|
A. Against paypal TOS to charge the buyer.
B. If he wanted it that way, he should deal with it.
C.If you want to be that much of a pain in the ass to a guy who took 41 dragons off your hands at a price you evidently liked, good luck finding that again. I certainly wouldn't deal with you.
I'm astounded by your optimism, or maybe your ignorance. I don't know which it is, but the way you conveyed this "policy", it's almost as if Paypal employees: 1) have any involvement in the transactions; 2) care.
It's all automated, and Paypal will be damned if they're going to get involved with disputes. Even their dispute system (it's a joke) is organized by automated programming, hiding the actual contact emails of anyone who could actually facilitate a problem (let's say for a second someone checked a sum of money exchanged between two parties, and somewhere in the notes/details of the transaction the words "include 3% extra for the fee Paypal will charge me with" -- the only way someone at the company would even come close to figuring out a breach of the "policy" appear) so well, you become more frustrated with Paypal's lack of involvement in the situation that you forget about the original problem.
My point is, it looks like you're looking for some reason for Chris to get screwed more over than he already has. Sure he handled it a bit irrationally posting over multiple threads, but since when are you the decider of whose money belongs where? I merely suggested he ask for it on Paypal. Deciding to do it on Paypal [with its possible fees -- bear in mind I don't actually know, nor have I claimed to know the status of Chris' actual Paypal account type] can have its repercussions on Allen for waiting so long to pay, and frankly, this sounds like something he does often. Promises money for things he doesn't have the money for...yet.
EVEN IF he did have pneumonia; his father was near-death; and the check was rebounded in the mail -- none are excuses for not paying/not having the proper address, and not answering. If he wasn't 'up to it' to answer the phone because he was sick (as per the email Chris cited a couple pages ago), he had a wife to answer, which apparently Chris has talked to. Dodging emails and phone calls when you've got a $1500 debt is short of classy or responsible.
Allen's alleged problems (assuming for one moment that any of the various forms of an excuse were true, which I don't believe for a moment they are) are HIS problems. Chris does not need to lend a patron saint hand out and say, "hey, I'll take the money whenever you have it." He COULD, but he's certainly not at all obligated. He held up his end of the deal, and Allen did not.
|