accept the $96.80. If I had to guess, I'd guess choosing the gift option negates any protection regardless of funding source.
<< <i>You can doubt it all you want, and I don't have any example of the opposite, as I have flat out avoided them.
I have seen BST sellers state "PPG ONLY". Once they put something like that, I won't even bother to contact and ask. >>
Or, that is the seller's way of saying "I'm not paying any PP fees at this price." If I wanted their product I would ask.
Boch's opinion is exactly why BST sellers should be clear that they are willing to let the buyer pay the fee by stating "non-fee paypal" instead of "PPG only."
Hopefully a few "PPG only" BST sellers will chime in on the topic.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I doubt very few would refuse you if you wanted to eat the fee. >>
I personally would avoid anyone who refused to let me pay the fee. It's a good indicator that they don't want their buyer to have paypal protection that would recover money from a bad seller. >>
You can doubt it all you want, and I don't have any example of the opposite, as I have flat out avoided them.
I have seen BST sellers state "PPG ONLY". Once they put something like that, I won't even bother to contact and ask.
Maybe they have a certain type of PP account and that is why. I haven't paid enough attention over the years as, once I moved to where I am at with PP, I stopped caring enough about other types of accounts. Doesn't matter to me though. You either do NOT accept PP at all (I am cool with that), or you prefer PPG but will accept PP (with fee and then it is a negotiation who pays the fee). Stating PPG ONLY is a way to immediately lose people like me.
I love coins, but they are not my lifeblood that I have to have no matter what. >>
Then again maybe they aren't all that good at expressing their intentions desires. Wouldn't be the first time that happened here. Sometimes they probably have a pretty good idea that most buyers wouldn't want to pay the fee for something like 6 ounces of gold. Spot is $1204 so $1240 delivered for a AGE isn't too bad. Add 3% for PP puts you at $1277 and kills the deal and you mite as swell look elsewhere.
It never hurts to ask if for no other reason than to satisfy one's curiosity.
1) The buyer MUST absorb the fees if using a credit card in conjunction with PayPal gift.
I saw no option to transfer this charge to the seller. Of course, the buyer could simply
deduct the CC charge amount from the amount tendered to achieve that.
2) If the buyer uses a credit card in conjunction with PayPal gift, I have VERY strong doubts
that they are going to be able to win a chargeback claim. Typically, the credit card
company will ask for proof of non-delivery of goods or non-performance of services
before granting such a claim, and since PayPal did what you asked them to do (deliver
money as a GIFT) to the seller, they have fulfilled their obligation and, hence, the buyer
has no case.
<< <i>OK, without actually calling PayPal, here's what I believe to be true:
1) The buyer MUST absorb the fees if using a credit card in conjunction with PayPal gift.
I saw no option to transfer this charge to the seller. Of course, the buyer could simply
deduct the CC charge amount from the amount tendered to achieve that.
2) If the buyer uses a credit card in conjunction with PayPal gift, I have VERY strong doubts
that they are going to be able to win a chargeback claim. Typically, the credit card
company will ask for proof of non-delivery of goods or non-performance of services
before granting such a claim, and since PayPal did what you asked them to do (deliver
money as a GIFT) to the seller, they have fulfilled their obligation and, hence, the buyer
has no case. >>
It would seem to be an easy thing to try to send a CC gift payment to someone on your PP list to see what options you have. It won't be necessary to complete the transaction to find out. I would, but since I have a PP balance, it probably won't let me do it.
<< <i>It would seem to be an easy thing to try to send a CC gift payment to someone on your PP list to see what options you have. It won't be necessary to complete the transaction to find out. I would, but since I have a PP balance, it probably won't let me do it. >>
Yup, did that. That's why I worded it "I saw no option..." in point #1.
<< <i>
<< <i>It would seem to be an easy thing to try to send a CC gift payment to someone on your PP list to see what options you have. It won't be necessary to complete the transaction to find out. I would, but since I have a PP balance, it probably won't let me do it. >>
Yup, did that. That's why I worded it "I saw no option..." in point #1. >>
It's been a long time since I tried doing that. They must have changed it to shift the fee onus onto the payer only; probably to discourage its use.