[Skybird]

You guys do not wish to see it, I must conclude. Fact is that Paypal advertises with telling you you are safe from getting stranded with a transaction you are not happy with - yopu would get your money back, if needed from them, and nthat this is somewhat a given. So you do count on it. You think: if I pay by usiong paypal, even if the seller messes things up, I could get5 back my money from the paypal guarantee. But it is noit like this - you have nnothing to claim from them, you depend on their willingness to be nice with you. You can't make them living up to thei9r promise. It is a misleading advertising by them. The buyer do not pay fpor paypal,l they just get the data on his banking account (you do not know a little bit what they are doing with it). But the seller pays for the the paypal "service", additionally to the auction fee.

I wonder what the problem is in understanding this. People are being made thinking that paypal tramnsacitons are any safer than non-paypal transactions, andn that any addito9nal safety features and money-back-rules come into play, and are obligatory to be fulfilled by Paypal - and this is a very popular misconception. Even more, morons can trick people into buying something messy, making them feel safe by offering paypal. the custommer thinks "Ah, I could try it in safety, it's paypal, I could get my money back anyway, even if it turns out to stink". but evntually - he cannot. Eventually Paypal will refuse to refund in place of the moron, even 9if you can prove that paypal never has checked the case, and did not take note of the evidence you gave. And you have no legal weapon whatever to make Paypal live up to the misleading promise they advertised with. As the German video gives several examples, it is not rare that customers get dissapointed from Paypal when it rejects their demand for refund. not before the magazine - a program focussing on taxes, fincance laws and economics - intervened, Paypaol all of a sudden accepted to refund, as they advertised they would. Which is more about public relation then, than about acceptance of theirs.

Consumer protection centres in germany sday Paypal is no ihgh profiole offender, but also no unknown. That means: they are not the worse but also no rare offender.

People, do not make this more complicated than it is. As a matter of fact it is very, very simple and very, very obvious.

Originally Posted by porphy

If you pay any other way, you have the same legal rights, but how would you proceed to get money back for goods that never arrive or is significantly different from the description, or even a fake item? Or if you have an international buyer pulling back transferred money via the credit card company because they argue the item never showed up?

Porphy, the same question is with regard to Paypal. You think you can put a safe bet that they would be more friendly regarding these incidents, as they advertise, but they must not be. You are wrong if you think just by using Paypal yopu have more legal control over interventiuons in case the transaction goes wrong. You believe you have that by using Paypal - but you haven't. And if they decide (as in the examples where they even were proven to not have checked the facts, and just sent form letters of rejection that illustrated they did not check the issue by making wrong claims themselves) to not stand by their advertising, then there is nothign you can do about it. You can't legally force themn, that is the point. You are not any stronger or weaker as if you hd made the transaction via credit card. You depend completely on their good will and kindness - like you do when using a credit card or pay in advance.