eBay Fraudulent dealer - worldcurrencyandcoin or Numis-phil (S) Pte Ltd in Singapore

Sales that take place outside of eBay aren't eligible for eBay services and protection, including dispute resolution, Feedback, requests for contact information, and PayPal buyer protection.

eBay's stated policy for transactions that occur outside of eBay, such as in the OP's. If the buyer goes against this policy they can have their buying and selling privileges restricted, or their account closed as a result.

This is why PayPal won't do anything to get the OP's money refunded, and eBay is out of it as well.

In so far as PayPal being named as accomplices to a fraud, you would have to be able to prove PayPal knew the seller was committing a fraud to begin with, and did nothing to stop it, or even encouraged the fraud to take place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am simply giving the OP advice and stating "some" possibilities. True, Paypal my not be sued for directly acting in a fraudulent matter, but they may be held liable for not pursuing an account holders fraudulent activities. I live and work in the state of California and as a former owner of a brick and mortar retail and online store, I have some experience in this area.

I don't see the value in knit-picking what others have posted. You do the OP, CoinTalk and yourself a disservice by criticizing or critiquing other's advice and not offering any yourself. We should be looking out for one another on this chat room.

 

Me too! Learned my lesson once when buying from out of country. I think eBay needs to help out this person, though.

 

Why? The transaction was conducted OUTSIDE of eBay. The buyer loses. Case closed. There is no "buyer protection." If the buyer had completed this through eBay, he would have his money back without a problem.

 

However, no fraud has been proven, and if it is proven, it's not PayPal's responsibility to go after the seller.

You say you have experience in this matter, how much of that experience relates to sellers located in a foreign country?

I have offered advice to the OP. I've expressed my opinion that he's out of luck since he went outside of eBay to complete the transaction, which is a clear violation of eBay's policy, which he agreed to abide by when he registered his account, as does everyone who registers an eBay account.

In so far as "looking out for one another", had he posted before he bought, I'm quite sure that numerous CT members, myself included, would have advised against him buying this item, and for obvious reasons.

Him coming here after the fact, at least 2 months as he stated his credit card company won't file a charge back because it had been 2 months since the purchase; is a little late for us to "lookout for one another".

His actual best bet at this point, since the seller is in a foreign country, is to seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in internationl suits of this kind.

I also don't see what I posted in reply to what you stated, as knit-picking, but rather correcting some of statements as they are, IMO, inaccurate and far reaching.

For instance: You stated that PayPal should be sued as an accomplice to a fraud, because they earned a fee for the transaction. I stated, quite simply, that in order for PayPal to be an accomplice it would have to be proven they had knowledge the seller intended to commit a fraud, and did nothing to stop it, or even encouraged the fraud to take place.

They've done neither, and short of someone at PayPal telling the buyer, "Yeah we knew this seller was going to defraud you but did nothing to stop them."; he would be hard pressed to prove what PayPal knew before the transaction was completed, or even during the transaction.

 

This statement is not my opinion, but a cut and paste from eBay's website:

Once you complete the sale outside of eBay, you're cooked. No protection, no dispute resolution, no nothing.

 

That's, um, not what PayPal's Purchase Protection policy says:

Now, there may be something in the voluminous PayPal User Agreement that leave the OP ineligible for protection. For one thing, you have to file within 60 days.

But the notion that PayPal only offers protection for eBay purchases is flat wrong. The PayPal site is quite explicit about this.

 

To the OP

 

I am not sure where the courts would come down on that. eBay also states "Do not respond to the sender if this message requests that you complete the transaction outside of eBay. This type of offer is against eBay policy" (and it is stated other places). If I had to pick, I would guess that since he violated the eBay policy, he loses.

 

You're not comprehending what I have said Jeff.

eBay's policy is that neither the seller, nor buyer, can complete the transaction outside of eBay for an item listed for sale on eBay. It's is in the TOS, which nobody bothers to read when they create their account on eBay, but it is in there. You also agree to abide by all policies, regulations, and restrictions, and acknowledge those can change at anytime.

In PayPal's user agreement, it does cover this type of activity:

10.3 Actions by PayPal - Restricted Activities. If PayPal, in its sole discretion, believes that you may have engaged in any Restricted Activities, we may take various actions to protect PayPal, eBay, other Users, other third parties, or you from Reversals, Chargebacks, Claims, fees, fines, penalties and any other liability.

eBay's policy prohibiting outside transactions is a restricted activity.

In order for PayPal's Buyer Protection to cover this purchase, the OP has to abide by all eBay policies, as well as PayPal's, which I just cut and pasted above. Once you violate those policies, you can not be covered by either services protection.

 

The OP has stated that it was HE, and not the seller, who solicited the outside of eBay transaction. It falls both ways, and he loses.

 

I'm sure that PayPal has plenty of high priced lawyers on their payroll, and that they have all of their T's crossed and I's dotted.
Again I'll say, I'm sorry, but that cash is long gone.

 

It works both ways. If he saw it on eBay (and how else did he find it) and it sold outside of eBay, they violated the rules. Period. End of story. And I assure you that will be upheld.

Here is the rule. It specifies BUY or SELL.

 

rlm, I was agreeing with you, and only pointing out that the OP stated he was the one who solicited the seller to complete the transaction outside of eBay, and that really doesn't matter because it's clearly stated in eBay's policy, as you and I have both posted here, that's not allowed.

 

Why should they help out? I bought a TV off Craigslist and it didn't work. Will eBay help me out as well? That's basically what you are saying they should do, help anyone out who asks.

(I didn't actually buy a TV off of craigslist, it was just an example)

 

Of course ebay would say that, but not because they want to protect the little guy. It's obviously in their best interest to have as many transactions as possible completed through them.

Okay, fine. Let's say I listed X on ebay, but a few days later found a local buyer and canceled the listing. If I decided to let the local buyer pay via paypal and something happened, should paypal's stand alone policy be voided just because the item was also listed on ebay? If paypal can legally use this ebay excuse as a reason to avoid their own protection policy, for anything other than ebay transactions, why use them over google or any other similar service?

As soon as a seller cancels his listing, it should be fair game and unless paypal can somehow prove both parties engaged in so-called "restricted activities" (and even then), they should have to at least try to honor their protection policy. After all, this is what they are paid to do and if they refuse because the item was not sold through ebay, there is an obvious conflict of interests here. How can paypal promote a protection policy and claim its also good for non ebay sales if they deny non ebay claims without absolute proof? Remember that just because a company has a certain policy (think cart damage at super markets), it does not mean that policy is legally binding. The simple fact that most people will think such a policy negates the companies responsibility is more than enough reason for them to advertise it.

A few years ago my windshield was smashed by a rock that fell off of a dump truck. On the back of said truck their was a small sign stating that they are not responsible for window breaks, paint damage, etc, but guess who paid for the new windshield. At this point, the best thing the OP could do is to contact an attorney.

 

Proof? It was listed on eBay and you are both members. Now you have to prove that you did not see it. Good luck! In this case, it is even more definitive with one being in Singapore and the other 10,000 miles away.

 

Nonsense. Just because two people are members of ebay and an item was listed, this in no way is proof that ebay facilitated the transaction. Not only this, but the burden of proof should NOT be upon either buyer or seller, but only on ebay. A few weeks ago I bought a band saw, but had no idea it was listed on ebay until I met the previous owner, so if we both were ebay members, should he fork over the fees unless we both could prove I never saw the listing? Let's take this into coins... should DLRC pay ebay every time someone finds a coin they have listed but instead buys from their site? In this situation maybe they should, but you know as well as I this is not the case, just as ebay knows darn well it happens, so why is a big deal not made of it? Would this not technically be against the almighty "ebay policy" too?

http://www.davidlawrence.com/invent...-Post-Colonial-Coinage/gnm/Pre-Federal-Issues

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1789-Mott-Token-PCGS-CAC-MS64-Thick-Planchet-Plain-Edge-/180949136701?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2a2168b53d

Unless the dealer also has a website, you make an excellent point, but again this is still not proof... it's conjecture. There is nothing definitive about it.

 

Just out of curiosity, did the OP give up on this post?

 

Your credit card company is not telling you the truth. You absolutely can file a charge back. With this amount of money on the line it might be worth paying a 500-1000 dollar retainer to a local attorney to fight it. Paypal is using excuses not to go after the seller because it's not in the states. I guarantee if he was an American youw ould have been awarded the dispute. Your best recourse is through your credit card company. It was a fraudulent transaction and according to the contract, you can't be held responsible. If this was a smaller amount of money they wouldn't have even argued with you, they'd have just issued the charge back.