KILLER FF # 12 cgc 9.2!!!!!

[Kevin76]

there are plenty of sellers that ask that u email them prior to using paypal and then they tell u about the 3%. i can understand it on a large purchase but anything under $500 should not be charged IMO.

 

Nothing should be charged,It's not my problem that the seller loses 3% on a transaction,The seller should just suck it up,does he want the sale or not? Kevin

[osborn_fr]

When a book really interest me, i'm ok to pay fees... but this thing makes me feel

 

[fantastic_four]

What's the justification for making credit card surcharges illegal? I don't personally know of any justification other than making the credit card companies happy, but there might be a legitimate reason hiding behind that law somewhere.

[Illiterati-migration]

Whoopy to do - California has a law against it! Sounds like the paypal lobbyists are in good with the legislators there. Who cares. As far as I know the other 49 states and assorted other nations don't have such laws.

 

I thought you were an attorney. I'm not, and it took me approximately four seconds to find that you know wrong. It has nothing to do with "the paypal lobbyists", and the auction is based in California.

 

 

What the seller in this auction is doing is 1) illegal in California 2) expressly against eBay policy and you're OK with it?

 

Hey, nobody said he was a GOOD lawyer.

 

-----

EDIT: As there are some who would contest the very existance of a "good" lawyer, I have made the following retraction and correction:

 

"Hey, nobody said he was a COMPETENT lawyer. "

[Bonds25]

Don't put the "illegal" in quotes. It is in fact AGAINST THE LAW to do this in California. There's real laws on the books against this sort of thing.

 

I know it's officially illegal, but it's a stupid law. If the seller wants to charge someone to use a credit card, that's his right (in my opinion).

 

And as a buyer, I'd rather save $300 and be able to pay by check rather than have the seller artificially inflate the opening bid by $300 so he can shell out the B.S. fees to Paypal (which it looks like is a pseudo-scam by itself).

[Bonds25]

there are plenty of sellers that ask that u email them prior to using paypal and then they tell u about the 3%. i can understand it on a large purchase but anything under $500 should not be charged IMO.

 

Nothing should be charged,It's not my problem that the seller loses 3% on a transaction,The seller should just suck it up,does he want the sale or not? Kevin

 

If the seller wants to charge the fee, and knows by doing so that he'll lose a customer, then so be it.

 

What did we all do 2 years ago when Paypal wasn't around? We sent a check or money order for free, and waited an extra week for the book. I love Paypal as much as the rest of you, and use it frequently. I will accept Paypal for some items (lower priced items or from buyers in Canada (so they don't have to pay $3 for a US money order)), but otherwise it's a waste of money for me. If the buyer has good feedback, I usually ship the book immediately, before even receiving payment. That way, everyone wins. I don't have to pay Paypal their BS fees, and the buyer gets their book super fast anyway.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

so he can shell out the B.S. fees to Paypal (which it looks like is a pseudo-scam by itself).

 

And there, gentlemen, is the crux of the matter: Middlemen. Credit card companies, and the banks that own them, make money being middle-men in such transactions, not just on the interest that accumulates on outstanding balances. Any act that jeopardizes their position will be vigorously fought. Because, let's face it, if a gas station decided to charge an extra nickel per gallon if you paid with your charge card, wouldn't it make more sense to have some cash on you and save that money?

 

After-all, in the example cited, there is clearly a $300 difference in price between purchasing the item via Credit card, or by cash/check. That difference, as far as the credit card companies go, needs to be "invisible" (i.e., the seller absorbing the cost of doing business via CC). I'm sure the laws that exist are guised as some sort of "consumer protection" law, but, bottom-line, the only interests they protect are those of the credit card companies.

 

 

[drbanner]

I will accept Paypal for some items (lower priced items or from buyers in Canada (so they don't have to pay $3 for a US money order)), but otherwise it's a waste of money for me.

 

I don't agree...I think you get higher bids by accepting Paypal, and they more than offset the 2-3% PP fee. Buyers want to use CC's for convenience as well as security purposes, and PP is the only way for the common man to accept CC's.

 

 

 

[murph0]

I would say that the PP fees in most cases off-set whatever bid increase you see. Lots of auctions I've seen still get fairly regular bids even if they don't accept paypal.

 

Brian

[Foolkiller]

oh, here come the lawyer jokes now...

 

but seriously, if you make a comment on the law and you're an attorney, you should probably know that it was illegal in more than one state to have credit card surcharges.

 

Then again, it might be completely outside his area of practice so...

 

 

[clobberintime]

oh, here come the lawyer jokes now...

 

but seriously, if you make a comment on the law and you're an attorney, you should probably know that it was illegal in more than one state to have credit card surcharges.

 

Then again, it might be completely outside his area of practice so...

 

Thanks there - I guess you must also be an attorney? And no I do not keep up on the burning topic of paypal fees as my specialty. I have no idea which states say what about cc fees. If you are an attorney then you mistakenly focused on the wrong aspect of my post. It doesn't matter if other states have those laws or not, the important thing is why such stupid laws would exist. Sheerly to placate the credit card companies. Money is all it is about. And yes Discount I have no problem with someone charging the fees outright or secretly making it part of the book price. Why don't you quit whining about this guy and mind your own business? I am sure both ebay and other online auction sites teamed up with credit card companies to have these laws enacted. So Foolkiller my area of practice is solely in federal court and I have been dealing with large national lenders and mortgage companies and taxing authorities for years and I hardly care to research or find out what states do about paypal fees. I guess we can leave that sort of research for you and Discount.

[FlyingDonut]

oh, here come the lawyer jokes now...

 

but seriously, if you make a comment on the law and you're an attorney, you should probably know that it was illegal in more than one state to have credit card surcharges.

 

Then again, it might be completely outside his area of practice so...

 

Thanks there - I guess you must also be an attorney? And no I do not keep up on the burning topic of paypal fees as my specialty. I have no idea which states say what about cc fees. If you are an attorney then you mistakenly focused on the wrong aspect of my post. It doesn't matter if other states have those laws or not, the important thing is why such stupid laws would exist. Sheerly to placate the credit card companies. Money is all it is about. And yes Discount I have no problem with someone charging the fees outright or secretly making it part of the book price. Why don't you quit whining about this guy and mind your own business? I am sure both ebay and other online auction sites teamed up with credit card companies to have these laws enacted. So Foolkiller my area of practice is solely in federal court and I have been dealing with large national lenders and mortgage companies and taxing authorities for years and I hardly care to research or find out what states do about paypal fees. I guess we can leave that sort of research for you and Discount.

 

No, I'm not an attorney, but I do sell a lot of books every year on eBay and I'd love to be able to add 3% to all of my sales to put in my pocket. These laws have been on the books for years, and were enacted, especially in California, by consumers reacting to companies charging more for credit transactions. I guess it is OK for anybody to break the law, as long as the law is stupid?

[clobberintime]

That's right it is a very STUPID law. There are many loopholes. The guy could have been more tactful about it and just added the fee to the opening bid to avoid having people like you with too much time on their hands to get worked up about it so they can blabber on and on about it or contact ebay or their congressman etc. The law in no way protects consumers - it just makes it illegal to say you are charging the fees in your auction as doing so supposedly inhibits bidding which reduces cash flow for ebay and the credit card companies. I usually charge a fee for this much work so the free consultation is now over. Hope you are now enlightened.

[murph0]

I'd love to be able to add 3% to all of my sales to put in my pocket.

 

How are you putting 3 percent more in your pocket? Is Paypal allowing you to use their service free? If not, you aren't getting an extra 3 percent you're getting paid to cover the costs of the service.

 

Brian

[clobberintime]

Now you have done it! The auction is gone! You have taken this bright shining star away from us over this paypal-gate thing. Hope he will sell off-line so this may work out after all.

[FlyingDonut]

I'd love to be able to add 3% to all of my sales to put in my pocket.

 

How are you putting 3 percent more in your pocket? Is Paypal allowing you to use their service free? If not, you aren't getting an extra 3 percent you're getting paid to cover the costs of the service.

 

Brian

 

Without additional fee:

Item sells for $100.

Paypal takes $3

Leaves Flying Donut with $97.

 

With additional fee:

Item sells for $100

Paypal takes $3

Buyer adds $3

Leaves Flying Donut with $100.

 

3% more in my pocket

 

[murph0]

If seller sends you a money order, the 100 dollars you SHOULD be getting for the book would remain the same. Noone is forcing people to pay by C.C.

 

Brian

[uclapeterg]

I can't believe ANYONE buys with anything else BUT a credit card for the protection the credit cards offer. I guess people need to get burned a couple of times before they realize how powerful c.c.'s are (I have been burned).

 

I won't even look at an auction that doesn't accept the credit card/paypal.

 

And I have no doubt that the bigger auction closing prices more than offset the 3% fee. Why are we talking about this? 3% is paid as a covenience expense for the seller, but I am sure that the seller makes more than 3% in allowing for that convenience/protection. (I am assuming for the sales more than $200).

 

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

No, I'm not an attorney, but I do sell a lot of books every year on eBay and I'd love to be able to add 3% to all of my sales to put in my pocket. These laws have been on the books for years, and were enacted, especially in California, by consumers reacting to companies charging more for credit transactions. I guess it is OK for anybody to break the law, as long as the law is stupid?

 

It's not illegal in your state, so you could do it without breaking the law. If it irks you so much the other guy is doing it, why not do it yourself since it's legal for you? If you don't want to do it because you think it would drive customers away, then there's no problem, because he's driving customers away in the way you don't want to do yourself.

[Foolkiller]

clobberintime:

 

ugh... I hate getting in these rediculous little points that have nothing to do with the thread but...

 

yeah, I'm also a lawyer. that's why I left my post with the fact that it might be outside your area of practice which is why you wouldn't necessarily know the answer... but in my experience, and those of my colleagues I would venture to say, I think it's important that when others know you're a lawyer, that you try and offer an opinion on the law that represents knowledge of it. When you came out guns blazing about how it's a stupid law and you didn't think anyone else had one, Donut countered with some facts of states that do... I just wouldn't have couched it the same way you did in representing what I thought the law was, but that's just me.

 

And I never said I expected you to know everything about the law, most lawyers don't know a whole lot outside the area they practice in, so if you want to launch a condescending remark, go right ahead... I'm not going to list my resume here and thump my chest like "I practice in Federal Court and deal with multinational corps." blah, blah, blah. I don't even think my resume is all that impressive to be honest. I'm a pretty middle of the roadish lawyer who's pretty early in his career... but I'm not so insecure that I need to prove to everyone on a chat board that I have more important things to do than to at least let in the possibility that I may not be 100% right on a certain point of law.