All fair comment, I cant argue with any of it, however I'd tend to qualify the "he thinks I'm a newbie muppet" bit, since although I am - he's only 7 feedback himself (I'm on 2) and all his are as a buyer (only 1 of mine is). I guess what I'm saying is - PayPal would look fine to him, because he hasnt sold anything, so hasnt been caught in the mangle himself. If he had... maybe we wouldnt have an issue.

It's possibly heading that way. For the record, I don't blame the buyer in any way. He's been duped as much as I have into thinking PayPal would honour his payment to me. I doubt (though havent checked) that PayPal make great play in their T&Cs that if you send money to a seller they 1) arbritrarily re-write the deal you had with them 2) not pay them the money you've sent to them and 3) screw the pooch for both of you.

The amount he paid (past tense - I backed it as you rightly suggested) was Sax + delivery (I allowed £60 to Spain based on a quick check around its less than 10KG and 600 x 500 x 400 when the hard case is well overpacked with corrugated) I dropped the guy a message explaining I was backing his payment because I didnt think it was fair that Paypal should have his money while we worked out what to do (no reply) I sent him another private emailsuggesting he pay me direct to PayPal but referencing the item - ie, not on the invoice, but making it obvious what it's for for his own protection. This according to an experienced eBayer I spoke to allows it through OK, since PayPal dont have jurisdiction to swallow non-eBay payments. No reply to that. In fact no nothing from him since the first couple of messages after he bought. Maybe I should just message him asking for his proposal to pay other than PayPal within 24 hours or I'll strike his contract? Edit: I just did a check using Parcel Force (Global up to 5 day, tracked & compensation up to £300 which covers) and it came out just under £93 Would you suggest that I write to him saying that if he wants to pay by PayPal he has to accept the additional costs (another £33) and pay the £93 seperately in order that I have cleared funds on the delivery prior to sending? (THIS is why it hacks me off so much - to be honest if I'd been paid I would have blamed myself for undercosting delivery and swallowed it on principle - but as it stands, no way will I lay out best part of a oner on spec - which is what it boils down to. It's no longer the contract he and I agreed, it's something totally different that if he'd offered me I would have turned down flat)

Have you read Article 1, 2 © of the above?

I think you're being unduly antagonistic. If you've ever employed a solicitor you'll find that even they wont guarantee to be right and win your case. To turn back around what you said to me - please prove that what they say is wrong - that way we all learn something.

I take all that on board mate thanks. I have to say I don't think the guy is a wrong 'un - but (as we said earlier) I'd be a mug to send unless the P&P was 110% watertight, and that costs money - plus, there is the issue of his right to just back it simply because PayPal say so.

Thanks for all the input, for me this is what CAG is about 8) - I think we can all agree that theres definately a problem with the way PayPal operate - regardless of their stated motives - and if there is a way to make them either pack in the maltreatment of straight up innocent users or modify their practices I think it would be good to formulate that. I dont *per se* think that what they are doing is bad - for instance, I think that they would be sensible to start with a 50% hold on transactions until you had satisfied for instance £250 worth of transactions or 10 items. This it seems to me would be more effective, as it would immediatly kybosh the [EDIT] who opens an account and buys 11 lightbulbs off his mate for 99p each and is then (pretty much) free to sell whatever he likes. Figures plucked from usual place of course but overall I don't think thats unreasonable*provided* that it's all 100% transparent before you sign up for eBay and you know what to expect.

I have no idea - please enlighten me, because I'm simply trying to find what references I can.

It's correct English, but never the less: read for yourself

Correct me if I'm wrong, and believe me I have tried to find otherwise - where goods are clearly stated to be "used" or "second-hand" the main body of protection is removed *unless* the goods are sold by a registered business - in the same way as if you buy £200 worth of Escort on a P plate you do it "sold as seen" by default, unless it is from a bona-fide trader or garage. I'm not trying to argue with you BTW - simply arrive at true situation. As for the purpose of this, ultimately, it is for CAG'gers to arrive at a formulated LBA that they can dump on PayPal immediatly they start stealing their money. No different to the standard LBAs that are in very effective action from other parts of CAG, eg on debt collectors, 7 year old credit agreement etc etc. For me, yeah, I'm pretty phugged by it and as folks have explained, they have shafted me in this instance - but I'd like to think we can put something together for the next person who they try to screw over. If thats the case, maybe they'll stop shafting people - or at least think twice before they do.

Little adendum to this is that it apears from everything I can find that when buying second-hand from a private vendor on eBay, your only rights are as stated above in the LBA: if it broadly matches the description, you have no complaint under law. If it is stated as working perfectly, and isnt, you have a complaint. If it works properly but theres a scratch the seller forgot to mention but doesnt alter it's use (eg, you buy a TV, and the base is scratched but it works, unless the seller has said "The base is perfect with no scratches" it's a legitemate sale and you cannot back it. So, the PayPal / eBay contrived rubbish about "try before you buy" that gets so abused is just that: RUBBISH. Caveat emptor is the rule of law, as per usual.

OK, pick the bones out of this as a Letter Before Action: ANY criticsism of it is welcome, but spare me the "you signed their T&Cs" stuff - if it was like that nobody would have got a penny of bank charges back: . . .

Absolutley, but the Buyer has recourse to Law if you send a load of tut or something obviously mis-described and he buys on that basis. BUT: PayPal is not the Law - they are money-shufflers, and have no legal right to interfere in a contract in which they themselves have no privity. Google the Contracts(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 for instance... interesting reading, when you are the "third party" having their money stolen by an intemediary...

Ho ho ho... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

Theft Act is making ionteresting reading... does anyone have anything else to chuck in the pot, or any comments? particularly regarding the parts I've bolded when we're dealing with PayPal (as an unconcerned third party - they are just money shufflers) witholding payment on a legally binding contract between two private individuals... My thoughts are that PayPal "represent" themselves as "an easy way for A to pay B" for a contract - and regardless of their T&Cs any attempt by them to delay or interfere in a contract between A and B is covered under this. When A writes us a cheque, we expect it to clear, or sometimes bounce- but I would be interested to see where it is enshrined in law that a bank can simply withold the funds for it's own purpose therby denying the payee the funds and the payer the goods they have contracted to recieve. Theft Act 1978 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Even better... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960062_en_1#l1g1 I would argue that the "deception" is clear - regardless of, but particularly where a sale (ie a contract) is made on the basis of "Immediate Payment" PayPal accept the buyers payment in the expectation by the buyer that the seller is to be paid in order that the seller may complete the contract. By depriving the seller of funds PayPal have decieved the buyer. By stipulating that in the case of a contract made on the basis of "No Returns" between two consenting third parties that the terms of the contract be altered before they will release funds is a straightforward theft under the terms of the Acts. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I'll dig into contract law next... PS: I'm not suggesting anyone should start a criminal action against Paypal - I'm thinking purely in terms of an LBA - similar in use to something we micght fire off to a DCA about doorstepping - in other words a raft of nastiness to make them think "Oh, sh*t... this ones not going to roll over - give the money back / unfreeze the account.."

More grist to the mill, cheers Your last point is (perhaps?) covered in the ruling I posted, where the Court upheld the right of the case to be held in the UK - the three things together (2 treaties, 1 ruling) would probably be enough in an LBA to make them realise they're in it for the long run - which lets face it, is the point. Whhatever my outcome short term, hope folks keep chucking in cos I feel a "CAG Standard LBA to PayPal" coming on Even Buzby might find it useful You're not the first person I've heard say that.

Thats what I mean by they've screwed feedback. It means nothing. You read the comment, not whether they got a positive or not. I can be quite pithy when I try

Yeah, but to be honest, from what I've seen nobody takes too much notice of feedback anymore because they've even screwed that over so it's meaningless. If he leaves me a bad one because of what PayPal did, I will respond in kind. Let people take what they will from it - it's not like I'm the first person to get screwed by PayPal

I had no idea I could refund the payment - I've checked and I can. Why do you feel that the eBay account will be trashed? Edit: actually it is "kinda" the buyer fault - I said I wouldnt take PayPal on the auction (ie clearly stated in the blurb) and that the winner should contact me before paying. He just went ahead and paid.

Or, if I dont pussy-foot around, they get a summons long before he does that and bottle out. (But yes, I hear what you're saying) Theres no way I'm paying for postage to Spain out of my own pocket let alone supplying goods outside of contract to anybody. The guy can simple say he never recieved and I'm down one saxophone and £300. Google is littered with examples.

Well they expect me to send an antique saxophone to Spain - out of my own pocket. Yeah, right... ballcocks to them. They can go to court instead. The deal I have in the UK with a guy I'll try and resolve amicable between ourselves. If I cant, he'll have to suck it up and get his money back off them however he can. I *think* the law is black and white - until I have recieved the payment, the contract is null and void. I've not recieved the money - a third party has. Contract = void.

LBA goes off monday Buzby. Glad I've been on Cag before - if I hadn't I might make the mistake of thinking everyone on CAG was like you.

thanks Andy - if you remember where the guide was, can you post it in pls? Cheers

Yup, I'm new, but they picked on the wrong one.

http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/brussels.jurisdiction.and.enforcement.of.judgments.in.civil.and.commercial.matters.convention.1968/doc.html Anyone know if thats changed? If not, Section 2, Article 5 seems conclusive: Special jurisdiction 43 Article 5 44 A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued: 45 (1) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question; Luxembourg is a signatory, isnt it?