Sellers Beware of John Franco!

Originally Posted by vitog123

Criticize the use of femine nouns/pronouns all you want, its a common occurrence out there in the classifieds. "Likely female" "poss female" "possible female" all those titles and references are followed with "she" a lot.

Then those who do are wrong, I have crested geckos, if I think one is female, I state "Possible Female" IT has no pores showing. IT fires beautifully.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Snake-Queen

Then those who do are wrong, I have crested geckos, if I think one is female, I state "Possible Female" IT has no pores showing. IT fires beautifully.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is probably the best way to go about it. But it didn't happen.

If I was responding to that ad I wouldn't let the words get in the way of my understanding of the situation.

Just look at this situation.
It's a 15 grams gecko - impossible to sex. Would you ever let someone's words "mislead" YOU into thinking a 15gm gecko is guaranteed a female? I wouldn't. Especially if it's mentioned within the ad.

They are both at fault in different ways, I'd like to see "poss female" or "possible female" in the title instead on the first sentence and I see the negotiation within the conversation as minimizing risk, understanding the gamble being taken. Guaranteed females are $1000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by vitog123

If I was responding to that ad I wouldn't let the words get in the way of my understanding of the situation. ...

Just look at this situation.
It's a 15 grams gecko - impossible to sex. Would you ever let someone's words "mislead" YOU into thinking a 15gm gecko is guaranteed a female? I wouldn't. Especially if it's mentioned within the ad.

Are you freaking serious? You would not let "words get in the way" of understanding what is being represented?

Give me a break! You see the ad, you see the FB posts, you see that gecko being represented as female from the ad, throughout their correspondence, and in the damning FB posts that have been brought here. Puleeze!

Next time you want to buy a gecko or whatever animal you desire, please don't let mere "words" get in the way, lol.

Seller owes the buyer every cent back. Period. She needs to learn how to properly represent and advertise whatever she has to sell.

Yeah, it stinks she came here to post a Bad Guy thread that backfired. Funny that she has disappeared when mature, intelligent and unbiased viewers do not side with her ... outside of lame FB, that is.

Oh, and let's not bring up the buyer paying her PP fees .... yeah, that is ethical, too.

Originally Posted by juliasara

I think a 10% restocking fee

What's she 'restocking' ?? The gecko didn't even make it to a cup, LOL.

Exactly the second payment should have already been refunded. That portion was refundable and she DOES NOT have that tied up in the PayPal claim. He then should also get the other $150 when PayPal rules in favor of him for the first payment. Pretty sure goods or services have to be exchanged for any transaction. Not to mention her only argument is "poss female". Thus returning all $300 to him.

I imagine she wants to wait on the PayPal claim to see if he is awarded $150. If he is she probably won't refund him the second payment. If that is the case I still consider that theft. He deserves that second payment regardless of the outcome on the PayPal claim.

Originally Posted by LauraB

Oh, and let's not bring up the buyer paying her PP fees .... yeah, that is ethical, too.

There is zero wrong with that. Seller did not ask buyer to circumvent PP fees nor did she ask the buyer to pay for them. This was something the buyer had offered and probably due it it being a payment plan. I have, on numerous occasions, covered PP fees when I was the buyer. I was not asked to and PP received their fees as they should have. I have also covered cost of feedings when an item was held for me due to weather or on a very few occasions, a payment plan. There is no difference between the two. If im not mistaken, PP has an option for sender to cover the fees. I would just normally send a few extra $ to cover additional costs a seller may incur.

Originally Posted by BillZ

There is zero wrong with that. Seller did not ask buyer to circumvent PP fees nor did she ask the buyer to pay for them. This was something the buyer had offered and probably due it it being a payment plan. I have, on numerous occasions, covered PP fees when I was the buyer. I was not asked to and PP received their fees as they should have. I have also covered cost of feedings when an item was held for me due to weather or on a very few occasions, a payment plan. There is no difference between the two. If im not mistaken, PP has an option for sender to cover the fees. I would just normally send a few extra $ to cover additional costs a seller may incur.

The PayPal TOS seem to say that sellers CANNOT add the transaction fees to the sale price for a goods and services item unless they do so in ALL transactions, whether funded by PayPal or not:

Here is what I noted on the PayPal web site:

"4.5 No Surcharges. You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions."

There are other ways to do the same thing so that the net funds received are the actual amount desired by the seller, obviously, but to me the TOS section quoted above means that sellers should not state blatantly that "PayPal users should add 3%" to the sale price of whatever item they wish to buy.

Originally Posted by zovick

The PayPal TOS seem to say that sellers CANNOT add the transaction fees to the sale price for a goods and services item unless they do so in ALL transactions, whether funded by PayPal or not:

Here is what I noted on the PayPal web site:

"4.5 No Surcharges. You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions."

There are other ways to do the same thing so that the net funds received are the actual amount desired by the seller, obviously, but to me the TOS section quoted above means that sellers should not state blatantly that "PayPal users should add 3%" to the sale price of whatever item they wish to buy.

You seem to be missing the fact the the seller in question did not "add the transaction fees to the sale price for a goods and services item" nor did they " impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method". The buyer, on his own and without any influence from the seller, offered to cover the seller for fees incurred. This was probably as an offer of gratitude for allowing a payment plan and probably because they felt it was a nice gesture to pay any additional costs. This does not violate paypals TOS in any way whatsoever. Think of it as a "tip". PP received their fees and they did so as they should have in the case of this transaction.

The offer from the buyer to cover the fees was an unsolicited offer. The fees being covered by the buyer here are in addition to, and not in place of, the fees PP collected on this transaction. Call PP and ask them if they care if a buyer offers to send the seller additional $ because they want to cover the fees. Hell, PP may even collect fees on the additional $ depending on how they are paid. The $ the buyer may send to offset costs is in itself a separate transaction which in no way shape or form is a requirement put into place by the seller for the transaction to be completed. If, at the end, the seller stated that she was not going to ship because the buyer said he would cover the fees and has not, then you could argue she was violating PP's TOS. I dont know a way to make that any more clear to those thinking PP's TOS was violated. It was not.

Regardless of the rest of the details here, to state that the seller is unethical by implying that the seller in question asked the buyer to cover the fees is just not correct.

Please tell me I didnt miss a post where she asked for the 3% to be added. I based my argument on the screenshot showing the buyer offering to cover the fees. I really hate the taste of crow.