|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 07:55 | | Subject: | Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 336 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 07:59 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
A yes from me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Darth_Smithy | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 08:19 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
A yes from me.
|
Me too.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 08:19 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
I vote yes but request a minor change to the criteria:-
"2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk"
I do not think this should be a requirement, in fact including it in this suggestion
might even encourage more sellers to adopt such a term when it is not needed
(1) . In the example I raised yesterday this would not have applied because we
do not have the above term in our store but, the Paypal reversal could have been
made long before we would have been able to make a refund under our terms which
require the shipper's conditions for compensation to be met first.
This aside I think this suggestion is a very well thought through. To me, the
key point you make is that the Paypal terms are separate to Bricklink's so just
because a Paypal reversal is "OK" under Paypal terms, it still makes it a non-payment
in Bricklink terms.
(1) e.g. In UK, RoyalMail provides loss compensation for all mail (including
non-registered, untracked services) upto the value of GBP41. This is required
by the government appointed industry regulator so it is not neccessary for a
UK seller to deny all responsibility for lost packages. Doing so simply reduces
the consumer appeal of their Bricklink store.
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_209762 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 08:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
yes it sounds fair
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb94303 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mark25 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
yes it sounds fair
|
A yes from me even though I dont sell on bricklink I sell on the other site and
too be completely honest this is the whole problem PAYPAL
(((As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between
the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed)))
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback....
|
I'm still struggling with this one. I hope I can explain it properly without
a whole bunch of sellers thinking that I'm a scammer and putting me on their
stoplists!
I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
If we look at a time a little later in the two processes, the parallel still
takes us to where we need to be, I think: If the Paypal dispute turns into a
claim, and then the claim is found in the buyer's favor, THEN the buyer has their
money back, and the seller is sure to never see it. At that point, the buyers
is definitely NPB.
In the parallel situation, if a seller finds that a package has been returned
to them in the mail (for whatever reason*), they then I think it's reasonable
to describe that as NSS. They have the package back, so it wasn't REALLY shipped,
in the same way that a buyer who has their money back hasn't REALLY paid.
I'm still potentially going to vote YES to the suggestion, though, because I
think it's better than the current (apparent) policy.
--
Marc.
*(I don't mean to imply that every reason would be the seller's fault.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 09:13 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback....
|
I'm still struggling with this one. I hope I can explain it properly without
a whole bunch of sellers thinking that I'm a scammer and putting me on their
stoplists!
I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
If we look at a time a little later in the two processes, the parallel still
takes us to where we need to be, I think: If the Paypal dispute turns into a
claim, and then the claim is found in the buyer's favor, THEN the buyer has their
money back, and the seller is sure to never see it. At that point, the buyers
is definitely NPB.
|
This must be the reason why those NPB's are removed.
Only after Paypal refunded the payment a NPB is in place and shouldn't be removed.
| | In the parallel situation, if a seller finds that a package has been returned
to them in the mail (for whatever reason*), they then I think it's reasonable
to describe that as NSS. They have the package back, so it wasn't REALLY shipped,
in the same way that a buyer who has their money back hasn't REALLY paid.
I'm still potentially going to vote YES to the suggestion, though, because I
think it's better than the current (apparent) policy.
--
Marc.
*(I don't mean to imply that every reason would be the seller's fault.)
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback....
|
I'm still struggling with this one. I hope I can explain it properly without
a whole bunch of sellers thinking that I'm a scammer and putting me on their
stoplists!
I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
|
There is a big difference here as the seller who has shipped a package cannot
"claim" it back. Once it's mailed, it's mailed. On the other hand the buyer
still has the opportunity to take their money back at any moment from the payment
date up through the 45 day deadline for disputes. This makes for a major flaw
in the application of your argument above. To make it equal you would need to
add "package claim" services so a seller can recall the shipment at any point,
or you would need to remove the buyer's right to the PayPal dispute process.
Really the playing field is not level and never will be, so drawing a parallel
between the two processes is not going to work. Each has to be treated in its
own way to find the appropriate solutions.
| |
If we look at a time a little later in the two processes, the parallel still
takes us to where we need to be, I think: If the Paypal dispute turns into a
claim, and then the claim is found in the buyer's favor, THEN the buyer has their
money back, and the seller is sure to never see it. At that point, the buyers
is definitely NPB.
In the parallel situation, if a seller finds that a package has been returned
to them in the mail (for whatever reason*), they then I think it's reasonable
to describe that as NSS. They have the package back, so it wasn't REALLY shipped,
in the same way that a buyer who has their money back hasn't REALLY paid.
I'm still potentially going to vote YES to the suggestion, though, because I
think it's better than the current (apparent) policy.
--
Marc.
*(I don't mean to imply that every reason would be the seller's fault.)
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, waltzking writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
|
There is a big difference here as the seller who has shipped a package cannot
"claim" it back. Once it's mailed, it's mailed. On the other hand the buyer
still has the opportunity to take their money back at any moment from the payment
date up through the 45 day deadline for disputes. This makes for a major flaw
in the application of your argument above. To make it equal you would need to
add "package claim" services so a seller can recall the shipment at any point,
or you would need to remove the buyer's right to the PayPal dispute process.
Really the playing field is not level and never will be, so drawing a parallel
between the two processes is not going to work. Each has to be treated in its
own way to find the appropriate solutions.
|
Fair enough. If we look at the buyer's side alone: a buyer sends payment through
Paypal, which is forwarded to the seller. The buyer then files a dispute.
Have they paid? They have. They don't have their money back, therefore they have
paid.
I found drawing the parallel between the two ends of the transaction to better
illustrate the point, but the point works just as well if we look only at the
buyer's side.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 17:29 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, waltzking writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
|
There is a big difference here as the seller who has shipped a package cannot
"claim" it back. Once it's mailed, it's mailed. On the other hand the buyer
still has the opportunity to take their money back at any moment from the payment
date up through the 45 day deadline for disputes. This makes for a major flaw
in the application of your argument above. To make it equal you would need to
add "package claim" services so a seller can recall the shipment at any point,
or you would need to remove the buyer's right to the PayPal dispute process.
Really the playing field is not level and never will be, so drawing a parallel
between the two processes is not going to work. Each has to be treated in its
own way to find the appropriate solutions.
|
Fair enough. If we look at the buyer's side alone: a buyer sends payment through
Paypal, which is forwarded to the seller. The buyer then files a dispute.
Have they paid? They have. They don't have their money back, therefore they have
paid.
I found drawing the parallel between the two ends of the transaction to better
illustrate the point, but the point works just as well if we look only at the
buyer's side.
|
Okay, but how about the seller's side then. He get's the payment and ships the
order. He has shipped at that point and met the requirements to avoid the NSS.
If the package is returned or lost for whatever reason (including purposefully
addressing the package wrong) he did ship the items so a NSS is not valid.
See my point? If the buyer is okay to freeze or reclaim the funds and still
not get a NPB, why shouldn't the seller be able to ship the package and regardless
of a lost or returned package still be immune to an NSS? You yourself admitted
that the seller should be in the position of a possible NSS for a returned package
so why not the same for a buyer who files for a returned payment?
However, I think we are on the same side here. Just because the funds are frozen
does not mean an NPB is valid, same for a non-delivered package deserving an
NSS. It is just rather lopsided for the buyer to be able to freeze the sellers
payment when the seller is not the one who freezes (delays) the buyers order
after shipment. That is where I see it as not being equal. Maybe if PayPal
(middleman like the PO) was the one delaying payment (without the input of the
buyer) it would be the same scenario.
I guess the main issue is the buyer is the one delaying (freezing) payment where
as the seller is not the one delaying the package delivery.
Jonathan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, waltzking writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, waltzking writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
|
There is a big difference here as the seller who has shipped a package cannot
"claim" it back. Once it's mailed, it's mailed. On the other hand the buyer
still has the opportunity to take their money back at any moment from the payment
date up through the 45 day deadline for disputes. This makes for a major flaw
in the application of your argument above. To make it equal you would need to
add "package claim" services so a seller can recall the shipment at any point,
or you would need to remove the buyer's right to the PayPal dispute process.
Really the playing field is not level and never will be, so drawing a parallel
between the two processes is not going to work. Each has to be treated in its
own way to find the appropriate solutions.
|
Fair enough. If we look at the buyer's side alone: a buyer sends payment through
Paypal, which is forwarded to the seller. The buyer then files a dispute.
Have they paid? They have. They don't have their money back, therefore they have
paid.
I found drawing the parallel between the two ends of the transaction to better
illustrate the point, but the point works just as well if we look only at the
buyer's side.
|
Okay, but how about the seller's side then. He get's the payment and ships the
order. He has shipped at that point and met the requirements to avoid the NSS.
If the package is returned or lost for whatever reason (including purposefully
addressing the package wrong) he did ship the items so a NSS is not valid.
See my point? If the buyer is okay to freeze or reclaim the funds and still
not get a NPB, why shouldn't the seller be able to ship the package and regardless
of a lost or returned package still be immune to an NSS? You yourself admitted
that the seller should be in the position of a possible NSS for a returned package
so why not the same for a buyer who files for a returned payment?
|
Once the package has made it back to the seller, yes. Similarly, once the payment
has made it back to the buyer, yes.
| | However, I think we are on the same side here. Just because the funds are frozen
does not mean an NPB is valid, same for a non-delivered package deserving an
NSS. It is just rather lopsided for the buyer to be able to freeze the sellers
payment when the seller is not the one who freezes (delays) the buyers order
after shipment. That is where I see it as not being equal. Maybe if PayPal
(middleman like the PO) was the one delaying payment (without the input of the
buyer) it would be the same scenario.
I guess the main issue is the buyer is the one delaying (freezing) payment where
as the seller is not the one delaying the package delivery.
|
It does sound like we're mostly agreeing.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | change | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 13:02 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| |
In the parallel situation, if a seller finds that a package has been returned
to them in the mail (for whatever reason*), they then I think it's reasonable
to describe that as NSS. They have the package back, so it wasn't REALLY shipped,
in the same way that a buyer who has their money back hasn't REALLY paid.
|
They have the package back but was REALLY shipped and paid for shipping.
For some packages there is a tracking and in the end the PO give the reason for
returning to sender.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Grego | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2010 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback....
|
I'm still struggling with this one. I hope I can explain it properly without
a whole bunch of sellers thinking that I'm a scammer and putting me on their
stoplists!
I see a parallel between the shipping and the paying that your suggestion seems
to miss. If a buyer makes payment through Paypal, they have now paid. If they
then open a claim, they haven't actually UNpaid yet -- they don't have their
money back. In the same way that we only hold sellers to shipping (not to receipt
at the other end), doesn't it make sense that we would hold buyers to the same
standard -- that they sent payment, not necessarily that the payment made it
through to the other end.
If we look at a time a little later in the two processes, the parallel still
takes us to where we need to be, I think: If the Paypal dispute turns into a
claim, and then the claim is found in the buyer's favor, THEN the buyer has their
money back, and the seller is sure to never see it. At that point, the buyers
is definitely NPB.
In the parallel situation, if a seller finds that a package has been returned
to them in the mail (for whatever reason*), they then I think it's reasonable
to describe that as NSS. They have the package back, so it wasn't REALLY shipped,
in the same way that a buyer who has their money back hasn't REALLY paid.
|
Except that the seller paid for shipping ... and usually has to pay for the return
shipping ... so yes they have the package but are out double shipping costs ....
not quite the same as a buyer who pays, does a chargeback = zero money out and
maybe has the product for free ...
| |
I'm still potentially going to vote YES to the suggestion, though, because I
think it's better than the current (apparent) policy.
--
Marc.
*(I don't mean to imply that every reason would be the seller's fault.)
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2015 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| bumped...
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).
Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:
1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).
Additional facts which should also be considered are:
a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.
I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.
Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?
As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.
All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.
Foster
(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Netherlands, Gelderland
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
Ireland, Cork
