Being Charged a restocking FEE Help! Paypal Credit

Elmer_BeFuddled

No to which bit?

gags

fwor said:

It does seem to raise a grey area: what do they define as "packaging"? Let's say I buy a Cartier watch which arrives in a brown cardboard box, inside of which is a sealed presentation box, inside of which is a presentation case, inside of which is the watch. How much of the "packaging" can I decide not to return?

Lets not assume....Lets cut to the chase....I will not be paying £146 for missing foam....Doesn't matter what Randoms think on the internet....Its not happening....And if it does after following all my legal avenues.....Then I will soak it up....But a Paypal dispute usually silences the BS from these etailers.....After all....I don't own the item...The credit card company does.....Its in their best interest to recoup the full amount.
What is clear from this thread is that people are willing too easily to get shafted by online etailers.... 

gags

Elmer_BeFuddled said:

No to which bit?

I opened the box...I said this over chat with the company when I created the return. The Item was never used....

You stated

Elmer_BeFuddled said:

You opened it, put it in your PC, couldn't figure out how to get it working and sent it back.

I'm saying I didn't...And regardless anyway your post is totally irrelevant.

Next

fwor

gags said:

Doesn't matter what Randoms think on the internet....

Why did you ask the question here if you don't care "what Randoms think on the internet"?
Ah yes - you only wanted answers that agree with you, apparently.

[Deleted User]

DjangoUnchained said:

you are completely wrong. I took a dealer to small claims over exactly same situation, computer monitor.  Also its irrelevant for those saying it has to be so shops can sell it again as new , as legally it has to be sold as a second or b-stock no matter if its returned with perfect packaging or not.

Of course you did. 

[Deleted User]

Another poster that didn’t get the responses they wanted so they have a go at everyone else. 

callum9999

MarkN88 said:

Another poster that didn’t get the responses they wanted so they have a go at everyone else. 

Probably because a huge proportion of it is the usual judgemental rubbish devoid of fact you get on this forum... 

While I'm perfectly happy to accept my interpretation is wrong (why would I care - it's not my product!), almost every response on here is someone assuming what should happen based on what they think is the right way to deal with it. It unfortunately detracts somewhat from the likes of Farfetch, who is making a very rational legal argument (I disagree with it but it makes sense and is clearly thought out!).

As I said, I don't doubt for a second PayPal will rule in their favour - we'll just have to see who's right.

born_again

gags said:After all....I don't own the item...The credit card company does.....Its in their best interest to recoup the full amount.

What is clear from this thread is that people are willing too easily to get shafted by online etailers.... 

Except that you do owe paypal credit (not a credit card) will want their £699. If the retailer says that the T/C have been breached and (who knows) without that bit of foam, the chip could have been damaged in transit. PayPal credit will be chasing you for the funds.

gags

born_again said:

gags said:After all....I don't own the item...The credit card company does.....Its in their best interest to recoup the full amount.

What is clear from this thread is that people are willing too easily to get shafted by online etailers.... 

Except that you do owe paypal credit (not a credit card) will want their £699. If the retailer says that the T/C have been breached and (who knows) without that bit of foam, the chip could have been damaged in transit. PayPal credit will be chasing you for the funds.

Well what would be the difference I paid by credit card? If the etailor won’t refund in full the credit card company doesn’t just ignore the transaction and chase the account holder...

And ....

I don’t understand this bit...you say the chip could have been damaged in transit....?

What does this mean? it wasn’t damaged in transit...

gags

callum9999 said:

MarkN88 said:

Another poster that didn’t get the responses they wanted so they have a go at everyone else. 

Probably because a huge proportion of it is the usual judgemental rubbish devoid of fact you get on this forum... 

While I'm perfectly happy to accept my interpretation is wrong (why would I care - it's not my product!), almost every response on here is someone assuming what should happen based on what they think is the right way to deal with it. It unfortunately detracts somewhat from the likes of Farfetch, who is making a very rational legal argument (I disagree with it but it makes sense and is clearly thought out!).

As I said, I don't doubt for a second PayPal will rule in their favour - we'll just have to see who's right.

Exactly...people are judging the situation devoid of fact...I was expecting more from this forum tbh...but most of the responses has been Karen responses like you see on Twitter...lol