Stubhub has a similar policy where you automatically get charged the entire sale price as a penalty (which goes entirely to Stubhub, separate and in addition to them refunding the buyer) for cancelling an order. Even if you do it right after sale. Most platforms like eBay or Amazon will give you some kind of strike for that, but I'd never heard of anyone attempting to fine you money beyond refunding the buyer. I cancelled the credit card so they can't charge me, but apparently they send people to collections for this. IANAL, but I think I might be able to argue that it is unreasonable liquidated damages, especially since their help site refers to it as a "penalty." PayPal is clearly trying to use the right language here, calling it an estimate of hard to calculate damages.
I think these liquidated damages in consumer contracts are really a terrible idea and getting more and more common with online companies. Apparently Zipcar will charge a $50 late fee if you are even one minute late, whereas other rental firms charge something like $12 a day and wouldn't even think of counting minutes.
I agree.
> and getting more and more common with online companies. Apparently Zipcar will charge a $50 late fee if you are even one minute late, whereas other rental firms charge something like $12 a day and wouldn't even think of counting minutes.
I'd hope customers catch on, and competition takes care of this.
You mean they all realize it’s a great idea and implement same fees?
That is the last business Avis will ever get from me. And ideally from some of you guys reading this too.
Section 5 is new. It covers posts, content, etc that PayPal finds objectionable.
To understand this in context, say I’m a website based business that posts conspiracy theories about JFK and UFOs. People pay for exclusive content via paypal.
If I get labeled as misinformation on 300 posts, I could owe PayPal a minimum of $750,000 (300 * $2,500). I’m not saying PayPal will do that, but that appears fair game given the terms being provided here.
To me, this is what the document suggests.
They take the money, and there is nothing you can do. If you spend enough money on lawyers, eventually they would give you the money back, but you'd lose on that deal too.
Ethically and morally it's abhorrent, it degrades the power of the law, but they can get away with it. Fuckers.
If property is the subject of a reasonable dispute-- e.g. whether a contractual term applies-- whomever is holding the property has the upper hand. Especially if the amount of property/money is small compared to the probable cost of litigation and especially so if one is unlikely to recover legal fees.
In any case, I agree with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33063096
> This is nonsense,
ORLY?
When PayPal closes people's accounts and keeps the money, in what percentage of cases do you think the people eventually get their money back?
My guess is far fewer than 10%.
Any service could say that you’ll have to pay $2,500 for violating the TOS if they want to. Instagram could say it, but nobody would give the money to them willingly and since it’s a bullshit clickwrap contract they’d have a hard time finding a sympathetic court to inflict it on you.
The problem is that PayPal says it and then doesn’t just shut your account down unaccountably with no human recourse they take thousands of dollars of your own money when they do it, and you’d have to fight them in court for it. It’s a fait accompli situation.
No it’s not remotely ethical.