Their policy is much better than their UI but it could be more clear.
The following is okay:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
They could make it clearer:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to your friends and family members.
Since PayPal's policy is that the seller pays the fee, it seems the buyer shouldn't care about using Friends and Family or Paying for an Item. Sellers aren't allowed to charge more for PayPal purchases.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
@Zoins said:
Their policy isn't clear either. I wonder if it's purposely vague.
It may be better if they added the bolded text I added below:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
To make it unambiguous, they should add some text like:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to Friends and Family.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
I think this goes back to the financial regulations that don't permit retailers to discriminate against credit cards. Although it is a rather fine distinction that only a lawyer could appreciate, you can't charge a fee to use a credit card but you can offer a discount to use cash. [NOTE: There are exceptions to this https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/credit-card-convenience-fees/]
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
I asked because I didn't know and wanted to get your thoughts. I don't normally go through the PayPal User Agreement, but did so only after you asked for information. I asked you since you seemed to have a fairly strong opinion on this in general so I thought you already reviewed the User Agreement to form that opinion and was surprised when you hadn't.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
I asked because I didn't know and wanted to get your thoughts. I don't normally go through the PayPal User Agreement, but did so only after you asked for information. I asked you since you seemed to have a fairly strong opinion on this in general so I thought you already reviewed the User Agreement to form that opinion and was surprised when you hadn't.
The one thing this thread has been good for: reading the PayPal User Agreement.
We've now read it more thoroughly than any other users on the planet! LOL
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
Clearly, this is another practice that requires a thread to probe it's ethicality.
@Zoins said:
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.
If a seller is asking the buyer to pay the seller's fees - it's against PayPal's Policies - this is called a surcharge and it's clearly pointed out in the PayPal User Agreement. Below is a snippet from the documentation, look for - Accepting Payments From Buyers for Goods and Services
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
I asked because I didn't know and wanted to get your thoughts. I don't normally go through the PayPal User Agreement, but did so only after you asked for information. I asked you since you seemed to have a fairly strong opinion on this in general so I thought you already reviewed the User Agreement to form that opinion and was surprised when you hadn't.
(Hopefully,😬) in the instances in which I expressed strong opinions, it pertained to specific PayPal policy wording, such as that posted by MasonG, which I have made considerable use of in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
I think this goes back to the financial regulations that don't permit retailers to discriminate against credit cards. Although it is a rather fine distinction that only a lawyer could appreciate, you can't charge a fee to use a credit card but you can offer a discount to use cash. [NOTE: There are exceptions to this https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/credit-card-convenience-fees/]
Are you sure? The link you posted says:
A convenience fee can only be assessed when the payment type is considered nonstandard.
Heritage charges for using credit cards and I'm sure they had their lawyers look at this.
The fee is spelled out in their standard Payment Terms and is a standard feature in their UI, so it doesn't seem to be a "nonstandard" payment method.
A 2.5% credit card processing fee will be added to all credit card payments.
@Zoins said:
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
>
A convenience fee can only be assessed when the payment type is considered nonstandard.
Heritage charges for using credit cards and I'm sure they had their lawyers look at this.
The fee is spelled out in their standard Payment Terms and is a standard feature in their UI, so it doesn't seem to be a "nonstandard" payment method.
A 2.5% credit card processing fee will be added to all credit card payments.
I think "standard" refers to the type of transaction, not the specific retailer. The example they use is paying taxes. So, for example, the State of NY charges a fee to use a credit card.
I don't know if an auction company is considered different than a "retailer".
It also may be state specific. I'm most familiar with NY State where, apparently, the laws recently changed:
@Zoins said:
Their policy is much better than their UI but it could be more clear.
The following is okay:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
They could make it clearer:
You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services even to your friends and family members.
Or "excluding" instead of "even" , if that were the intent. Like "in-breeding", kinda. Keep it in the "family".
A few years ago, a nephew bid on one of my items on eBay. Same last name. I got penalized and lost top rated seller status for 6 months. And all he wanted was the " great deal". And I paid the fees at both venues. eBay &PP.
Different strokes for different folks.
How clear is it ? Unethically clear. Immorally upright. Legally binding.
@derryb said:
Is driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone unethical? After all, one did agree to obey traffic laws when he was granted a driving license.
Yes. In fact, it is both unethical and illegal. Although if you are speeding an injured person to a hospital, it becomes ethical.
Try telling that logic to the innocent bystander killed by a speeding to the hospital "ethical" driver. A speeding ambulance,fire truck,police car etc. while legal and ethical, does not make the injured party nor their family that much more content. Your turn.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
So, the unethical party (the one breaking the PP agreement) is the one who SENDS a fee free payment in a BST transaction.
As far as paypal not allowing a seller to charge a surcharge to cover the papal fee, a seller can simply offer a discount to his price if he does not have to pay a fee. Most BST sellers will build all of their costs into their price; are they not being unethical by charging the PP fee in their total price? This makes most ebay sellers unethical as well.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
Not according to the Terms and Conditions. Nowhere in there does it even say that the fee is for "protection", although PART of the service they offer is protection. That is another rationalization invented in this thread.
I'm going to be disappointed in you if you buy into this rationalization. [Not that you care.] You are always so cerebral.
It is NOT mandatory to use PayPal. Whether you like the terms, want to use all of the features, or agree with the size or purpose of the fee, if you don't like it you don't have to use it. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks it is reasonable (or ethical) to voluntarily choose to use an OPTIONAL service and simultaneously reject the terms of that service.
@derryb said:
Is driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone unethical? After all, one did agree to obey traffic laws when he was granted a driving license.
Yes. In fact, it is both unethical and illegal. Although if you are speeding an injured person to a hospital, it becomes ethical.
Try telling that logic to the innocent bystander killed by a speeding to the hospital "ethical" driver. A speeding ambulance,fire truck,police car etc. while legal and ethical, does not make the injured party nor their family that much more content. Your turn.
LOL. Not thanks. I've had enough straw men for one week. I hope they aren't plastic straw men. NY banned those.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
I don’t think the movie theater food purchase issue is a fair analogy. There’s no agreement in place to buy candy, just because you go to a movie. If there were such a condition, you’d have a choice of going to a movie and buying candy, doing neither or violating the agreement and going to the movie, but not buying candy.
Just as you’re free to forgo going to the movie because you don’t want to buy food, you’re free to forgo using PayPal because you don’t want to abide by their terms. But if you choose to use it, you know what you’re supposed to do.
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
I think there might have been a lot less “noise” from a number of us, if some posters hadn’t refused to acknowledge that it was - I’ll use the word - “wrong” to violate an agreement. I understand that you don’t feel it’s necessarily “unethical”, but would you agree that it’s “wrong”? No matter what your answer happens to be, I’m going to try not to post anymore to this thread.🤐
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
The indignation is on your side of the issue. And, I dare say, that has been my position all along: it is an agreement you CHOOSE to make and it is, therefore, unethical to make that choice while at the same moment choosing to violate the terms of the agreement. Just pay in a different manner. Why is that so hard?
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
I don’t think the movie theater food purchase issue is a fair analogy. There’s no agreement in place to buy candy, just because you go to a movie. If there were such a condition, you’d have a choice of going to a movie and buying candy, doing neither or violating the agreement and going to the movie, but not buying candy.
Just as you’re free to forgo going to the movie because you don’t want to buy food, you’re free to forgo using PayPal because you don’t want to abide by their terms. But if you choose to use it, you know what you’re supposed to do.
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
Yes, no question, if the agreement is freely entered into.
You can ethically refuse an unethical order. You can't ethically refuse to live by terms you voluntarily agree to. IMHO
The more interesting question would be eBay forcing me to use PayPal rather than the issue of voluntarily using PayPal on the BST which is how this started.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
I think there might have been a lot less “noise” from a number of us, if some posters hadn’t refused to acknowledge that it was - I’ll use the word - “wrong” to violate an agreement. I understand that you don’t feel it’s necessarily “unethical”, but would you agree that it’s “wrong”? No matter what your answer happens to be, I’m going to try not to post anymore to this thread.🤐
In the current context, "wrong" and "unethical" are close enough to be considered synonymous, IMO. So no, I don't consider it "wrong" to violate PP's Terms under certain conditions and for certain reasons, which I've already laid out at (tedious) length. If I did consider it wrong, I wouldn't do it, as I try to adhere strictly to my own code of ethics, which doesn't include blindly following rules that I can't rationalize.
But you posed the essential question, and then declined to discuss/opine on it, which is a bit disappointing. OTOH, the question probably isn't resolvable in any objective way.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
The indignation is on your side of the issue. And, I dare say, that has been my position all along: it is an agreement you CHOOSE to make and it is, therefore, unethical to make that choice while at the same moment choosing to violate the terms of the agreement. Just pay in a different manner. Why is that so hard?
Hey, you said earlier that you were giving me the last word. Lying is unethical, don't you know?
But, golly, I'd hate to see you when you are being indignant.
@abcde12345 said:
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
There's a difference between ignoring/violating theater policy and stealing. Bringing and eating your own food amounts to the former, but not the latter.
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
The indignation is on your side of the issue. And, I dare say, that has been my position all along: it is an agreement you CHOOSE to make and it is, therefore, unethical to make that choice while at the same moment choosing to violate the terms of the agreement. Just pay in a different manner. Why is that so hard?
Hey, you said earlier that you were giving me the last word. Lying is unethical, don't you know?
But, golly, I'd hate to see you when you are being indignant.
LOL.
Yup. Unethical. That's me.
I also laugh at off-color jokes. I stare at women's butts.
Not according to the Terms and Conditions. Nowhere in there does it even say that the fee is for "protection", although PART of the service they offer is protection. That is another rationalization invented in this thread.
I must have been seeing thing when I saw this:
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Not according to the Terms and Conditions. Nowhere in there does it even say that the fee is for "protection", although PART of the service they offer is protection. That is another rationalization invented in this thread.
I must have been seeing thing when I saw this:
No, but you're not reading it correctly. It does NOT say: the seller pays a fee so you get purchase protection.
Yes, you get purchase protection.
Yes, the seller pays a fee.
No, the fee does not only cover purchase protection. The fee also covers the transaction itself.
They are telling you the TWO benefits to you. They are NOT explaining why the seller pays a fee.
When I buy a Priority Mail label on eBay, it comes with $100 in insurance. The cost of the Priority Mail label is, in fact, the same even if I am shipping documents that have no value. It costs $7.33 to ship a birthday card to Grandma with no insurance and it costs $7.33 to ship a coin with $100 insurance.
Comments
Their policy is much better than their UI but it could be more clear.
The following is okay:
They could make it clearer:
Since PayPal's policy is that the seller pays the fee, it seems the buyer shouldn't care about using Friends and Family or Paying for an Item. Sellers aren't allowed to charge more for PayPal purchases.
I think it’s quite clear, as is, without your edit: “You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.”
In fact, I believe your edit would create a redundancy, as the “Friends and Family” option is already anticipated, mentioned and disallowed by the current wording.
If someone wants to overlook, ignore or rationalize, they will find a way to do so, regardless of what language is used.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree the text is more clear.
I think the UI is very ambiguous.
I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?
Why shouldn’t it matter to you as a buyer?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Because I should pay the same amount either way, unless I'm asked not to
Wow! You guys can really beat a subject to death.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Youse guys are like a Saturday Night Live Skit playing on a record player that has a skip!
Thanks. I’ve had no experience as a seller using PayPal, so don’t have an informed answer to your question about sellers who ask the buyers to pay the fee. However, as long as PayPal is paid in accordance with the user terms, I don’t see why it would be a violation for the seller to ask the buyer to pay the fee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Let's review the UI again
Without additional information/specifics, my answer is the same.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here you go. When making statements, it's good to make it with information
PayPal User Agreement
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#accepting-payments
And an explanation:
https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Payments/Seller-asking-me-to-pay-PayPal-fees/td-p/1324189#
I think this goes back to the financial regulations that don't permit retailers to discriminate against credit cards. Although it is a rather fine distinction that only a lawyer could appreciate, you can't charge a fee to use a credit card but you can offer a discount to use cash. [NOTE: There are exceptions to this https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/credit-card-convenience-fees/]
That’s why I prefaced my comments by stating that I didn’t have an informed answer. And based on the additional information you provided, in response to your below question, I think it’s clear that such sellers are violating PayPal policy. I’m surprised you’d even ask.
“I'm a buyer so it shouldn't matter to me, but I've seen multiple sellers ask buyers to pay the fee, which seems to be a violation of policy. What do you think?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I asked because I didn't know and wanted to get your thoughts. I don't normally go through the PayPal User Agreement, but did so only after you asked for information. I asked you since you seemed to have a fairly strong opinion on this in general so I thought you already reviewed the User Agreement to form that opinion and was surprised when you hadn't.
The one thing this thread has been good for: reading the PayPal User Agreement.
We've now read it more thoroughly than any other users on the planet! LOL
Clearly, this is another practice that requires a thread to probe it's ethicality.
(Hopefully,😬) in the instances in which I expressed strong opinions, it pertained to specific PayPal policy wording, such as that posted by MasonG, which I have made considerable use of in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Are you sure? The link you posted says:
Heritage charges for using credit cards and I'm sure they had their lawyers look at this.
The fee is spelled out in their standard Payment Terms and is a standard feature in their UI, so it doesn't seem to be a "nonstandard" payment method.
https://www.ha.com/c/ref/payment-terms.zx
I think "standard" refers to the type of transaction, not the specific retailer. The example they use is paying taxes. So, for example, the State of NY charges a fee to use a credit card.
I don't know if an auction company is considered different than a "retailer".
It also may be state specific. I'm most familiar with NY State where, apparently, the laws recently changed:
https://money.com/credit-card-surcharge-legal-or-illegal/
Also see....
http://blog.goemerchant.com/can-you-charge-customers-a-fee-for-using-a-credit-card/
Or "excluding" instead of "even" , if that were the intent. Like "in-breeding", kinda. Keep it in the "family".
A few years ago, a nephew bid on one of my items on eBay. Same last name. I got penalized and lost top rated seller status for 6 months. And all he wanted was the " great deal". And I paid the fees at both venues. eBay &PP.
Different strokes for different folks.
How clear is it ? Unethically clear. Immorally upright. Legally binding.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Anyone who voted "no" and wants a laugh, please PM me to get my final statement on this subject!
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Try telling that logic to the innocent bystander killed by a speeding to the hospital "ethical" driver. A speeding ambulance,fire truck,police car etc. while legal and ethical, does not make the injured party nor their family that much more content. Your turn.
It's like a credit card.
Your paying for a service ( a transfer of money )
So, the unethical party (the one breaking the PP agreement) is the one who SENDS a fee free payment in a BST transaction.
As far as paypal not allowing a seller to charge a surcharge to cover the papal fee, a seller can simply offer a discount to his price if he does not have to pay a fee. Most BST sellers will build all of their costs into their price; are they not being unethical by charging the PP fee in their total price? This makes most ebay sellers unethical as well.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Couldn't the same be said about PayPal? You may be violating PayPal's terms of use, but you are merely refusing to buy unneeded protection just as you refuse to buy unneeded movie theater candy. Everyone here is making a contract argument and the gravamen of the argument appears to be that it is unethical to violate your contractual obligations. This presupposes the existence of a valid contract which would require valuable consideration which usually means something of economic value. If the valuable consideration isn't PayPal protection what is it? There is no shortage of apps to transfer money freely. If you can freely refuse to buy theater owned concessions why can't you refuse to buy PayPal protection? It's all in the framing. Can't I bring my own insurance coverage or self insure against whatever it is that PP protection purportedly covers?
Not according to the Terms and Conditions. Nowhere in there does it even say that the fee is for "protection", although PART of the service they offer is protection. That is another rationalization invented in this thread.
I'm going to be disappointed in you if you buy into this rationalization. [Not that you care.] You are always so cerebral.
It is NOT mandatory to use PayPal. Whether you like the terms, want to use all of the features, or agree with the size or purpose of the fee, if you don't like it you don't have to use it. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks it is reasonable (or ethical) to voluntarily choose to use an OPTIONAL service and simultaneously reject the terms of that service.
LOL. Not thanks. I've had enough straw men for one week. I hope they aren't plastic straw men. NY banned those.
I don’t think the movie theater food purchase issue is a fair analogy. There’s no agreement in place to buy candy, just because you go to a movie. If there were such a condition, you’d have a choice of going to a movie and buying candy, doing neither or violating the agreement and going to the movie, but not buying candy.
Just as you’re free to forgo going to the movie because you don’t want to buy food, you’re free to forgo using PayPal because you don’t want to abide by their terms. But if you choose to use it, you know what you’re supposed to do.
For me, at least, the more difficult and interesting issue is the answer to the question “Is someone necessarily unethical, by virtue of failing to honor an agreement?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
BINGO!!
All of the rest of this nonsense is basically noise and misplaced indignation.
I think there might have been a lot less “noise” from a number of us, if some posters hadn’t refused to acknowledge that it was - I’ll use the word - “wrong” to violate an agreement. I understand that you don’t feel it’s necessarily “unethical”, but would you agree that it’s “wrong”? No matter what your answer happens to be, I’m going to try not to post anymore to this thread.🤐
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The indignation is on your side of the issue. And, I dare say, that has been my position all along: it is an agreement you CHOOSE to make and it is, therefore, unethical to make that choice while at the same moment choosing to violate the terms of the agreement. Just pay in a different manner. Why is that so hard?
Yes, no question, if the agreement is freely entered into.
You can ethically refuse an unethical order. You can't ethically refuse to live by terms you voluntarily agree to. IMHO
The more interesting question would be eBay forcing me to use PayPal rather than the issue of voluntarily using PayPal on the BST which is how this started.
In the current context, "wrong" and "unethical" are close enough to be considered synonymous, IMO. So no, I don't consider it "wrong" to violate PP's Terms under certain conditions and for certain reasons, which I've already laid out at (tedious) length. If I did consider it wrong, I wouldn't do it, as I try to adhere strictly to my own code of ethics, which doesn't include blindly following rules that I can't rationalize.
But you posed the essential question, and then declined to discuss/opine on it, which is a bit disappointing. OTOH, the question probably isn't resolvable in any objective way.
Hey, you said earlier that you were giving me the last word. Lying is unethical, don't you know?
But, golly, I'd hate to see you when you are being indignant.
LOL.
Yup. Unethical. That's me.
I also laugh at off-color jokes. I stare at women's butts.
I'm a scoundrel.
I must have been seeing thing when I saw this:
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
No, but you're not reading it correctly. It does NOT say: the seller pays a fee so you get purchase protection.
Yes, you get purchase protection.
Yes, the seller pays a fee.
No, the fee does not only cover purchase protection. The fee also covers the transaction itself.
They are telling you the TWO benefits to you. They are NOT explaining why the seller pays a fee.
When I buy a Priority Mail label on eBay, it comes with $100 in insurance. The cost of the Priority Mail label is, in fact, the same even if I am shipping documents that have no value. It costs $7.33 to ship a birthday card to Grandma with no insurance and it costs $7.33 to ship a coin with $100 insurance.
just try to collect on that insurance