Is this being thrifty or is it Stealing ?

[sonnyjammer]

I was going to make a purchase today from the Cafe Classifieds. the Seller directed me to send payment through a popular service that charges a 3 % fee for the convenience and security in case something goes wrong. However I was directed to check the Friend and Family option and "Avoid the Fee" to the Seller. It seems wrong to me so I did not follow through with the purchase. Just needed to blow some steam and this seemed a good place to do so. Wondering how the rest of the community feels about this..

[multidon]

If you use this option and something goes wrong with the buying process you will not be covered by Buyer Protection.

[Marty Jacobson]

I use this all the time. You are not stealing from anybody. Check out thefeecalculator.com and see what the PayPal charges are. Asking the buyer to use a no-fee option (bank transfer) or to pay credit card fees (via the "pay friends and family" option) is not stealing, it's just making sure the seller gets the asking price without having to artificially inflate pricing to pay for convenience fees.

[karlmando]

Yup, it's pretty much technically fraudulent, and like sending them an envelope of cash in terms of security. You're using PayPal and cheating them out of their fee by lying about the transaction. But, you're only stealing from "the man" so who cares. Unless, You get ripped off and want PayPal's protections. Then you are screwed. This has been discussed on other forums (where the buyer got scammed) as a cautionary tale. I personally don't have a problem paying the fee for protection, and avoid those who absolutely insist on the gift option. Otherwise, you can just pay by another method that isn't PayPal. Don't get me wrong though, I'm a little annoyed by their fees.

[Clement Barrera-Ng]

I dont know if I would call it stealing. However you may be leaving yourself unprotected if the purchase is for something other a book or a pack of strings. I would always opt for paying via the the purchase option when paying for a mandolin, even if it means I have to pay a little extra to cover the fees.

[karlmando]

Um, there's no good way to put this, and I believe in honest dealings and fairness (and not just selectively when it serves my purpose).

If you take a good or service (PayPal) for free, and misrepresent the transaction to do so,
you are in fact lying in order to steal the service.

It may be a white lie, and an annoying/expensive service, but what's true is true.

If you do it, it's not the end of the world and nobody hates you, but you should be honest with yourself about what you are actually doing.

Sorry. Carry on. Selective justice and fairness is a pet-peeve of mine, so I'm just compelled to speak up.

[Marvino]

I agree, its dishonest and yes, it would be considered stealing if their asking you to lie so they dont have to pay a fee. Im sure the fiends and family option will be disappearing due to the cheapskates abusing it. As a seller, if you dont want to pay the fee for the service they are providing you, dont use it.

[k0k0peli]

Stealing? No; you've chosen one of PayPal's service options, and they're quite aware that numbers of their customers choose this option for the same reason you do. But by choosing it, you've switched-off the protection system; you've decided you don't need it. Maybe your transaction will go through smoothly. Maybe the other party is completely trustworthy, and the item won't stolen en-route, and nothing goes wrong. (Goes wrong. Goes wrong.)

But maybe something DOES go wrong. And then you've screwed yourself. You've handed your money to a stranger whom you may never encounter again. If I did that in person, I wouldn't be surprised if my money just disappeared. Ah well, easy come, easy go.

When I was a camera lens trader on eBay, I *always* paid the fees. My profit margin was 105% after fees. I could handle that! And I had enough troubled transactions (mostly me returning someone else's trash) that the fees paid off. You get to decide how comfortable you are, jumping without a safety net.

[Blewbyou]

I have used the friends and family option by the sellers request and felt uncomfortable doing so for the security reasons. I have never used it since..
I have a friend that had his account investigated because he abused the option. At what point casual use of this option becomes abuse I have no idea but if you are using this option with any regularity keep this in mind.

[Tavy]

+1 on Paypal fees just being part of the cost of trading.

Of course if someone chooses to "gift" the money, then that's most welcome, but I don't ask.

As a buyer, I've only "gifted" when I know the seller well and/or it's a small purchase. I would be very wary of doing that for a big purchase like a mandolin.

[UsuallyPickin]

I wouldn't do it from a a moral or fiscal standpoint. Morally .... the answer is obvious. Is this person a member of your family? On the other hand do you buy shipping insurance? I would view the 3% Paypal fee as transaction insurance and not worry about it. I certainly would not ship an item of any value w/o insurance. Why would I view a transaction of any real cost as "safe" without something backing my position ........ R/

[Beanzy]

If you want to use that bus you need to pay the fare to the right destination.

[T.D.Nydn]

What I've done in the past is say to the seller that you want the protection ,and it's for both of your benefits,and ask them if they would split the fee with you.its worked for me...

[FLATROCK HILL]

I was going to make a purchase today from the Cafe Classifieds. the Seller directed me to send payment through a popular service that charges a 3 % fee for the convenience and security in case something goes wrong. However I was directed to check the Friend and Family option and "Avoid the Fee" to the Seller. It seems wrong to me so I did not follow through with the purchase. Just needed to blow some steam and this seemed a good place to do so. Wondering how the rest of the community feels about this..

sonnyjammer, I applaud you for bringing up this question. While I don't think the answer is as simple as 'black and white', the fact that you did not follow through with the purchase because it "seems wrong", is an answer in itself.

As has been pointed out, the 'Friends and Family' option is available through Paypal. 'Friends' is a pretty subjective description. I've learned quite a lot about the people that regularly contribute to this forum. I would consider some of them to be 'friends' even though we may never have met. I'd feel comfortable sending funds via Paypal to someone in that 'friends' category. I wouldn't be paying for protection, and I wouldn't be getting any. No theft involved.

On the other hand, a seller who uses Paypal as their regular method of conducting business, and expects a complete stranger to use the 'Friends and Family' option in order to avoid the 'buyer protection' fee is being dishonest.
Even if it could somehow be rationalized that Paypal isn't being cheated, the buyer is being cheated out of a level of protection that should be provided by the seller (though the 3% Paypal fee). One way or another, it is stealing. If the seller has no qualms about chiseling Paypal, why would you expect to be treated any better?

Maybe the next time a seller insists upon using the 'Friends and Family' option and that buyer protection is unnecessary, you should agree to it. Tell them to ship you the instrument; as soon as it arrives, you'll send the money. After all, who needs to worry about protection?

[Tobin]

On the subject of fees, those of you who sell and accept PayPal for payment, you are not allowed to add a surcharge to your sales price to cover the PayPal fees. This is clearly stated in the user agreement (see Section 4.6).

So, if you are advertising your item for sale and saying that you will accept PayPal with an extra 3% to the buyer, but would not charge that 3% if the buyer were paying by other means, you are in violation of the user agreement. I actually know a couple of people who have had their PayPal accounts shut down over this. Even offering to "split the fees" with the buyer is a violation of the agreement.

Basically, if you as a seller want to get your full intended price for the item, without taking a hit for the PayPal fees, you have to build it into your price from the start, and if someone pays by another method, they would have to pay the same price to you as a buyer who uses PayPal.

Just something to keep in mind in conversations like these. The moral/ethical/legal dilemma is not always about the buyer's choice when making a payment. More often than not, it's the seller who may have set the rules incorrectly.

[choctaw61]

Sonnyjammer I applaud Ur decision.I refuse to compromise morals for any reason( IMO).I was a manager in a small company that asked me to do some things that convicted me to my bones.The owners walked into my office and said we're not asking you to fib or cheat any one this is just business.Yeah and this is just me quitting.which I did.Again that's just me.I believe in a here after.This is MY PERSONAL CONVICTIONS.No finger pointing intended towards anyone.Just don't compromise convictions!

[Carl Robin]

Thrifty vs. stealing? Neither, it's being cheap. Thrifty means using money carefully, not wastefully. Stealing means taking something that doesn't belong to you. Anyone can be your friend. The vendor wants to be your cheap friend. I wouldn't accept that offer either.

[Austin Bob]

PayPal is a service designed to make it safe and easy to pay for items, and it also extends protection to the buyer. They charge a fee of 3% for the service. Sellers also have to pay fees when buyers use credit or debit cards. It's a cost of doing business that needs to be built into the pricing structure.

The Friends and Family option is there for a reason - to waive the fee for non business related transactions, but it also does not extend any protection to the buyer.

We all have morals, and we all justify it to ourselves when we break them. Sometimes it's as simple as driving a bit too fast when you are late. No one is perfect. In the end it's up to you.

It's not something I would feel comfortable doing. I would rather the transaction be on the level, with fees paid, and protection extended to me in case something went wrong.

[terzinator]

On the subject of fees, those of you who sell and accept PayPal for payment, you are not allowed to add a surcharge to your sales price to cover the PayPal fees. This is clearly stated in the user agreement (see Section 4.6).

So, if you are advertising your item for sale and saying that you will accept PayPal with an extra 3% to the buyer, but would not charge that 3% if the buyer were paying by other means, you are in violation of the user agreement. I actually know a couple of people who have had their PayPal accounts shut down over this. Even offering to "split the fees" with the buyer is a violation of the agreement.

Basically, if you as a seller want to get your full intended price for the item, without taking a hit for the PayPal fees, you have to build it into your price from the start, and if someone pays by another method, they would have to pay the same price to you as a buyer who uses PayPal.

Just something to keep in mind in conversations like these. The moral/ethical/legal dilemma is not always about the buyer's choice when making a payment. More often than not, it's the seller who may have set the rules incorrectly.

Didn't gas stations used to promote a "cash" price that was a few cents less than the "credit" price? I think they stopped that practice just for this reason, that it's illegal to charge more to someone using a credit card.

[Tobin]

Didn't gas stations used to promote a "cash" price that was a few cents less than the "credit" price? I think they stopped that practice just for this reason, that it's illegal to charge more to someone using a credit card.

Yeah, there used to be lots of that across the board. I still see it occasionally, where vendors or business owners will offer a discount to cash buyers. They have to be very careful about how they go about it, because the credit card companies are pretty strict about enforcing that part of their policy (for the same reason PayPal is). This has been part of the standard agreement for a long time now, in order to keep these cashless transaction companies on equal footing.

But it's an important thing for all buyers to know, even when you go to the local supermarket, shopping mall, department store, etc. When you whip out your plastic card to pay, even if it's a debit card, the person you're buying from isn't getting all of what they charge you. Leaving sales tax out of the equation, they are still taking a percentage hit to the credit card companies (often charged to them by the company they lease the credit card machine from). That was quite a learning curve for my wife and I, when selling antiques through a local antique mall. Each month our statement breaks down how much we sold by cash or check, and how much we sold by charge. Then charge fees are deducted from our sales, and it's much higher than what PayPal takes.

It's just the price of doing business. But it does require us to tack on a percentage to our price, regardless of how each buyer may be paying. Most buyers don't understand that when they use their plastic cards, it literally takes money out of our pockets that we would be able to keep if they paid by cash or check.

[stevedenver]

Didn't gas stations used to promote a "cash" price that was a few cents less than the "credit" price? I think they stopped that practice just for this reason, that it's illegal to charge more to someone using a credit card.

well, it used to be prohibited in some vendor contracts with credit card companies, but, this is no longer a common condition. This was simply a provision to benefit the credit card company, so the vendor couldn't try to sweeten a deal, and avoid paying a 3-5% fee for each transaction. When you are a large company and have bargaining clout, you can negotiate your own terms to some extent.



Aas to the OP, I guess I don't see the issue as stealing, or as misrepresentation. While the boxes may be marked this way, there is also the governing fine print as to what the parties are agreeing to. I guess the characterization as 'sale' or 'gift' , as a result of these other terms of agreement are fairly meaningless. And, do remember that PP could have chosen to have no such option and always have a fee. But I suspect that this is a 'loss leader' or option to gain some segment of the market. SOOOOOO, its a bargained for risk on PPs part as well. ie its OK. They know about it.

In reading the terms and conditions of PP , we are all arms length, as is the company, and by whatever pay option one choses, together with its 'protections' or lack thereof, its an agreed upon choice, by both parties, ie PP and the vendor or buyer. I pay a fee and get 'insurance' or I chose to deem it a gift, as will the seller, make it a handshake deal, and take my chance.

[sgarrity]

PayPal is the service we all love to hate. It's ok for cheaper items but once you get into the mid-priced mandolin range it starts to add up real quick. As a Seller I add in the fee to my advertised price. I am not a music store. If the buyer wants the added protections or wants to pay with a credit card then they can cover the fees to do so.

[Clement Barrera-Ng]

So, if you are advertising your item for sale and saying that you will accept PayPal with an extra 3% to the buyer, but would not charge that 3% if the buyer were paying by other means, you are in violation of the user agreement. I actually know a couple of people who have had their PayPal accounts shut down over this. Even offering to "split the fees" with the buyer is a violation of the agreement..

That's news to me Tobin, and glad you mentioned it. I normally just have one price for anything I list for sale, but after seeing so many ads that adds an extra 3% for Paypal I decided to give it a try. Needless to say I just updated my ad copy to be in compliance.

[Buck]

While it may seem like semantics, offering a cash discount is allowed under the PayPal Service Agreement, but charging the buyer more to use PayPal is not.

Using the gift option for a purchase is also a violation of the Agreement.

[Mandoplumb]

In theory there can be other victims, if enough people use the friends and family option PayPal would not meet their expenses so they would have to stop offering it to legitimate users, it could even cause them to shutdown if allowed to become too common without action being taken.I know that don't seem likely and it's not, but any time you work around paying for a service you use in the long run you are stealing from someone who uses and pays for said service.