Very irritating habit on BST

I don't understand the practice of some members selling their lights that state they will ONLY accept paypal but that you MUST add 3% or 4% to cover the fees. WTF. If they want to save the additional %, why don't they open up a personal account. If that is not possible for the seller, then why should the buyer have to shoulder the fees since it's not his fault that the seller won't or can't accept other forms of payment.

When I sell my lights I include everything in the selling price including paypal fees, shipping, etc. so there are no more calculations needed. What you see is what you pay. Since the fees are standard, if shipping happens to cost more than I estimated, tough luck for me but if it costs less, then I end up with a little more money than what I'm expecting to get. In any case, I think there should be no more than a few dollars difference either way. For all that this community has given us, what's a couple of dollars between family or friends. For me, $210 sounds better than $200 + 3% for etc, etc. If someone's worried about paypal's fee, why don't they just add that to the price in the first place. Technically, there is no difference but it simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like buying a plane ticket that states it only costs $50 but they don't tell you that there are still $100 in fuel surcharges and security taxes. I for one think it's kind of trying to scam buyers into thinking the item is cheap when there are many additional charges still hidden in the fine print. IMHO, whether the item will ultimately sell or not depends not on the the few dollars difference but if the price is actually worth it or not.

Another thing that has been endlessly discussed is the practice of many members of deleting the price once an item has been sold. Why are they afraid of letting people know what price was paid for the item? Are they afraid of being accused of gouging other members? If that is the reason, then charge a price that is fair. The only reason I can think of is that they were able to fool someone into paying a ridiculous amount for an item but were afraid they would be noticed for it later.

Sorry for the rant but this issue has been bugging me for quite a while and I just needed to vent a little.

You're not the only one with these opinions...

I also had this opinion when I was a newbie and was only buying, but as I started to sell flashlights that I didn't' want to keep, I started to hate the PP fees as they were not necessary unless paying by Credit Card. But you have to offer the credit card PayPal option as a form or payment or you ostracize a huge percentage of buyers. I always now give the option of cash or CC PayPall, with the CC option now always asking for a 4% or actual fee surcharge over the cash price which won't cost either party extra $'s if set up properly.



Cheers,



Matthew

Everybody has their pet peeves I suppose. I don't like it when they advertise "Oil change: $16.95" then when you get the bill they have added $2.00 for "oil disposal fee."

Some sellers aren't very sophisticated and don't know what they are doing, others are just taking advantage of the situation. If it really bothers you, make them an offer but state that your offer is the bottom line price with no additional "surcharges", and they can decide to take it or not.

LMU

I'm decided about the first issue. But I agree about the 2nd one. Unfortunately that practice seems to be endemic across many BST forums, not just on CPF.

Last time I read paypals rules of use, the seller is not allowed to charge extra fees for offering paypal as a method of payment. :thinking:

M_R said:

I also had this opinion when I was a newbie and was only buying, but as I started to sell flashlights that I didn't' want to keep, I started to hate the PP fees as they were not necessary unless paying by Credit Card. But you have to offer the credit card PayPal option as a form or payment or you ostracize a huge percentage of buyers. I always now give the option of cash or CC PayPall, with the CC option now always asking for a 4% or actual fee surcharge over the cash price which won't cost either party extra $'s if set up properly.

Cheers,

Matthew

Click to expand...

I have no problems if it was set up properly like cash to a personal account and cc to a premier account. If the buyer chooses to use cc when there is a cash option available, then the buyer should shoulder the fees. What ticks me off is sellers who require buyers to pay the fees because he doesn't have a personal account. That's not the buyers fault so it's not fair nor ethical for the seller to set that as a requirement.

I think that, as long as the seller is up front and clear about all charges then it's fine. If I don't like the idea of paying extra for something because I'm using my CC based Paypal I'll look for another seller.

Purely from a PR perspective, I like the idea of having the set price that includes the percentages then giving a "cash" discount. In this case an account based paypal discount.

I've heard enough horror stories about getting accounts cleaned out with no recourse that I doubt I will ever switch to tying a bank account directly to Paypal.

I give buyers the option of using either form of payment (cash or CC), but I prefer cash because sometimes I'm just reselling items with no profit (like I've done with the colored minimags, for example). If I shouldered the CC fees, then it'd defeat the purpose of making some hard-to-find items available to people. A few percent "lost" here and there adds up and Mrs.Green would me.

I also dislike fees, because I've found they are not consistent. For example, I've been charged anywhere from 3-7% on CC transactions. Most of the variation comes from doing international sales; I've been charged different fees, on the same item, going to different international locations. I haven't found a description of how these "across border fees" are calculated. I also feel that you unfairly penalize people paying cash if the price includes a CC% fee already. It may work at a corporate-scale of business, but not for how I sell stuff on-line; it doesn't feel right. What do I know? My wife thinks I'm a terrible sales person. :nana:

agreed that's it's irratating to deal with. much simply to factor into price to begin with.

std practice is to provide two accounts. one cash PP and other for CC with additional 4%. let the buyer pick.

our B/S/T rules are working fine as is. enforcing exact payment guidelines would drive moderators nuts.

letting seller dicatate terms as he/she sees fit makes the most sense. if you don't like the terms, vote with your wallet.

for example: don't like money orders, due to extra trip to bank needed to purchase MO. then add risk of loss of MO and doubling of time needed to deal with transactions.

so generally I almost don't do MO unless it's an item I'm willing to go thru extra trouble for. Same with receiving MO, extends time of dealings with order. and risk of losing MO. especially with overseas MO.

naturally if someone asks to send MO, I will usually oblige. but still don't like it.

It's against the law for to charge a different price for CC or Non-CC purchase.

I am not the biggest fan of paypal but this is how they make money. If they didn't have ways of making money they wouldn't exist at all.

Then people would have to go through the trouble of setting up regular CC merchant accounts.

I have just one PP account, that will accept CC payments also.

Why?

Cuz I cant have two PP accounts,
I would have to have a second bank account to do that,
which is not worth it, thats just more to keep track of etc.

I ussually just end up taking the hit on fees
~John

JonSidneyB said:

It's against the law for to charge a different price for CC or Non-CC purchase.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that.

Does this apply to "informal" transactions (as in: not under a commercial registered name; selling "petty" stuff) like the ones we do on BST? :thinking: I don't want to get in trouble.

greenLED said:

I didn't know that.

Does this apply to "informal" transactions (as in: not under a commercial registered name; selling "petty" stuff) like the ones we do on BST? :thinking: I don't want to get in trouble.

Click to expand...

Ebay is the only one I've seen enforcing this...it's not even clear that it's really against the law in all states. Some states (CA for one) have laws against it, but haven't been able to find documentation of it being against the law in other states. I'll try to find the wording in the PayPal UA...unless they changed it, it used to be pretty vague.

JM-99

It's federal under a law relating to CC's.

I will find it when I get a chance.

JonSidneyB said:

It's federal under a law relating to CC's.

I will find it when I get a chance.

Click to expand...

Oh...yeah...I've seen that. The way people get around that one is to give the price (including PP fees) and then offer a discount for cash (check/money order).

JM-99

Billson said:

...For all that this community has given us, what's a couple of dollars between family or friends. For me, $210 sounds better than $200 + 3% for etc, etc. If someone's worried about paypal's fee, why don't they just add that to the price in the first place.

Click to expand...

I agree. Makes for a cleaner, more friendly sale. Of course, people can do whatever they want and I don't think there should be formal rules about this. Hopefully sellers will read this thread and take these comments to heart when they are deciding how to price thier items.

CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1747-1748.7

1748.1. (a) No retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction
with a consumer may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to
use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar
means. A retailer may, however, offer discounts for the purpose of
inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use
of a credit card, provided that the discount is offered to all
prospective buyers.
(b) Any retailer who willfully violates this section by imposing a
surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card and who
fails to pay that amount to the cardholder within 30 days of a
written demand by the cardholder of the retailer by certified mail,
shall be liable to the cardholder for three times the amount at
which actual damages are assessed. The cardholder shall also be
entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in
the action.
A cause of action under this section may be brought in small
claims court, if it does not exceed the jurisdiction of that court,
or in any other appropriate court.
(c) A consumer shall not be deemed to have elected to use a credit
card in lieu of another means of payment for purposes of this
section in a transaction with a retailer if only credit cards are
accepted by that retailer in payment for an order made by a consumer
over a telephone, and only cash is accepted at a public store or
other facility of the same retailer.
(d) Charges for third-party credit card guarantee services, when
added to the price charged by the retailer if cash were to be paid,
shall be deemed surcharges for purposes of this section even if they
are payable directly to the third party or are charged separately.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature to promote the effective
operation of the free market and protect consumers from deceptive
price increases for goods and services by prohibiting credit card
surcharges and encouraging the availability of discounts by those
retailers who wish to offer a lower price for goods and services
purchased by some form of payment other than credit card.

Agreed with you Billson, hate it.

I always list the final price, including shipping cost.

One thing I hate to see is "CONUS only" but that's just me.