From: michael adams on

"Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bL2dnWZ5-6S8NlnXnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> "michael adams" <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:7iji78F31qhv9U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "Peter Crosland" <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9rednQ2jRY06EV7XnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> >
> >> That contract between PayPal and the buyer is subject to the
> >> provisions of the legislation
> >> that prevenst unfair terms in consumer contracts.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Crosland
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's an interesting one. AFAIAA Paypal only has the one agreement
> > which covers both buying and selling.
> >
> > However if someone as buyer doesn't make use of any of the services
> > for which Paypal charges a fee, then strictly speaking there isn't any
> > contract between the buyer and Paypal. As a buyer isn't then paying Paypal
> > any consideration*. All fees are paid by the seller. Quite possibly
> > intentionally
> > so on Paypal's part, for that very reason. The same will apply to eBay as
> > well.
> >
> > Consideration, which is anything given in exchange for whatever is
> > promised,
> > is an essential requirement of English Contract Law.*
> >
> > Basically if you're not paying anything for goods or services rendered
> > and never intend to, but intend to restrict your activity to the free
> > services
> > provided, then there's no contract between yourself and the supplier of
> > those
> > goods or services; regardless of however many promises they may make or
> > break
> > in respect of those free services.
> >
> > And if there's no contract in the first place then the question of
> > unfairness
> > or illegality - barring an active conspiracy involving both Paypal and
> > sellers
> > - simply cannot arise.
>
>
> The original suggestion near the start of the thread was that an
> unscrupulous buyer might make a fraudulent claim against PayPal if the
> seller collected the goods and therefore the seller did not have online
> proof of delivery. So it is the seller's contract with PayPal that is the
> relevant one.

Sorry my mistake.


michael adams

....




The seller pays a fee to PayPal and therefore there is
> consideration. What I am saying is that if PayPal charged the seller's
> account because it had refunded a fraudulent claim by a dishonest buyer then
> the seller would have a good case in court if they had, for example, a
> signed receipt for the goods from the buyer. PayPal's insistance that only
> proof available on line would be laughed out of court.
>
>
> Peter Crosland
>
>


From: Mark on
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:50:12 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:91m7c51hob29q38pspmp6cgm2752gh0jkq(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:51:50 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
>> <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paypal are not just offering an ADR service. They are offering a service
>>>that gives, subject to certain condiditons, a guarantee that the buyer
>>>will
>>>be protected against loss if the seller fails in some way to provide goods
>>>that are satisfactory and then refuses to refund the seller.
>>
>> In order to do this they apply, as you say, certain conditions.
>> Conditions which are quite reasonable as they allow them to run the
>> scheme at low cost.
>>
>>>That contract
>>>between PayPal and the buyer is subject to the provisions of the
>>>legislation
>>>that prevenst unfair terms in consumer contracts.
>>
>> You would be hard pressed to show that a service offered above what is
>> required by law would be "unfair" in contractual terms simply because
>> they will only accept tracked returns. A perfectly reasonable
>> explanation would be that only by offering a largely automated service
>> can they afford to offer any ADR service at all. The alternative to
>> doing it as they do is simply not to do it.
>
>You really don't understand how the law works do you? The fact that
>something may be difficult does not alter the fact that terms that are
>unfair to the consumer are not sustainable in court. The whole point of the
>legislation is to prevent companies from using their power to put the
>consumer at a disadvantage. PayPal have decided that they can get away with
>applying a condition that is unlawful and I assume they have taken the view
>that most consumers will just accept this. As many other traders before have
>found the courts will support the consumer. What many large companies do is
>take a risk that they will get away with it because this is more profitable
>than complying. When they find someone prepared to fight them they just pay
>up quietly without admitting liability. Regrettably Trading Standards are
>not given the resources to deal with this sort of unscrupulous behaviour.

I think you're right. However I am uncertain whether it would be
feasible to bring a case against PayPal in the UK.

IME Trading Standards only deal with criminal cases and not civil
ones. Every time I have tried to contact TS I get passed straight to
Consumer Direct, and the latter I have no confidence in.

From: The Older Gentleman on
Peter Crosland <g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> What I am saying is that if PayPal charged the seller's
> account because it had refunded a fraudulent claim by a dishonest buyer then
> the seller would have a good case in court if they had, for example, a
> signed receipt for the goods from the buyer. PayPal's insistance that only
> proof available on line would be laughed out of court.

This I agree with.


--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Fran on

"Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
news:p6p9c5dut25ad70bg08aahm0thp8evi7j3(a)4ax.com...

> IME Trading Standards only deal with criminal cases and not civil
> ones. Every time I have tried to contact TS I get passed straight to
> Consumer Direct, and the latter I have no confidence in.
>

You do realise they're one and the same?


From: Peter Parry on
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:23:04 +0100, Mark
<i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:50:12 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
><g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Regrettably Trading Standards are
>>not given the resources to deal with this sort of unscrupulous behaviour.
>
>I think you're right. However I am uncertain whether it would be
>feasible to bring a case against PayPal in the UK.

It would be perfectly feasible.

>IME Trading Standards only deal with criminal cases and not civil
>ones.

TS deal with Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cases. A
number of other organisations are also permitted to bring UTCCR cases
on behalf of consumers, notably the Consumers Association . That
neither TS nor the Consumers Association nor the UK European Consumer
Centre nor any other European Consumer Centre have shown any interest
at all in doing so is perhaps an indication that Mr Crossland is wrong
again.