Sax on the Web Forum banner
41 - 60 of 60 Posts

·
SOTW Columnist, Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
23,681 Posts
Cashier's checks may take much longer than a week to be completely "clear"

Paypal is ideal for ease of transaction.
I always thought a cashier's check was as good as cash; guess I don't get how it works. From what you say, they are not better or different than a personal check...

I totally agree Paypal is ideal for ease of transaction.

But in terms of trying to avoid a tiny fee, I also prefer not to act fraudulently; way too much fraud out there already. I guess since some of the wealthiest and most powerful in our society are lying scam artists, everyone feels empowered to do the same.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
19,000 Posts
OK you got me, but I meant legal methods.
Fuddy-duddy......:cry:

Not a bad idea? It's called fraud. If you want to risk compounding your problems beyond the lost price of a saxophone, sure, that's the way to go. Sending a forged check drawn on someone else's account also would offer this kind of "protection."
Your interpretation is ersatz, though.

...the whole sh'bang is one big clusterf#ck of fraudulence already....as you and other transactor actively agreed to an avenue which is against the mechanism's (Paypal's) policy.

To your example: A forged check gets busted regardless if the item you receive is the actual item in described condition or not. Thus you have committed fraud and far worse...you stole someone's property.

In the instance I posit...the buyer would never attempt a chargeback unless something went very, very wrong in the receipt of the item (i.e....seller intentionally screwed buyer).

There's a significant difference there. Not apples to apples by any means....

Ergo....having one entity in the game (credit card) which would have an active route of disputing the charge is better than having zero entity in the game...which is what happens if you just fund F & F by your available balance or bank account.

Therefore using credit card as funding source isn't a terrible idea. It need never come to an actual chargeback request, too; if something bad happens, buyer has some leverage to tell seller he intends to dispute and get $ back via his card company; which will result in Paypal likely having to debit the seller that amount (unless Paypal has a guarantee/coverage policy for F & F...which I have no idea, actually). That in and of itself may be enough leverage to resolve whatever the issue is.

All in all however, it gets back to what everyone else said: don't use F & F unless you have faith in the seller, and he/she has an established reputation as honest.

Pay Pal does not allow F&F option to use a card.
LMFAO...well, then... this has been yet another (fun and futile) exercise illustrating the human condition of arguing about something which cannot exist... :compress:

b'cuz someone's gotta be off on their info here....

I have used Paypal F & F when requested but I always pay the 3% charge to put it on a credit card rather than let them debit my bank account for free. At least then if things aren't as they seem I can contest the charge through my credit card company. It may not work but it does offer some peace of mind.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
19,000 Posts
I always thought a cashier's check was as good as cash
Yes, for Domestic banks this is the case.

There is no 1 week to clear, or 30 days or whatever....my credit unions have told me this in the past. A Cashier's check from one domestic bank to another is like cash.

This is why here in US, a Cashier's check debits the accountholder's account immediately once the check is cut by the bank teller.

At that point, there's nothing to 'clear'. Because the $ has already been debited in real time by a bank rep.

The only way that an account holder can feasibly "cancel" or renege on that Cashier's check is if they claim it to have been 'lost' or 'stolen'. In which case, their Bank would check to see the account activity: IF the Cashier's check showed up as having been deposited by the recipient noted on the very check, there are no 'backsies' here: the signer came into his/her bank, had the check cut to the recipient...and now the check has been deposited by recipient and paid to their account. The signer's bank would not reverse or try to cancel that check, am almost certain.

No grounds for signer to claim/argue to their bank they want their $ back, at that point.

If the signer insisted the check had been stolen (before it arrives to the buyer - so there's no record of it ever having been deposited) the issuing bank would cancel the check, perhaps; BUT then w/i 1-2 business days of it being deposited on the other end... the recipient's bank would discover it as being bad/canceled.

So it's much better and more secure than a Personal check, actually.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
19,000 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
That makes total sense, I was just replying to a post that implied it did.
Whether it makes sense or not, it's wrong. The funding mechanism for a domestic PayPal Friends & Family payment is up to the sender. Using a bank account or PayPal balance means there is no fee charged to the sender. If a credit card is used, a fee is charged to the sender. Either way, there is no fee to the recipient of a domestic F&F payment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
To your example: A forged check gets busted regardless if the item you receive is the actual item in described condition or not. Thus you have committed fraud and far worse...you stole someone's property.

In the instance I posit...the buyer would never attempt a chargeback unless something went very, very wrong in the receipt of the item (i.e....seller intentionally screwed buyer).

There's a significant difference there. Not apples to apples by any means....
No. The fraudster's motivation is irrelevant to the bank. Reporting the use of a card as unauthorized when in fact it was authorized, for the purpose of retrieving the payment charged to the account, is a false statement that the credit card bank will treat as fraud. No one cares why the false statement was made. Saying, "Well, I had to make a false statement to you because the person to whom I sent the money ripped me off," may sound like a cool excuse, but it would have no legal merit.

LMFAO...well, then... this has been yet another (fun and futile) exercise illustrating the human condition of arguing about something which cannot exist.
Don't believe every comment you read on SOTW. See my post above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
To requote my original post "there's pretty much a zero percent chance of getting caught with Paypal F&F, unless you actually sent some kind of note or had some prior record of transactions."

I didn't say Paypal never catches the practice--yet random one-off F&F likely won't trigger the warning. If you have a business, and especially if it's consistent with other transactions it'll get triggered. Either way most of the time you'll get a warning first. Have never done for any saxophone transaction, but with other random car parts I've yet to get any notice.

Buyer gets pissy, contacts PayPal and tells 'em seller REQUESTED payment for the item be made via F & F. Rats out seller for requesting/accepting F & F for a merchant transaction, basically. Seller in trouble (buyer too but probably not a suspension of account as buyer is playing dumb/naive).
Seller can play dumb/naive too, and at worst you'd get banned from using F&F, but still keep the cash. If it were a buyer-from-hell scenario, the alternative could be that the person would say they never got the item, you have to refund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Hi, Sugaki!
I'm new to this website and I need your help. How do I start a thread like this. I have a question but doesn't know how to post it.
-Tomoka
 

·
SOTW Columnist, Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
23,681 Posts
Yes, for Domestic banks this is the case.

There is no 1 week to clear, or 30 days or whatever....my credit unions have told me this in the past. A Cashier's check from one domestic bank to another is like cash.

So it's much better and more secure than a Personal check, actually.
Thanks Jaye. Exactly as I thought. But according to sugaki, it can take up to 30 days to 'clear.' That didn't make sense to me at all, given you pay CASH for that cashier's check. Nothing to clear.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
19,000 Posts
Seller can play dumb/naive too, and at worst you'd get banned from using F&F, but still keep the cash. If it were a buyer-from-hell scenario, the alternative could be that the person would say they never got the item, you have to refund.
Yup....I mentioned that it's a double-edged sword...one party can screw the other...again, not worth it unless you have trust and faith....

Thanks Jaye. Exactly as I thought. But according to sugaki, it can take up to 30 days to 'clear.' That didn't make sense to me at all, given you pay CASH for that cashier's check. Nothing to clear.
Yup, for domestic bank cashier's checks. Seems int'l cashier's checks may be different story - never dealt w/ 'em tho....
 

·
Moderator
Grafton + TH & C alto || Naked Lady 10M || TT soprano || Martin Comm III
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
[/COLOR]All in all however, it gets back to what everyone else said: don't use F & F unless you have faith in the seller, and he/she has an established reputation as honest.
it may not be possible to call a seller "honest" if they use F & F for a transaction, according to these posts:


...the whole sh'bang is one big clusterf#ck of fraudulence already....as you and other transactor actively agreed to an avenue which is against the mechanism's (Paypal's) policy.

But in terms of trying to avoid a tiny fee, I also prefer not to act fraudulently; way too much fraud out there already. I guess since some of the wealthiest and most powerful in our society are lying scam artists, everyone feels empowered to do the same.
_______________________

No. The fraudster's motivation is irrelevant to the bank. Reporting the use of a card as unauthorized when in fact it was authorized, for the purpose of retrieving the payment charged to the account, is a false statement that the credit card bank will treat as fraud. No one cares why the false statement was made. Saying, "Well, I had to make a false statement to you because the person to whom I sent the money ripped me off," may sound like a cool excuse, but it would have no legal merit.
Which is why Paypal won't intervene and protect anyone in a "transaction" using their method that according to their terms should apply only to transactions, nor should anyone expect any intervention let alone protection. However, to date, I'm not aware of any fraud charges made on account of people using F & F for transactions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
Thanks Jaye. Exactly as I thought. But according to sugaki, it can take up to 30 days to 'clear.' That didn't make sense to me at all, given you pay CASH for that cashier's check. Nothing to clear.
There is something to clear, because it's the issuing bank, not you, that has the money and pays the other party. The difference is that the money is deducted from you first compared to a personal check. Since the bank is the one paying, it's seen as more secure since it doesn't bounce due to insufficient funds from somebody's personal account, and since there are more security features to track the transaction. The value isn't in the check itself, it's a guarantee of redemption basically. It's why you can recover the value of the a lost cashier's check (otherwise the bank would be losing the money).

To go through the whole process of what happens to the money, it's like this. Say Person A makes a $100 cashier's check. $100 is withdrawn from Person A. Bank Q has that $100. The cashier's check is issued which is basically a guarantee that the Bank Q can pay for that check. The money technically is with Bank Q until the cashier's check transfer is completed. Cashier's check is given to Person B, Person B cashes the check at Bank R. After a couple days, Person B sees the $100 in the balance, but that $100 is still technically at Bank Q. Bank R has to verify the check to transfer that $100 from Bank Q, which takes anywhere from a week to 30 days. If Bank R isn't able to verify that Bank Q issued that cashier's check (like a scam), then the $100 is subtracted from Person B's account.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,773 Posts
Tough situation, where there are no good secure answers for a remote transaction between individuals.

Personal check: can be rescinded (gee, I can't remember the right word just now), leaving seller with nothing, but buyer with the goods.

Money order sent upon receipt of goods: Buyer simply doesn't send, seller has nothing, buyer has the goods.

Money order sent before goods are shipped: Seller simply never sends, buyer has nothing, seller has buyer's money.

Pay Pal options: some violate PayPal terms of service, others involve spreading your credit card around and a fee.

I have bought a few items remotely and always sent a MO before the vendor shipped, and haven't been burnt yet, but I only ever bought from people with a long standing Internet presence. I have traveled to distant locations to try out a more expensive item, and paid in cash. I've also bought from established businesses, of course, where there's likely to be some recourse for both parties should something go wrong.

So while worldwide communications make it possible to buy things that are not located within an easy travel distance, it also increases the risk compared to going to the other end of town, checking out the thing, and handing over legal tender currency on the spot.
 

·
Moderator
Grafton + TH & C alto || Naked Lady 10M || TT soprano || Martin Comm III
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
Tough situation, where there are no good secure answers for a remote transaction between individuals.
Escrow, but is obviously an extra stage of faff and would involve a fee. I imagine (I've never done it)

Pay Pal options: some violate PayPal terms of service, others involve spreading your credit card around and a fee.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "spreading your credit card around," but surely a fee is reasonable when someone is providing a service.

I have bought a few items remotely and always sent a MO before the vendor shipped,
Does anyone know why it is that convention that it is always the buyer who has to take the risk and do the trusting. I've never ever seen an online auction or ad that offers the buyer to pay on receipt.

It is never the seller who takes the risk and yet it is a two way transaction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
However, to date, I'm not aware of any fraud charges made on account of people using F & F for transactions.
The topic of fraud arose in response to JayePDX's suggestion that an unhappy F&F buyer could falsely state to his credit card company that the charge was unauthorized. Lying to a bank to get money always entails significant risk.

In the case of simply misusing PayPal F&F to make a purchase, the behavior is far more likely to be treated as a breach of contract, coupled with whatever warning or banning PayPal chooses to add. It would be a waste of effort for PayPal to pursue a more drastic remedy.

In the case of a seller with a long history of misusing F&F to sell goods, thus depriving PayPal of a significant amount of fees over the years, I could imagine an allegation of fraud, as well as breach of contract, being made if PayPal thought it was possible to recover the missing fees through a lawsuit. But again, the transaction costs of litigation (plus potential bad PR) are always high. PayPal's preferred approach is probably to ban and move on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
In short I think the degree of risk depends on context--for example, somebody that's within the same country and had a previous history of transaction with others would have a very low likelihood of making a fake cashier's check, especially if you say you'll wait seven days to clear. Scammers usually want a quick dupe and won't be willing to wait that long, and risk getting a misdemeanor/felony. So 7 days would be usually okay, just to weed out the fakers. Unknown overseas buyer wanting to do a cashier's check on the other hand would be dicier, especially for an expensive vintage instrument.

Does anyone know why it is that convention that it is always the buyer who has to take the risk and do the trusting. I've never ever seen an online auction or ad that offers the buyer to pay on receipt.

It is never the seller who takes the risk and yet it is a two way transaction.
If it's the seller's bread and butter business to sell saxophones, there's much more at stake to scam the buyer--not only the value of the sax, but his/her entire business (sax selling is a pretty small world and word gets around quick). On the other hand, a buyer would stand to lose much less, especially if they're unknown within the community. At least on ebay and paypal it's the seller taking most of the risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
Does anyone know why it is that convention that it is always the buyer who has to take the risk and do the trusting. I've never ever seen an online auction or ad that offers the buyer to pay on receipt.

It is never the seller who takes the risk and yet it is a two way transaction.
The reason is simple: All these sites are set up by sellers to make offers to sell. Thus, they control the terms. If an association of buyers created online commerce sites, they could establish whatever terms they pleased. "I have $10,000 and I am looking to buy X, Y, and Z. Let me know what you have. Payment will be made upon receipt of your goods."

In any event, buyers do have substantial protection when they make their purchases through established channels. Both PayPal and credit cards make it hard to rip off people. And people who buy and sell regularly (merchants) are subject to very specialized legal rules that are designed to protect both parties, e.g., the Uniform Commercial Code in the U.S.

It's only when buyers move outside established channels -- generally in order to eliminate unwanted transaction costs, i.e., fees -- that they assume greater risks. You get what you pay for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
There is nuance in this thread that I don't pretend to fully appreciate.

I sent a private message to a private seller in Europe today who has a horn for sale that I am interested in. I have previously bought two horns out of Europe, but they were both new horns from well respected shops. In both cases I used my American Express card and the transactions went smoothly. This is a used horn. I don't have a Pay Pal account. Seems like a risky transaction. Unless the seller is a well known and respected member of this community. Under that condition, I might be comfortable to trust.

Any comments?
 
41 - 60 of 60 Posts
Top