extended time for paypal disputes now 180 days

[boggo58]

This is the best news ever. How many of us forget the 40? Odd days and miss out on putting in a dispute, this will get sellers to improve . The main thing as well is NOT TO GIVE FEED BACK, ESPECIALLY POSITIVE straight away, a lot of people do. Wait till the last few days then do it!

[digital*ghost]

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

what else did i miss?

---

The point.

I am not asking you to take on the role of lawyer here - I would prefer the opposite. If I wanted to get into a discussion of legalities and dispute the things you're saying on a legal level, I would do it properly, with references and the like, as I have done in similar disussions where I was disputing those kinds of things.

I'm asking questions specifically to highlight how your everyday average PayPal user will interpret what is written in their user agreements, and therefore the expectations that will create, which will in turn affect how people will use or respond to the dispute process. I'm highlighting the fact that it's black & white policies that people will refer to when they decide how to respond to or handle a case. 

I'm pointing out to you that PayPal are prepared to make certain differentations and distinctions in some cases, yet fail to make the ones that are under discussion here - and I use the word "fail" quite pointedly. 

[cq_tech]

There's no need to thank me d*g; I know full well that you're the last person to argue a point unless you felt it absolutely necessary, and from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, I can actually see exactly where the both of you are coming from.

The problem as I see it is that you're both arguing tangentially to the primary issue upon which you essentially agree with each other and if you both took a step back and looked at things from the other party's perspective, unless I'm very much mistaken, I suspect you'd find that your opinions regarding the core issue would be far more similar than you think.

[muppet_detector]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@cq_tech wrote:

muppet_detector wrote:

I can't work out if you are arguing with me with a closed mind intent on finding me wrong because what i write doesn't align with your paradigm, or if you are addressing things that I have said with an open mind because you are trying to make sense of all of this.

If you don't mind my interrupting here, I can tell you that without a doubt, digital*ghost is one of the more knowledgeable and highly respected members currently posting on these boards and consequently I think it would be fairly safe to say that as far as your above comment is concerned, the former would not have even crossed her mind. Please continue as I for one am finding your commentary to be extremely interesting, not to mention highly enlightening.

---

I appreciate that, cq - thank you, you are correct that I am not one to argue for the sake of it.

In order to clarify my intentions at this point, the core issue I referred to in my previous post is this:

A member should not need to go through the process described in MD's post in order to clarify PayPal's intentions and procedures, particularly if they will differ in certain cases.

That is my issue - how PayPal will practice their new policies is obviously connected to that issue, but not what I am trying to drive at.

---

OK, my apologies.

I am not good at expressing normative emotions. Apologies.

I agree 100% that in an ideal environment, we shouoldn't have to go through all that. (is that the reply you were after? It is what i believe in my heart, that answer is sincere, but I know the reality is very different) In my somewhat longwinded reply, i did try to explain why we need to though

and hopefully, my further offerings of the similarities between policy and the comparison to civil and criminal law expanded on that explanation.

[muppet_detector]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

what else did i miss?

---

The point.

I am not asking you to take on the role of lawyer here - I would prefer the opposite. If I wanted to get into a discussion of legalities and dispute the things you're saying on a legal level, I would do it properly, with references and the like, as I have done in similar disussions where I was disputing those kinds of things.

I'm asking questions specifically to highlight how your everyday average PayPal user will interpret what is written in their user agreements, and therefore the expectations that will create, which will in turn affect how people will use or respond to the dispute process. I'm highlighting the fact that it's black & white policies that people will refer to when they decide how to respond to or handle a case. 

I'm pointing out to you that PayPal are prepared to make certain differentations and distinctions in some cases, yet fail to make the ones that are under discussion here - and I use the word "fail" quite pointedly. 

---

Ok, well there is no point asking me as my response will continue to be to ask them (PayPal) and refer to common legal practice which largely disregards how people think that things should work and what their expectations are as opposed to how they are actually handled. I suppose that they make distinctions on what they expect to be common issues, and will fly by the seat of their pants with the rest as they arise following the guidelines they have been told to follow. 

i can't see it being any different to what it is now. People already misunderstand or don't know what PayPal protection offers. They are often surprised and angry to learn that they have to pay return post, even when it isn't their fault, and the same when told eBay won't help and PayPal says "you missed the 45 days, we won't help either" eBay (until now) have made no claims to accept responsibility on transactions between buyer and seller, and PayPal make their 45 day policy very clear, yet people still get surprised, they still misinterpret and they still don't know and don't understand. Regardless of if it is in black and white, or based on what they think should be done. So what's changed? It's just one more policy for us to learn about and one that will be interpreted by individuals in a manner that they invent.

Thus i will retreat. I only stuck my toe in to talk to modestbods. - to answer one of their questions and comment on a point they were making.

[muppet_detector]

i need to make a correction/clarification

Earlier i said that until now eBay have not made claims to accept responsibility on transactions between buyer and seller.

It seems that in 2000, they did,

This is a case where eBay A&NZ insurance is discussed and challeneged (Victoria). (It's quite short and easy to read)

Evagora v eBay Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd [2001] VCAT 49 (20 July 2001)

Of interest (to me) here, is not so much that it is about insurance, nor the verdict, but the arguments put forth by eBay, and the commentary prior to the ruling indicating how 'reasonable expectation" is interpreted and the allowances for buyer skill and assumption that are made.

I suspect that it is occurrences such as this and similar that eBay have considered when creating their latest buyer protection policies.

Whilst i understand that some/all posters aren't as interested in the legal aspects, I am not sure how consideration of them can be escaped as it (along with profit) is what undoubtedly drives the decisions that they (and PayPal) make to introduce and implement their policies in order to acheive their objectives, which like any business is to maximise profit within the boundaries of the law.

if we can understand where they are coming from when they create new policies, it helps us to work out how to address them.

[thecatspjs]

My suggestion crikey is that you review the small, but increasing number of cases that the ACCC have successfully prosecuted for breaches of the C&C Act and the ACL and then reconsider boasting about large corporations staying within the law in their operations.  It is naive at best. 

I note that Coles is being prosecuted on further breaches, with much being played out in the media at the moment. Coles of course has already been fined over the past few years for several breaches.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

---

@colic2bullsgirlore wrote:

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

---

@colic2bullsgirlore wrote:

You are also welcome to your opinion however unsubstantiated it is..... and now you are also privy to mine... and the dept

of fair tradings advice.

---

Thank you for your opinion, I however turned up the day they taught law at law school.

Surf's up!

Remember your sunscreen.

---

Did you turn up the day they taught about giving unsolicited information on a public forum ???

---

well you have changed your tune at least.

An hour ago, it was only opinion......

LOLOL

---

LOLOL I don't think In have changed my tune at all it is still only opinion... an extremely flawed opinion

....... and you still have not managed to answer any questions save for the questions you "answer" with a question....

The only thing you have convinced me of is the fact that you deflect answering any questions posed to you in

lengthy paragraphs of polly waffle....

and the post above is not even a good deflection... as for apologies I think you should apologize to those that actually

read your posts for the 3 or so minutes of their life they will never ever get back.

Given that the ACCC the NSW DOFT and VCAT all agree that if you buy using an online auction format from a private

seller that the ACL does not apply how could ebay or paypals new policy only mimic the ACL as you have stated??

Obviously you must think that there are no private sellers running auctions on any online auction site.

Ebay and paypals new policies USURP the private seller exemption clause in the ACL.

...... it's that simple.....

regardless of the ACL's definition of a private seller now RL beckons taa taa

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

Both the new eBay rules and the new PayPal rules do no more than provide consumer law protection without the need for costly legal action for longer than 45 days.

---

---

---

---

Specifically your post here IMO ebay and paypals new rules try to extend the ACL to private sellers ie they do not

differentiate between private sellers or business sellers the rules are the same...

..... "without the need for costly legal action for longer than 45 days"