The Breitling Watch Source Forums

yeah curious to know what happend there too. kind of just fizzled out. the whole thing was strange. this type of things firms my position of only purchasing from people i know or from an AD.

Just because she knew how to handle firearms and had a good set of silencers, that doesn't make her crazy.

Ways to protect against PayPal,

If you have spent less than approx. $10K with PayPal, you aren't required to have a bank account linked to PayPal. You can pay using your credit card.

Or create a seperate bank account just for PayPal.
In the case of the original poster; You sell a watch and receive payment by PayPal. Immediatelly transfer the money to your PayPal bank account. Hold the watch for 24-36 hours before shipping. By the time the Buyer gets the watch, the money should be in your PayPal bank account. Immediately transfer the money from your PayPal bank account to your personal bank account. If the buyer is trying to pull a scam the PayPal account money will have been transferred to your personal account.

_________________
Breitling Navitimer: Black Dial
OMEGA Speedmaster Professional
Steinhart Nav.B-Chrono II
Elgin-Hamilton 37500 (Aircraft Clock)

Even if you proceed this way the bank will come after you if the check was not covered and reclaim the money anyhow. You NEVER win against a bank.


Sent from my Galaxy SII using Tapatalk

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

Not sure what you mean by, "check not covered"?
The seperate accounts are to prevent PayPal from taking money back out of your account. It gives you the time to react to a problem instead of wondering why your money is gone.

_________________
Breitling Navitimer: Black Dial
OMEGA Speedmaster Professional
Steinhart Nav.B-Chrono II
Elgin-Hamilton 37500 (Aircraft Clock)

It's not PayPal that takes the money out of your account, it's the bank that returns it to PayPal and then the banks turns against you. IMO, frequently the bank advances the money of the check, only to reclaim it if it is not covered. But I may be wong.


Sent from my Galaxy SII using Tapatalk

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

I always hate to hear about this. I just don't sell on ebay. I will sell on watch sites, and many times the buyer is a well known guy. This whole thing really makes me want to reconsider using paypal at all.

Good luck with this, hopw we hear back from the OP.

_________________
An ever changing collection.....

I've never been clear on how this works, fortunately because I've never been in this situation. However, I think your use of the word "check" is confusing, because we're talking about a situation where checks are not involved. These are electronic transfers between accounts. Plus, when you write a check, you're the one issuing funds. In this case, we're talking about a seller receiving funds. Apples and oranges.

Also, are you sure that's how it works - that the bank would give the money back to PayPal and then come after you? I'm trying to imagine a bank just taking money out of your account and handing it over to a claimant (PayPal) on demand. Usually, people or entities who try to get money from you on a claim have to go through some sort of process of proving it - which is what litigation is all about. I understand that a person's agreement with PayPal gives PayPal the ability to recover money from a linked account, but I don't know that that agreement extends to all accounts a person may have.

You're right Jackson, my mistake. By check I meant electronic transfer since almost nobody uses checks anymore, except maybe the French. So, when the buyer makes a transfer to the seller's bank, the funds can returned to the bank of origin of the transfer should a problem arises and they surely won't ask you first, they solve the problem first between banks. By returning the funds I do not mean that the buyer gets them back: the funds stay at the bank of origin to cover the" overdraft".



No, I am not sure that it works that way. But I suspect that the bank will first return the funds and then enter litigation, if need be. So, they're out of it and it is between seller/buyer to sort it out. But, again, I am not sure at all, I'm just guessing.

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

I'm not sure about that, although I acknowledge that this is outside my area of legal familiarity. However, just looking at it pragmatically, we've got essentially two different scenarios here. Scenario one is where PayPal takes the money back from you out of the account you have linked to them, which you expressly granted them the ability to do by dint of linking it in the first place. The bank doesn't get involved with that directly, in any discretionary way. They simply facilitate the transfer that has technically been agreed upon in advance.

But that's not the scenario mjfur is talking about. He's talking about a situation where the seller has taken money out of his linked account and put it in a different account, one not linked to PayPal, and thus not subject to any agreement with PayPal. That's scenario two - where PayPal is no longer acting pursuant to their agreement with the seller, but is going to the seller's bank as a third party, and is essentially saying, "One of your account holders owes us money - give it to us." I don't see banks complying with such a demand absent a court order, or something similar.

You phrased it better than I did. That is exactly what I think will happen: the bank returns the funds to PayPal and then it is up to the seller to sort it out with the buyer. I do not think that they need a court order for that. Then again, maybe I'm all wrong.

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

I hope you are, but I don't know. It's pretty murky territory, though, when you're talking about a bank seizing a person's assets at the behest of a third party without clear authority to do so. If anybody knows the answer to this, I'm all ears.

However, mjfur's recommendation didn't specify whether the different accounts were both at the same bank, or at different banks. So let's say they're at different banks. Let's say my PayPal-linked account is at Bank A, and that's the only account I have at that bank. When I get the funds, I transfer them to an account at Bank B, which I never use for doing any business with PayPal or eBay. So, when PayPal tries to do the chargeback with Bank A, there's no money there at all. What's Bank A going to do? Give PayPal the money, and then try to get the money from me? I don't see that happening, since Bank A would essentially be assuming the debt, and then trying to recover from me in a quasi-subrogation action against me. Bank A doesn't have a bone in this fight; I don't see why they would open themselves up to that, especially if they don't know PayPal's claim is well founded. More likely, they would tell PayPal it's their problem.

What if PayPal tried to recover the funds from Bank B? First off, that presupposes PayPal actually knows that's where the funds went, which is unlikely. But even if they did, Bank B has no legal obligation to provide anything to PayPal. That really would be a situation where PayPal is a random third party claiming entitlement to my assets without further authority. I don't see Bank B coughing up the cash, either.

It seems to me this is a way the funds transfer would protect your cash, at least in the short term.

That is exactly what I am saying. And they won't try, they will just get it from your account. Then, you'll have to regularize your account which would be negative.

And, I agree, there is no chance for PayPal to know for bank B, so forget about that possibility.

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

I can see how that might happen, but in the meantime, at least you would still have the cash from the sale, rather than being out the money. That is ultimately what we're talking about here - safeguarding the cash in the short term. It's not a permanent solution, but it could make it less painful when dealing with PayPal and their flunky claims agents. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution; let's face it - if you're the subject of a scam, it's going to sting in one way or another. But I guess I'd rather be in the position of still having the money and dealing with some administrative headaches, rather than being out the money, and still dealing with administrative headaches.

I have a couple questions for those who know, since basically Tomcat and I are speculating. One, would a bank pay a chargeback on funds that are no longer in the account, and leave me with a negative balance? Two, if so, would the bank be able to claim I owe them that money just by dint of the fact they paid the chargeback, or would the bank have to prove there was merit to the chargeback?

I kinda miss her

_________________
End of Discussion.