Your thoughts on sellers who ask buyers to pay paypal fees?

[Balham's Finest]

 

 

It is:

 

2. against Paypal TOS to use Paypal Personal to buy stuff, which I believe makes doing so is illegal.

 

Companies do not make the law. Failing to comply with a Company's TOS is thankfully not illegal. A company could choose not to do business with you if you do not comply with their TOS or they could ignore that you are not complying with their TOS and still do business with you. Heck many companies put things in their TOS that are illegal just like many companies put illegal clauses in employment clauses, often knowing they are doing so just hoping noone challenges them. (I don't think I ever worked for a bank or major company that did not overstep in the writing of their employment contracts).

 

I wish that every company I did business with complied with my TOS but many blatantly ignore some of them fully realizing that it will not impact our business relationship in the slightest.

 

 

It's not illegal in the sense that it isn't against any statute.

 

However, in many circumstances, a company could bring a civil action for breach of contract against you if you failed to comply with their Ts and Cs. Of course, they'd need to prove loss, but in Paypal's case that would be pretty easy, since their loss is the fees that a user would have paid had they not used personal.

 

My is that the only reason this fees thing is even a debate is that some people simply don't see Paypal for what it is - a service provider that charges a fee for providing a service, which you voluntarily elect to use. Whoever drew a comparison with a bank imposing charges for wire transfers was spot on.

 

I am not saying that people should use PayPal personal, just that it is not illegal. Paypal kicks many "customers" off its site that abuse PayPal personal.

 

I think if PayPal is used the service should be paid for. The question is whose pocket it comes out of. The buyers or the sellers.

 

For example many merchants in HK (outside of the big malls) will add 3% to the bill if you want to pay by credit card despite the fact it is against MasterCard's and Visa's TOS where prices are supposed to be the same regardless of whether a credit card is used or not. I think most customers accept this. Visa and MasterCard (and the card issuing banks) are well aware of this violation of their TOS but they do nothing about it. In fact if they tried I am sure the press here would make them out to look very poorly.

 

If I am paying by cash why should I pay 3% more to the merchant than someone who is paying by credit card.

 

The debate about whether or not it's illegal is a bit misleading though - even though not illegal, it's technically a breach of contract and in theory you could be sued by Paypal (obviously in practice that would never happen; it's far easier for them to just ban you).

 

Maybe one way to look at the debate about who should pay the fees is to ask who benefits most from using Paypal as opposed to any other payment method? Hard to answer definitively: the seller gets their money immediately, but then the buyer gets certain protection.

I don't have a strong view one way or the other - personally I wouldn't be put off buying a book and paying the fees, as long as it was clear from the start. But I can actually see an argument that the fees should be split, since both get the benefit of a well-known transaction structure.

 

Easiest question to answer...ebay benefits the most since they own Paypal and force folks to use it on their site. Between all of the ebay fees and all of the paypal fees, what's left for the seller?

 

I don't disagree with that, but unless I'm very much mistaken, getting eBay to pay the Paypal fees for a boardie transaction isn't really an option!

 

I should have said "out of the buyer and the seller, who benefits most..."

[comicwiz]

After flying for nearly an entire day, I walked into a Hong Kong hotel and reached for the bottle of evian on the desk only to warned by my Wife to check the price first.

 

$13 for a bottle of evian! I call it naive water now.

 

I was thirsty that day my friends.

 

Wow. I am sitting at the Yacht Club in Hong Kong reading the boards and drinking water while waiting for my chicken masala to arrive. Cost of the water - free.

 

That was some pricy water your hotel was trying to foist on you. In 7-11 a bottle of water starts at about 60 cents

 

IIRC, it was a 1.5 litre and probably didn't help that it was the Ritz Carlton, but this is going back some 10 years ago, and I remember a coffee at the Starbucks just down the road from the hotel was about $8.

[500Club]

I guess I am a cheap skate but when I sold off my Marvel 1961-1965 CGC 8.0+ run I did so mostly on these boards. I brought in over 325,000 on the sale and I stated in the treads if you pay by Paypal you paid the feels. I was not giving my books away with the prices I charged and I had no problem with the sales or with people paying the fees. Also I sold all my books so even if people skipped my thread for this I still sold my project off. There are people in this thread speaking out against this practice who bought from me.

Your experience is a function of the quality of books you had for sale.

 

This whole debate is closer to molehill than mountain, as issues in the hobby go, but I think the majority will agree asking for buyers to pay PP fees is not top class or best practice.

[FlyingDonut]

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

[shadroch]

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

 

I'm not going to name names but more than a few people in the marketplace are doing it.

[AGGIEZ]

I guess I am a cheap skate but when I sold off my Marvel 1961-1965 CGC 8.0+ run I did so mostly on these boards. I brought in over 325,000 on the sale and I stated in the treads if you pay by Paypal you paid the feels. I was not giving my books away with the prices I charged and I had no problem with the sales or with people paying the fees. Also I sold all my books so even if people skipped my thread for this I still sold my project off. There are people in this thread speaking out against this practice who bought from me.

Your experience is a function of the quality of books you had for sale.

 

This whole debate is closer to molehill than mountain, as issues in the hobby go, but I think the majority will agree asking for buyers to pay PP fees is not top class or best practice.

 

You can please some people some of the time, but you can't ever please all of the people all of the time.

 

If people posted sales threads with only a check/MO option to avoid PP fees altogether we'd have people person_without_enough_empathying about not offering the PP option. Businesses pass on fees all the time (bag fees anyone? gasoline RVP season anyone?)...why is this any different? Sure, it sucks for costs to go up, but it's a decision you make as a buyer. I factor this in the same way I factor in a buyer's premium at Heritage or CLINK. No biggie...

[trmoore54]

I'm more bothered by sellers that proclaim "no Paypal on this one". At least give me the opportunity to pay the points.

 

Sometimes people are going through a messy divorce or some such similar circumstances and don't want trackable payments coming through Paypal...

[Hamlet]

I find it interesting that people feel that these are actually two different things, when there is no real difference between the two.

 

The human mind is not very rational about money.

 

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

[Calling-migration]

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

 

I find it interesting that people feel that these are actually two different things, when there is no real difference between the two.

 

As I mentioned, in 20% of the United States there is a real difference between the two: one is illegal, one is not.

 

Plus, another difference is that a 3% discount on cash/checks doesn't screw anyone over. Adding a 3% surcharge for using a CC screws over the CC user. They are not the same.

[Hamlet]

So if I price a comic at $100 and offer a 3% discount for cash/check, what is the real practical difference from pricing it at $97 and charging $3 for Paypal/Credit Card?

 

Logically it is the same, even if for some irrational reason people think it is different.

 

Plus, another difference is that a 3% discount on cash/checks doesn't screw anyone over. Adding a 3% surcharge for using a CC screws over the CC user. They are not the same.

[Calling-migration]

Plus, another difference is that a 3% discount on cash/checks doesn't screw anyone over. Adding a 3% surcharge for using a CC screws over the CC user. They are not the same.

So if I price a comic at $100 and offer a 3% discount for cash/check, what is the real practical difference from pricing it at $97 and charging $3 for Paypal/Credit Card?

 

Logically it is the same, even if for some irrational reason people think it is different.

 

Because if you price a comic at $100 and offer a 3% discount for cash/check, I can still use Paypal to buy the book for $100 instead of $103.

[FlyingDonut]

I find it interesting that people feel that these are actually two different things, when there is no real difference between the two.

 

The human mind is not very rational about money.

 

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

 

If you sell something for $100 and I pay you with Paypal, I pay $100, and you get (roughly) $97 in your pocket. If I pay you with a check and you've offered a discount for using the check, you're still getting roughly $97 in your pocket. In this case, it is the same, except we're taking Paypal out of the equation, which is fine - screw them.

 

However, if you sell something for $100 and charge me 3% more for using Paypal, I pay $103, and you get $100 in your pocket. That's the difference. And if you do it over and over again, that 3% adds up to real money.

[Speedy-D]

Good lord, the issue is NOT THE MATH!!! It's how you present yourself, and how you're perceived.

[david20009]

http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html#10states

 

Good Lord no wonder why the USA has personal credit problems. People who pay cash are actually penalized as they are subsidizing the purchases of people who use credit cards. We all need to pay higher prices in these 10 states so others can live off credit.

 

I have to think the gov'ts has done this to remove the incentive for people to pay cash and thus the probability the transactions are done under the table. Either that or Visa and MasterCard have lobbyists that are too strong.

[joecgcmaniac]

I find it interesting that people feel that these are actually two different things, when there is no real difference between the two.

 

The human mind is not very rational about money.

 

I think it is slimy. I see no problem with offering a discount for cash/check of 3%, but to add Paypal fees on top? Who is doing it?

 

If you sell something for $100 and I pay you with Paypal, I pay $100, and you get (roughly) $97 in your pocket. If I pay you with a check and you've offered a discount for using the check, you're still getting roughly $97 in your pocket. In this case, it is the same, except we're taking Paypal out of the equation, which is fine - screw them.

 

However, if you sell something for $100 and charge me 3% more for using Paypal, I pay $103, and you get $100 in your pocket. That's the difference. And if you do it over and over again, that 3% adds up to real money.

 

+1

 

Add in the fact that there are no fees to sell here, and these sellers end up with a LOT more money in their pockets than if they were to sell anywhere else.

[david20009]

I can't believe how people get so confused with the math.

 

I want 100 for a book.

 

I ask 103 for the book but offer a 3% discount for cash I get 100 in my pocket if I am paid with cash or PayPal.

 

I ask 100 for the book but if you pay via PayPal you need to pay the 3 in fees. If someone pays with cash or Paypal I get 100 in my pocket.

 

The two are equivalent in terms of what the seller is willing to accept for his book, which is 100.

 

What some seem to be saying is if the sellers bottom price is 100 he should really be fine getting 97 if the purchaser uses Paypal but it is fine if the buyer uses cash for him to make 100.

 

 

 

 

[Speedy-D]

I can't believe how people get so confused with the math.

 

I want 100 for a book.

 

I ask 103 for the book but offer a 3% discount for cash I get 100 in my pocket if I am paid with cash or PayPal.

 

I ask 100 for the book but if you pay via PayPal you need to pay the 3 in fees. If someone pays with cash or Paypal I get 100 in my pocket.

 

The two are equivalent in terms of what the seller is willing to accept for his book, which is 100.

 

What some seem to be saying is if the sellers bottom price is 100 he should really be fine getting 97 if the purchaser uses Paypal but it is fine if the buyer uses cash for him to make 100.

 

 

 

Good lord, the issue is NOT THE MATH!!! It's how you present yourself, and how you're perceived.

[skypinkblu]

I can't believe how people get so confused with the math.

 

I want 100 for a book.

 

I ask 103 for the book but offer a 3% discount for cash I get 100 in my pocket if I am paid with cash or PayPal.

 

I ask 100 for the book but if you pay via PayPal you need to pay the 3 in fees. If someone pays with cash or Paypal I get 100 in my pocket.

 

The two are equivalent in terms of what the seller is willing to accept for his book, which is 100.

 

What some seem to be saying is if the sellers bottom price is 100 he should really be fine getting 97 if the purchaser uses Paypal but it is fine if the buyer uses cash for him to make 100.

 

 

 

Good lord, the issue is NOT THE MATH!!! It's how you present yourself, and how you're perceived.

 

+1

I equate it to the Dept store sales at $99.99...I never see anyone ask $103 when they really want $100 because it makes the book sound more expensive.

[Calling-migration]

Good lord, the issue is NOT THE MATH!!!

 

If you don't think FlyingDonut's math makes sense, you need to go back to memorial school.

 

It's how you present yourself, and how you're perceived.

 

Besides the fact that it's illegal in California and on Ebay, I perceive them as nickel + dime dirtbags no matter how they spin it. But I guess it's only kinda-illegal, like breaking the speed limit.

[Speedy-D]

Good lord, the issue is NOT THE MATH!!!

 

If you don't think FlyingDonut's math makes sense, you need to go back to memorial school.

 

It's how you present yourself, and how you're perceived.

 

Besides the fact that it's illegal in California and on Ebay, I perceive them as nickel + dime dirtbags no matter how they spin it. But I guess it's only kinda-illegal, like breaking the speed limit.

I don't know who you are, and I can't tell if you agree with me. And I don't know what 'memorial school' is. :shrug: