Proposed Changes to QRZ Swapmeet Rules

Discussion in 'Swapmeet Talk' started by AA7BQ, Jun 5, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-2
  1. AA7BQ

    AA7BQ QRZ Founder Administrator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Jim, that's quite a story, and a shocking one to boot. I've been using PayPal as both buyer and seller for 20 years and have been generally satisfied with their service. On occasion I have been disappointed by them, but frankly I can't give you a specific example of it.

    In situations such as these, I find it useful to put yourself in their shoes, if only to attempt to understand what forces and pressures they may face. First, banking and credit card laws apply to PayPal, just like any bank. For example, imagine that you notice a charge on your credit card bill that you are certain that you didn't make. You call your credit card company and they investigate and determine that the charge was indeed fraudulent. You expect and receive your money back. Case closed.

    On an "Item Not Received" case, resolution is even easier. Did the buyer receive the goods, and can you prove it?

    Now imagine, using the example above, that the credit card company had refused to refund your money. Imagine what such a refusal would do to their brand. Bad PR such as that would likely deal a crushing blow to their image, and would likely cost them more money than we could imagine. Such a misfortune for a company like PayPal would never arise from a single incident, however, and would only be significant if large numbers of people experienced the same issue. This is an "item not received" case, and there are few remedies available in the absence of solid evidence.

    In your case, the buyer made the claim to the credit card company (PayPal in this case), and just like any other credit card company, they nearly always side with the buyer. Siding with the seller would not further their image at all because there are vastly more buyers than there are sellers and it's in PayPal's interest to please the largest number of customers. PayPal isn't dealing in $2500 radios, they're dealing with billion dollar issue. Any decision that they make will be in favor of protecting those billions.

    You stated that the item had "been received by another person who had signed for it at the same address as where the item was sent" and then in the next, you say that the USPS was auctioning it off. How exactly does that happen? I sense a chain of custody problem here.

    You state in your story that "I had proof of delivery by signature not withstanding." I'm not clear on what you mean by that because later in your account you indicate that the Postal Service accepted the signature of a person who wasn't the buyer. Whose fault is that? Then, you mention a US Postal Service Local Auction, something that I wasn't aware of. Suddenly, however, the story seems convoluted and illogical because why would the USPS be auctioning off something that was delivered and signed for by a recipient? Did the recipient, the one who signed for the radio, realize that it wasn't for him and returned it to the USPS? It doesn't sound likely. Furthermore, what about the return address on the package? Why would the USPS auction off something that was clearly labeled? Was it clearly and durably labeled?

    The chain of events that you depict strongly suggest that the USPS mis-delivered the package and the original buyer in fact DID NOT receive the radio. The fact that it was subsequently purchased by a close relative at Auction for $500 also seems illogical because if they were ripping you off, why did they need to spend $500 when they already had the radio (at some point). Did you insure the package with the USPS? If so, did you file a claim? Did you photograph the package before you sent it? Did you ever present PayPal with irrefutable evidence that the buyer took physical possession of the item?

    I suppose that one could cook up a conspiracy where guy 1 would purchase something online, guy2 would receive the item and then remove the return address and turn the package back over to the USPS and then wait for it to show up at auction. Then Guy 2 would buy the item at a significant discount. All of these musings are nothing more than me making up facts to support a preconceived conclusion. In my experience, if it takes a fantastic conspiracy to explain something then it's probably something else.

    PayPal likely settled with you because the amount involved was less than the cost of a legal defense. That's just good business and any associated PR value, negative or positive, was likely a distant second place concern. Since legal defense isn't free, how much of your money did you end up with after the settlement and the lawyer(s) were paid?

    In my opinion, the USPS is a crapshoot. I would never send something worth more than a trivial value via USPS. For anything of value, I'm using either UPS or FedEx, because they're worth the extra money. Choosing USPS on the basis of price is a false economy. You're dealing with a quasi-governmental bureaucracy at the USPS whereas with FedEx and UPS you're dealing with businesses who actually compete for your patronage. It's worth paying twice as much, in my opinion, when shipping something of value.

    In running an online swapmeet for 25 years, I've seen a lot of unusual deals go down. The trend that I've most noticed in deals gone bad is that the number 1 reason for a bad deal is incompetence on behalf of either the buyer or the seller. Deals in which the buyer intentionally sets out to defraud a seller are rare, by comparison, and for good reason - it's easy to track them down. There's an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence." Believe it.

    73 -fred
    AG5DB, KA9JLM, K1OIK and 2 others like this.
  2. WA7ARZ

    WA7ARZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    What jurisdiction was the lawsuit filed in and what court/case number ?
    I would like to research this as I have used PayPal for 20 years and never had an issue that wasn't resolved properly, both as seller and buyer.
    I also agree with Fred, something seems very wrong with your story.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
    K1OIK likes this.
  3. K1OIK

    K1OIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I had a bad experience with Paypal. I lost $50. Over the years the good results were in the tens of thousands. Some left Paypal for the fear of losing $50 like me. But then missed out on the upside. I invest in the stock market, stocks, options, calls, puts. Sometimes I lose on the other hand if they make it, I can afford it. No risk, no rewards. Note: Paypal is not my friend either, I don't need it to be my friend, just facilitate transactions. The story told by K3VPJ has many holes which Fred has picked apart.
  4. K3EY

    K3EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well said Burt and makes perfect sense. I too use PayPal for over 20 years, but just with low dollars amounts.

    Regardless, I personally know a vendor friend who was really hurt bad using PayPal, and it was not his fault.

    This was not amateur radio dealings but big dollars items mostly tooling. He lost due to fraud lies and deception selling
    to overseas shysters. PayPal did absolutely nothing to help him, nothing!

    This was thousands! He still sells but doesn't use PayPal.

    So as it was stated, nothing is perfect, nothing. Use common sense or lose your shirt.
  5. WA7ARZ

    WA7ARZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Please close comments on this thread. All it has turned into is a debate whether PayPal is a good platform for payments, not anything about the proposed changes.
    KS4W likes this.
  6. AA7BQ

    AA7BQ QRZ Founder Administrator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    You are correct that PayPal is a bit of a distraction here. Let's hope that people will be satisfied with the discussion and move on.
  7. W1BR

    W1BR Ham Member QRZ Page

    eHam has the same policy. Absolutely NO email addresses in the add. The reason is that it gives a scammer usable information to include with a scam ad.
    KS4W likes this.
  8. KD5SPX

    KD5SPX Ham Member QRZ Page

    So you state a govt id, just why does not a government fcc license qualify since you can look it up on the fcc database which is already linked in qrz, a government id just like the fcc license does not require a phone number or email address.

    Also how are you going to verify a government id? Its called a privacy act and if your violating it verifying a government id it opens up lawsuit ramifications. Also if the info from the govt id provided is stored on the site and a data breach occurs, and dont say it wont cause it wiil, its been proven time and time again then your also responsible.

    Anyway it dont matter you have now created and crossed the red line, There is no way I will provide a govt id for any web site like this, I just sold my sm5000 and my dmu2000 on ebay and after the 13% total fees I netted more than I ever would on this cheap for sale board.

    I did the two step verification but thats it for me. Ebay, paypal and even banks dont require a govt id to access their web site only for your account. While trying to make the one problem go away you have created a disaster, its my choice and I made it.

    Just like running your web site is qrz's choice, and just like way the arrl is headed soon there will be less and less interest.

    Wish you well.

    UNVERIFIED by the way for what its worth I am still me whether you believe me or not, there some things that just dont matter such as whether you believe me or not.
  9. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Or you could just use your LoTW credentials. :)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: SMHam-1