Paypal Friends and Family vs. Paypal Goods and Services16583

Originally Posted by Davethebrave
At the end of the day user agreements that are dozens or hundreds of pages long are not expected to be read. In fact, a good lawyer would point to the simple summary pages (like what I cited above) and reference that language to see what a typical user might be expected to anticipate. This is why the holds/locks are temporary - because they would likely lose these cases in courts of law.

Originally Posted by Davethebrave
@Towmater I think that you miss the point. If a friend goes and buys me some beer and drops it off - and the beer costs $15 and I pay him $20 through Paypal. Is that F&F or G&S under their definition?

Or is a part of this (a large part) the notion of arms length vs non arms length?

What if we are talking payment for a loan? Well, lending money is clearly a service (under pro circumstances) - so a friend lending $10 and then getting repaid… is that G&S or F&F?

Or does the non arms length nature change the coverage definition?

Note that Paypal uses the term payment and not “transfer” for their “free” option… a payment is by definition based on a contractual obligation.

As for my “speculation” on legal treatment, my point is not on a case by case basis. It is whether it would be litigated on a mass scale (if they hold back funds indefinitely the cause of harm would be massively different than their temp holds).

You referencing the UA is also missing the point, entirely.

Originally Posted by Davethebrave

If I buy a comic from someone else as part of my personal collection it is a payment. Not part of my business.

If the seller is an individual I know then paypal is merely acting to facilitate the payment. Does that warrant the fee they would charge under G&S? No, it doesn’t.

Originally Posted by Davethebrave
@Towmater you, again, miss the point (including re: a class suit IF paypal froze funds for longer periods, which they do not).

If I buy a comic from someone else as part of my personal collection it is a payment. Not part of my business.

If the seller is an individual I know then paypal is merely acting to facilitate the payment. Does that warrant the fee they would charge under G&S? No, it doesn’t. I have no need to subsidize their insuring of other arms length deals. Their fee for that convenience (if I transact as G&S) would be absurdly high.

If I elect with seller to treat as a friendly deal without protections then I am afoul of the UA - even if on the surface it looks more like a real F&F trxn. We could otherwise use a standard check etc (but for convenience).

There is nothing irrelevant about my comparisons. Answer my question on non arms length lending and supplemental “service fees” (beer example). Or respond to my point on paypal referring to the word “payment” as being free vs transfer.

Once you start invoking legalese through the Ua you need to be willing to engage on those terms.

Paypal is likely allowing massive amounts of grey zone F&F to continue because it makes them big $ long-term vs upsetting clients.

Now I would guess their algorithms do choke out people transacting big primarily or exclusively under F&F and not G&S… regardless of a potentially broader application of their UA.

Originally Posted by Davethebrave
Finally, in the real world I have seen that people who are outwardly, self-proclaiming rule followers or moral compass holders are, in practice, often the biggest hypocrites.

Originally Posted by Davethebrave
Finally, in the real world I have seen that people who are outwardly, self-proclaiming rule followers or moral compass holders are, in practice, often the biggest hypocrites.