posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by TinkerHaus
The potential Auctioneer clicking the check box that says "I have read and consent to PayPal's Terms of Service" satisfies this requirement.
The contract was given a counter offer. You can ignore this all you want, and make claims that "I have read and consent to Paypals terms of
service", but this does not negate the clear and obvious counter offer the O.P. made. If Paypal has indeed frozen this account for the reason you
are claiming, and had you for an attorney, they'd be royally screwed in court. A contract is a contract. If Paypal did not agree to the terms and
conditions the O.P. made, they should not have activated his account.
The buyer (The OP) received a popular platform with which to post and sell items for profit. The seller (eBay) received fees to list the option, and
additional fees to transfer payment from the Auctioneer to the Auction Winner.
The O.P. has not received his consideration in this contract, so what is your point here?
Terms of Service" satisfies this requirement.
No he didn't. He made a very clear and visible counter offer, of which any jury member can read. You could, as Paypal's defense attorney attempt
to let the jury in on your little joke, but I would just calmly remind the jury that they are to make a determination based on law, not jokes. The
law of contracts is clear. The O.P. made a counter offer, and any marking he did of agreeing to terms and service came with that counter offer.
Paypal had opportunity to reject the offer. They declined and accepted the O.P.'s counter offer. That became a part of the terms and service at
The OP violated Good Faith when he gave false information after accepting the Terms of Service.
You continue to dishonestly represent the facts. This too would be pointed out to a jury. That the defense cannot even be honest in a court - here
being the court of public opinion - and if your claims had any validity then why do you keep distorting the truth? Particularly, distorting the truth
in order to frame the O.P. as fraudulent.
If you're trying to make this a legal issue, you don't have a leg to stand on. I assure you eBay didn't become the giant it is by having a legal
policy that could be destroyed with five minutes of research by an amateur virtual attorney.
Uh-huh. Is this why PayPal settled with both Fernando and Zepeda who sued them for fraud and
breach of contract?
The parties in Fernando v. PayPal and Zepeda v. PayPal are currently in the process of finalizing a written settlement agreement and exhibits,
including proposed notice to the settlement class. A hearing on preliminary approval is set for June 12, 2012, with the motion for preliminary
approval to be filed by May 8, 2012.
Of course, in settling this allowed your precious little "giant" to continue its dubious practices:
While terms of the settlement are as yet undisclosed, the litigation has not stopped PayPal from expanding its holds policy. PayPal sent an email
last week sharing its plans to update its "Funds Availability program" to add additional circumstances in which it could hold seller funds,
including "Sellers who sell an item that has a sales price that is significantly higher than the average sales price of items previously sold by that
However, your arrogant belief that a "giant" cannot be beaten misses the entire point of David and Goliath, and there are plenty of David's out
there with slingshot in hand.
I'm not sure why someone wants to go to such lengths to argue this FACT, but again seven years of experience with eBay and the only problems I have
had have been with buyers, and in every single case eBay/PayPal has done more than I ever expected to rectify the situation.
It is understandable why people who have bad experiences with PayPal would go to such lengths, not so understandable why a happy customer of PayPal's
would go to such lengths to defend them.