On 2015-11-18 02:40 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Interesting, I didn't know the issue was PayPal's "standard procedure" to limit
accounts.
They do their way of "risk management". This appears to require that merchants
can ship goods from stock. Otherwise, customers can complain with PayPal or their credit
card company that they did not receive the goods. Then, the transaction is in dispute and
the merchant must pay back the money. At least as a security deposit. Until the case is
cleared.
Paypal simplifies their own life. As soon as they get a hint that goods are not
shipped (and a down payment is easy to identify), they keep back a big portion
of the funds they would have to pay to the merchant. So that they can easily
withstand any disputes and they don't have to get the money back from a
fraudulent merchant. To some extent it is even understandable what they are
doing because they don't know the merchant well.
The main problem is that it comes unexpected and ist is difficult to discuss it
with them. And it is not even possible that the Neo900 customers can waive
their rights to complain and explicitly confirm that they want to pass the
money as risk money and they understand the risks. Paypal does not even listen
to that. They follow their rules.
But, they are not a bank and their account is not a bank account (where you as
the account owner have a lot of rights and the bank is just a trustee).
That is a very good explanation of the PayPal issue, thank you. I think
you are right, the PayPal issue probably has nothing to do with Western
governments trying to slow or halt development of the Neo900.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/community
http://www.openphoenux.org
