Pay pal

cyril82

TurkishDelight wrote: »

They are traders, but they are not the trader covered by the statement you provided.

Yes they are, the document i quoted is general guidance on unfair contractual terms, the use of the term "the trader" on the guidance notes on the M.O.J. website is a general reference to the trader who claims his terms bind you to a contract, which in this case would be paypal claiming they have the right to refund money without the op's permission.

Paypal are using their terms to force the op to refund even though the law says he does not have to, therefore they are limiting his legal rights with their terms and that is strong grounds for contention as any contract term which contradicts a law is unenforceable by law.

marleyboy

TurkishDelight wrote: »

What Cyril is quoting is the law, however it is badly out of context. He has previously !!!!!ed about paypal refunding buyers from his own account, and has stated prices that he sold things for (so I presume they were buy it nows) as a buisness.

I mentioned my fiance only to try and explain that I have read the DSRs.

Assume I haven't read the DSRs, that he is out of context, but please do show me where and why. At least something. I am not here taking sides, I can only go from what I see as evidential, whether or not I agree with it.

Upto now he has gone a little further than anyone else to at least attempt to convince me, and I have to admit that the scales wiegh favourably in his direction as a result of it.

Cant this be done without folk sniping one another, being constructive, and counter balancing the evidence for all to see?

TurkishDelight

marleyboy wrote: »

Assume I haven't read the DSRs, that he is out of context, but please do show me where and why. At least something. I am not here taking sides, I can only go from what I see as evidential, whether or not I agree with it.

Upto now he has gone a little further than anyone else to at least attempt to convince me, and I have to admit that the scales wiegh favourably in his direction as a result of it.

Cant this be done without folk sniping one another, being constructive, and counter balancing the evidence for all to see?

From the unfair contract terms then- a disclaimer:

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, and terms like these are not always unfair – it depends on the circumstances of each case

cyril82

TurkishDelight wrote: »

What Cyril is quoting is the law, however it is badly out of context. .

Would you care to explain how it is out of context and provide proof that it is Turkish?

i don't see what there is to be out of context, the DSR'S state if he auctioned his goods he is not bound by the DSR's and does not have to allow a cooling off period or accept returns. What's out of context?

marleyboy

TurkishDelight wrote: »

From the unfair contract terms then- a disclaimer:

In all fairness, that isn't helping me, it merely states that each case is different.

Could it mean that Cyril is right, except under certain circumstances, or that you are right except under certain circumstances? what are the circumstances, in particular to this case? Other than a disclaimer, is everything you have based solely on that one sentence?

cyril82

TurkishDelight wrote: »

From the unfair contract terms then- a disclaimer:

Full marks for effort but that is not definitive proof that i am wrong it is a standard disclaimer that you will find on most legal guidance notes.

What i did was take those example definitions from the unfair terms in consumer contracts guidance, in particular this one: Seriously exclude or limit your legal rights,point out to the op that the DSR'S state that he is not legally obliged to accept returns and therefore paypal by using their terms as an excuse to over ride his legal right not to refund may well be breaching unfair contract legislation. it is upto him if he agrees and wishes to proceed in mentioning it should he make a claim, i would.

What remains is he still does not have to refund the buyer by law, therefore does not have repay any money to paypal that they refunded on his behalf without his say so because he is covered by the exemptions of the DSR'S

marleyboy

soolin, I have always had admiration to your posts, particularly with Ebay, maybe you could show me some evidential proof, at least as much as Cyril has attempted to do.

I have to admit I am still convinced by Cyril's posts, as he has gone further than anyone else to at least show factual proof and links to relevant sites to justify his words, upto now I have been offered nothing more than a 1 sentence disclaimer that I could find even on my Virgin account (no offence turkish).

It is all well to claim one poster is wrong and the other is right, but particularly when one backs up their claims more vigorously, from the outside looking in, I am less likely to dismiss what is evidential than what is merely hearsay.

TurkishDelight

marleyboy wrote: »

In all fairness, that isn't helping me, it merely states that each case is different.

Could it mean that Cyril is right, except under certain circumstances, or that you are right except under certain circumstances? what are the circumstances, in particular to this case? Other than a disclaimer, is everything you have based solely on that one sentence?

Yes it does. I think it is a fair assumption that no-one involved in this thread actuallt works for the office of fair trading. I also think it fair to assume that with the amount of dissatisfaction with paypal the office of fair trading would've looked into paypal at some point.
They evidently don't think that every single contract that paypal issues is unlawful. However, I could of course be wrong, so feel free to report them :cool:

cyril82

TurkishDelight wrote: »

Yes it does. I think it is a fair assumption that no-one involved in this thread actuallt works for the office of fair trading. I also think it fair to assume that with the amount of dissatisfaction with paypal the office of fair trading would've looked into paypal at some point.
They evidently don't think that every single contract that paypal issues is unlawful. However, I could of course be wrong, so feel free to report them :cool:

quite why the our authorities have not investigated paypal is a mystery, certainly it is a question raised by the bbc Watchdog program but never definitively answered, however the fact they have avoided investigation does not mean they do nothing wrong
.

marleyboy

But is Paypal affected by OFT, as I am sure it isn't UK based, is there nothing more in the way of evidence you can offer me to at least substantiate your claims,

Upto now I don't know who is wrong or right, but I am convinced with the proof offered to me on this thread so far, other than a disclaimer.

It seems nobody on here upto now has convinced me other than Cyril, this is not because I dont beleive anyone else, but only because he has managed to convince me with what is substantial facts, offered me links to see, shown me evidence to his own claims, in fact as far as I can see, managed to prove others wrong, can anyone dis-prove his claims, rather than attack him for proving himself to the best of his knowledge.

I am all for being open minded, but its going to take more than mere words from a few posts or a simple disclaimer to convince me he is either wrong or misinformed.