[riceboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's my stance on this as well. It's unfortunate, but that's why I don't automatically send payments to anyone.

I like others have mentioned wait until the seller gives their Paypal address. I understand your intent was good

, but waiting to hear from the seller is always your best bet for the transaction to go smooth in regards to payment with Paypal. It's an unfortunate situation for both parties involved.

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamal007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif why not? Did you read the whole thread? I refunded him the money using my bank account (i could leave the money as is and dont refund anything if im a jerk but i refunded him the money although it was his mistake) and he got the money.

No, you don't have a choice. A dispute would refund his money soon enough. Three cheers for Paypal's "jerk" protection...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamal007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif He only paid me $300+shipping (agreed price) and i have to pay him $51 because of his mistake? Think again

YES! I'll explain lower down.


Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you even bother to read what happened? Seller and buyer did have an agreement about the payment method. The buyer decided to ignore it. What would you think if someone ows you money and you agree on cash tomorrow at noon in the mensa. The buyer meets your brother by chance in the evening and decides to give him a downpayment because he has got the impression you need the money fast.Simply what he has in the wallet at this moment.This is against the agreement but who cares. He assumes your brother will give the money to you later that evening. Unfortunately your brother is a drug addict and blows the money on crack five minutes later. Would the buyer still owe you the money?

This analogy doesn't apply. The Paypal address mitchb first sent the money to was registered to kamal007, not kamal007's crack-head brother.

In this case, mitchb's payment was ACCEPTED into an account (that just happens to be Paypal) REGISTERED to kamal007 (who just happens to have an ongoing issue with Paypal).

In your example, yes, the buyer still owe's me money. Since he didn't pay ME.

mitchb had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of kamal007's Paypal account debt. Yes, it's a mistake, but not one that mitchb has to pay for. At all.


What if the account was perfectly fine before mitchb's payment but, three seconds after payment, $850 was debited by a hijacker? Would you still think mitchb has to pay you? Of course not!

EK

 

[mitchb]

[ Quote:

QUOTE=cosmopragma;4170759]Did you even bother to read what happened? Seller and buyer did have an agreement about the payment method. The buyer decided to ignore it.

The seller gave me the impression he needed fast money.


I was trying to help him


Quote:

What would you think if someone ows you money and you agree on cash tomorrow at noon in the mensa. The buyer meets your brother by chance in the evening and decides to give him a downpayment because he has got the impression you need the money fast.Simply what he has in the wallet at this moment.This is against the agreement but who cares. He assumes your brother will give the money to you later that evening. Unfortunately your brother is a drug addict and blows the money on crack five minutes later. Would the buyer still owe you the money?

I would not trust my crack addicted brother with a dime for anything let alone paying a debt. That said my brother is not a drug addict and I would trust him in a heartbeat to cover a loan for me if I thout it would help the loaner. this has actually happened without incident on a few occasions.
If someone gave my brother money that was owed for me I would in fact consider the debt satisfied. This to has happened and a few times it took a little while to see the money but I would assume the debt satisfied if someone paid my loan to my brother.

Quote:

Besides of that you don't have a clue regarding paypal. A google search with the terms "paypal sucks" yields 241000 hits including dedicated websites like paypal sucks.com and the paypal sucks forum.Having trouble with Paypal doesn't mean there's anything wrong with

.[/QUOTE]



I am not paypal and claim to have no ther dealing with them than my personal paypal account. Of course there's always a gamble when dealing with a company like paypal. It is up to the individual user if their services are worth the gamble of their mishaps which are not all that uncommon.

 

[mitchb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma /img/forum/go_quote.gif x2 Paypal sucks and you can easily get a negative Paypal balance without doing something wrong. The thread starter did assume this and did assume that and in the end he did misinform the seller about the refund procedure. His intentions were certainly good but what he did was wrong, period, and he has to pay for his faults.

I made a bad judgement call in trying to help someone who would bother with all of this. Frankly it would be easier to simply pay the $51 but at this point there's principle involved.
As for the refund procedure given I believe it was correct"You go to the transaction page and click on the link refund" It's the payment mode the seller erred in but this had nothing to do with me. Who am I to tell the seller which account he should or should not use.
What I did was in fact wrong and I admit to my mistake but the fact that the $51 went back to the seller if only towards his negative balance, at this point it is no longer my fault.Had the seller opted for "other payment options" an obvious and oftened used feature of paypal this could never have become an issue. I have learnt from all of this. Be careful who you try to be nice to.

 

[Superpredator]

When dealing with a seller who accepts PayPal I never make assumptions about where to send funds. I expect people to have multiple e-mail addresses that they use for different things. I think the responsibility for this one lands on the buyer.

I also generally expect PayPal to suck badly from time to time. However, if I had a seemingly unresolvable problem with them I would take it to People-powered customer service & support for PayPal (where there are three PayPal employees interacting with customers).

 

[kamal007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, you don't have a choice. A dispute would refund his money soon enough. Three cheers for Paypal's "jerk" protection...

Well. Its not my fault but i refunded the money using my own money. I could easily walk away and dont refund him because its his fault because he never told me anything about giving me the money via paypal.

So its actually my loss to be nice to another headfier?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I made a bad judgement call in trying to help someone who would bother with all of this. Frankly it would be easier to simply pay the $51 but at this point there's principle involved. As for the refund procedure given I believe it was correct"You go to the transaction page and click on the link refund" It's the payment mode the seller erred in but this had nothing to do with me. Who am I to tell the seller which account he should or should not use. What I did was in fact wrong and I admit to my mistake but the fact that the $51 went back to the seller if only towards his negative balance, at this point it is no longer my fault.Had the seller opted for "other payment options" an obvious and oftened used feature of paypal this could never have become an issue. I have learnt from all of this. Be careful who you try to be nice to.

Thanks for being nice. I appreciate it but i was also being nice to you by refunding the money. I did all the steps youve asked me to do. Thats why its said the payment was refunded. Care to show us a snapshot of your paypal transaction saying that you didnt get the money? You get the money back right?

Yes, it went to the wrong account but i refunded you back and you got the money which is clearly belongs to me. So thats the $51 im asking

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamal007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well. Its not my fault but i refunded the money using my own money. I could easily walk away and dont refund him because its his fault because he never told me anything about giving me the money via paypal.

Again, you couldn't have stolen his money. Otherwise he would not have sent you more money for the headphones. He would have come to this very forum with "kamal007 stole my $51, what to do?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamal007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So its actually my loss to be nice to another headfier? Thanks for being nice. I appreciate it but i was also being nice to you by refunding the money. I did all the steps youve asked me to do. Thats why its said the payment was refunded. Care to show us a snapshot of your paypal transaction saying that you didnt get the money? You get the money back right?

How is asking for the money back being nice?

How is asking your buyer to sell his headphones to pay a debt he doesn't owe, being nice?


Quote:

Originally Posted by kamal007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, it went to the wrong account but i refunded you back and you got the money which is clearly belongs to me. So thats the $51 im asking

Nope, it doesn't, and I fail to understand how anyone could think that it does.




EK

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope, it doesn't, and I fail to understand how anyone could think that it does.

Well, then it must be some kind of cultural gap.
Where I live an agreement is an agreement, and if you want to change (for whatever reasons) anything after the deal has been closed you have to ask for permission.
Any loss that occurs because one of the paticipants didn't act according to the agreement has to be covered by the one who broke the rules.
There's absolutely no doubt about it and I'm puzzled there's even a question about it.
Different cultures means different business practises and I guess I have to take that into account when I deal with anglos in the future.

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's absolutely no doubt about it and I'm puzzled there's even a question about it.

That's exactly how I feel!

Lets say mitchb does give kamal007 $51 and three months later the problem with the hijacked account and unauthorised debt is cleared up. Paypal then restores kamal007's account to the correct balance. kamal007 has now made $51! For nothing!


Doesn't anyone else see the above situation occuring?

Does everyone really think the account will stay as it is till the end of time?

EK

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's exactly how I feel! Lets say mitchb does give kamal007 $51 and three months later the problem with the hijacked account and unauthorised debt is cleared up. Paypal then restores kamal007's account to the correct balance.

In this unlikely case kamal007 would have to reimburse mitchb (except the fees), and kamal007's good feedback here indicates he would do so.

Quote:

Does everyone really think the account will stay as it is till the end of time?

Paypal disputes do rarely get resolved in a satisfactory manner, and most probably Paypal will indeed suck till the end of time ........

 

[Superpredator]

A buyer expects a seller to provide a product as described. It is the seller's responsibility to fulfill that expectation. A buyer's responsibility--really a buyer's only responsibility--is to pay the cost of the product to the seller's specifications. If a seller fails to deliver a product as described, he has neglected to uphold his part of the agreement. Similarly, the buyer neglects his part of the agreement by straying from it when it comes time to pay--whether he pays too little, pays later than he says he will, doesn't pay, mails payment to the wrong address, or sends funds to the wrong PayPal account.

I don't see how there could be any question about this, either.

 

[plainsong]

Yes, there certainly is a gap, and it sure is hell ain't a cultural one.

I agree with you, how could anyone think that the OP somehow has some responsibility to pay kamal007's debts? What planet do you live on that you think that the OP owes him a penny?

The OP screwed up, but he did pay the OP, and the money did go to an account held by the OP. It's regrettable, and the lesson is learned to look before you leap, but there it is and there it ends. Everything else is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to shirk personal responsibility.

The OP shouldn't fall for this song and dance, not for one second. The damage was done, but unreasonable demands were made that dried up any sympathy for the seller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's exactly how I feel! Lets say mitchb does give kamal007 $51 and three months later the problem with the hijacked account and unauthorised debt is cleared up. Paypal then restores kamal007's account to the correct balance. kamal007 has now made $51! For nothing! Doesn't anyone else see the above situation occuring? Does everyone really think the account will stay as it is till the end of time? EK

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with you, how could anyone think that the OP somehow has some responsibility to pay kamal007's debts?

There was no debt to begin with.It's a hacked paypal acount, and this is not uncommon.
If there would be a suable debt paypal would simply sue kamal007 but this crappy company can't since they know a judge would laugh them off.
All this is irrelevant though.
mitchb doesn't have to pay imaginary debts.He has to fulfill the agreement. Quote:

What planet do you live on that you think that the OP owes him a penny?

It's planet ADULT where reputable members take responsibility for their mistakes and don't try to weasel out.
The OP certainly deserves brownie points for his good intentions and the whole affair doesn't smell like scam at all but still he has to do what's right. Quote:

Yes, there certainly is a gap, and it sure is hell ain't a cultural one.

Derived from your posts in the past I'd say you are at least as intelligent as me so please don't tell me you don't get the simple concept of an agreement in the middle european sense and that you are supposed to act accordingly or if not you are responsible for the miserable outcome no matter what intentions.
Even if the angloamerican concept of an agreement might differ and might tend to be more of an levantine style (and I always thought it does not and is similar to the middle european way) you are living long enough in europe to be familiar with it.
So either an agreement doesn't mean the same to the english speaking world or something with your reasoning is fundamentally wrong.

 

[plainsong]

If there is something fundamentally wrong, it's not with me, or the OP or anyone else who thinks that donating an extra 51 USD is above and beyond the call the duty.

And btw, I am not from Finland, but this isn't a cultural problem. If you want to go the psuedo-intellectual route regarding culture differences, I am from the southern US, and have lived here for ten years, which despite what a headfier might say, makes me as much a stadilainen as anyone else living in Helsinki. Vastly different cultures with the same end result as to who is responsible for whose debts. In fact by contract law here, the OP has seen to his obligations. Had the OP paid to an account not held by the seller, well that's another can of worms, but he didn't. He paid to an account that is held by the OP. The good standing of the seller's debts are not the OP's problem.

The end, case closed. That's all folks. The fact that the OP jumped the gun should be reflected in his feedback and that's it.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Had the OP paid to an account not held by the seller, well that's another can of worms, but he didn't. He paid to an account that is held by the OP. The good standing of the seller's debts are not the OP's problem.

So if you and I engaged in a transaction and I agreed to pay you via money order and then randomly sent you a $51 payment via Western Union, you'd be okay with that? The terms of an agreement INCLUDE the method of payment. Are you sure you understand this situation correctly? If kamal007 had agreed to receive partial payment by PayPal and then something went wrong, it would have been on him, obviously. But he didn't. Any costs or problems incurred by going outside the bounds of the agreement are the responsibility of the party breaking the agreement.

If you consider a vendor like Meier Audio that has two PayPal address, one for non-CC payments and one for CC, you'd NEVER claim that a buyer had fulfilled his obligation by paying a CC payment to the non-CC address. Paying sellers is not a free for all. You pay by a method agreed to by both parties, and if you screw it up, all ensuing issues are on you.