Class Action Lawsuit Against Paypal

You've yet to defeat any of the legal points raised. I've provided facts - you've provided nothing. What's your qualification?

 

Wrong. It is not a trust, it is a contract.

They are not Trustees, nor are they liable to pay you money. They are required to pay you per the terms of the contract. That includes fees and limitations on how you may use their service. These are terms that you must agree to before using Paypal.

They have the right to investigate and freeze money per the terms of the contract.

Not if that is not part of the contract.

Paypal offers services where you can make interest on the balance in your account. If you contract with them for that, then you are entitled to that interest. If you don't contract to be paid interest on the money you place in your paypal account, they don't owe you shit.

That is patently absurd. That is how banks work. They hold you money and invest it. You are not entitled to the money the bank makes, you are entitled to your money and interest you contract for.

In short, you boast about how your "legal" argument defeats everything. You did not cite any legal authority. You made numerous incorrect assumptions. Yeah, all in all, you are embarrassing yourself.

What law prevents them from making interest on the money?
What law says that can't investigate the source of the funds in your account?
What law says they don't have the right to freeze money that was fraudulently sent to your account?

You can have the opinion that Paypal is a scam and a fraud, but to come here and tell everyone else how legally you are right and they are wrong is absurd. You have cited nothing of relevant authority. You cite things like human rights generally as though this contract has any relevant nexus to those laws.

 

They have your permission though when you sign up and agree to their Terms Of Service.

For a law student you seem awfully unaware of basic law.

You have got to be kidding us all. Again..I wonder if you're just satire. You can't be serious with that statement. How many years you been in law school now? Thirty? When you pass your bar exam let me know...I should be around 100 years old.

 

Wrong. It is not a trust, it is a contract.
Wrong. There is a contract but there is also a bare trust. The two can co-exist. You have a very 2-dimensional picture of the law.

They are not Trustees, nor are they liable to pay you money. They are required to pay you per the terms of the contract. That includes fees and limitations on how you may use their service. These are terms that you must agree to before using Paypal.
Yes, they are trustees. The terms of the contract are illegal so ineffective - see the Unfair Contract Terms Act mentioned above (hmmm...sounds like authority to me). Also, read up on the fiduciary duties of trustees.

They have the right to investigate and freeze money per the terms of the contract.
They don't have the right to investigate as has been pointed out previously. Check out article 6 (sounds like more authority...) They are trustees, not a tribunal. This term might be part of the contract but it's still unlawful.

Not if that is not part of the contract.
Incorrect. PayPal are trustees. Again read up on the duties of trustees.

That is patently absurd. That is how banks work. They hold you money and invest it. You are not entitled to the money the bank makes, you are entitled to your money and interest you contract for.
No this isn't absurb. You are showing you don't have a clue and are speculating from a webmaster's perspective. From a legal perspective banks are regulated, PayPal are not. This is much more than a contract, and I suggest you do some reading to that effect.

In direct answer to your Q's, PayPal are prevented from making money by the laws of trust, they are prevented from making a decision on your civil rights (DON'T read 'civil rights' as the same as civil liberties - I think you Americans use this phrase differently). Again trust law says they have no input into the handling of the money, although this also comes within the Unfair Contract Terms Act provisions.

You are also completely ignorant to the European Convention on Human Rights. It isn't 'human rights' generally. It's a very specific set of legal provisions.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I qualified as a solicitor four years ago and have worked within the commercial trusts team of a multinational law firm since that date. And you?

 

If PP's actions are so patently flawed and in breach of such basic underlying provisions, then why are you not contesting their actions in a court of law instead of attempting to assert your perceived authority on the matter with a bunch of rag-tag-and-bobtail webmasters on here?

 

I'm not here to assert anything on anyone. I was adding my point to the debate which was then ridiculed by 'webmasters' who clearly think they know more about the law for whatever reason.

I'm not challenging PayPal because I'm not having problems with them presently. I have had in the past and managed to work things out. However at a fundamental level they are still doing wrong.

I'm not moaning, I don't have a personal vendetta against PP - just proving a point against those that think they know better and have gone out of their way to criticize these perfectly valid legal points.

@Wisdomtool What area of law do you specialise in? Obviously nothing commercial.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with being a webmaster. Hey - I'm on this forum too, right?

I'm not 100% sure, but I think PayPal make a loss every year on the P/L.

You answer yourself very well. I'm not here to put anyone down or to get involved in an argument and I'm certainly prepared to listen to other points of view. But when others try to make you look like a fool in your specialism when they in fact have no knowledge (not necessarily you), you need to defend your corner.

 

PayPal seemed to be an obvious target for EBay and I'm not surprised if they're doing well. There's obvious synergy there, but I'm not sure if the same could be said for Skype.

The problem they need to start addressing now is the terrible PR and ill-feeling they've built up over the last 10 years or so. They've alienated a lot of people, not all of them 'scammers'. Of course, PP might not care too much because it's so widely used that you can't really get by without them...

There are also the body of supporters for PP, a.k.a. those that have never had any problems in the past. Believe me, I too like certain things about PP. But when your account gets jacked (and whatever is said, there are plenty of people sharing experiences of non-specific, no-appeal account restrictions) and you can't withdraw your money for six months, I'm sure anyone would change their point of view.

 

When you say that terms of the contract are illegal you should be able to point to the specific term, paragraph or section. You should then point to the law that makes that section illegal. Merely saying the contract is illegel and citing an entire code section is worthless. How can anyone evaluate your contentions.

As I said before you are free to your opinion. You came in to this thread with an attitude that you knew better than everyone what the law allows. You then made numerous unsupported claims. You still have not identified a single sentence in the TOS that you think it illegal and why? If it is so clear and obvious, why are you not doing that?

Perhaps our different view comes from looking at the different laws in our jurisdictions. But regardless, you have cited no provision of the TOS that you claim is illegal and other then a general reference, have not cited any law that applies.

I am licensed to practice law in all US Federal Courts.

 

Flawfull, it may be but Paypal sure is the number one payment processer around. If not for Paypal, I'm sure many webmasters, especially those in Latin American, Africa, Asia and Australia, would find it very tough to transact online.

I read through PayPal's TOS just a few minutes back and have not found anything illegal with the TOS. I'm sure if there has been something which is illegal in the TOS someone would have taken them to court by now, thereby forcing them to change their TOS and make sure it is within the law.

Further, If Paypal has been blatantly scamming people, I'm sure they would be no where as popular, as they are at the moment.

Disclosure : Being an MBA in finance, my knowledge of international law is limited.

 

After reading so many posts, it has come to my conclusion that there is a particular group of people, they could be hired my paypal, a group of online marketers to spread good words of Paypal. Just in this very post, it seems like there are quite a couple of these people praising the good services of paypal. Notice their posts are somehow too fake for for a real person speaking from his heart.

 

Maybe there is a group of people out their hired by Paypal's competitors to spread bad words about Paypal?

 

I can recommend, I feel that the best way is still to try to negotiate on a win win basis with Ebay and Paypal, they are listed companies and aren't unreasonable, they have rules to follow.

 

i think you do something wrong. i never got limited before too. maybe u wanna investigate what make the limit you?

 

My Paypal account was limited twice two years ago due to someone have gained access to my account without permission, because my password is too short which the hackers have used. I have no problem on submitting my documents like our latest electric bill scanned and a valid ID which I sent it both to them. As a result, my Paypal is back to normal. As of today, I am happy with Paypal and having no problems with any transactions and withdrawals I have.