Scammed by @Cloutsy

[BassTrackerBoats]

Please add the part here from their terms & service agreement that states I'm responsible if their gateway malfunctions

If you screw a BHW member, even if the issue was a technical one from one of your providers, you are responsible.

I know you'll continue to argue the point but we do not tolerate any members not getting what they paid for.

There is your terms & service agreement statement.

 

[INCC]

If you screw a BHW member, even if the issue was a technical one from one of your providers, you are responsible.

He said legally responsible.

There has not been such a case ever in the history of the internet where an online store needs to take responsibility for payment gateway errors.

In any such event, the seller should cooperate with the consumer to the best of their ability as this is ethical (I guess) and the consumer has the right to sue Paypal but there's no chance that some online store is held legally responsible for the payment gateway side problems.

Licenses to collect the payments are provided to the issuer and they need to do what's right. The end user pays for using their services, they are legally not responsible for how the gateway operates or any of their internal decisions/mistakes. Millions of regular people cannot be held responsible for Paypal's errors. They are on the receiving end of any lawsuit.

What is being discussed above is not related to the SL - I was correcting him on that legally responsible part.

 

[GringoMonkey]

I am not legally responsible for Paypal side technical errors. Nobody ever will be.

Please add the part here from their terms & service agreement that states I'm responsible if their gateway malfunctions

It is upto you to understand the terms you signed up for and applicable laws you are bound by as a merchant. I am just giving you a heads up, as you are not interested in what i am saying hire a lawyer if you dont understand the process. What you are arguing is mitigation.

 

[Chris Newman]

The seller should have taken their transaction ID and presented this to Coinbase support

May be in this case, the seller (Cloutsy) was (is) completely crypto illiterate, without even the basic knowledge of how crypto payments (transfers) work. It is a possibility. Or may be seller was (is) too much on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola (also a possibility).

 

[flprocess]

Yes, if the payment was debited from the customer and then got lost, legally you are now responsible. You have to make good to the customer and then you have to take it up with your payment processor. Same as if your payment processor refuses to pay you, same as if the product got lost in the post. Legally all on you. Welcome to running a legit business!

So if a guy walks into your store and says "I just lost €200 somewhere in your store", would you give him €200 from the register (or €200 in goods)?

 

[GringoMonkey]

So if a guy walks into your store and says "I just lost €200 somewhere in your store", would you give him €200 from the register (or €200 in goods)?

Neither. But if he bought 200 worth of goods from my store i am legally responsible to provide them. Even if my payment gateway lost the transaction. I then get the option to sue my payment gateway for the 200 they lost. But if that payment processor is paypal, then i agreed to indemnify them against anything more than the refund of paypal fees. So i would be out of pocket the difference.

 

[Gogol]

Neither. But if he bought 200 worth of goods from my store i am legally responsible to provide them.

I cannot refund a customer for a payment that I did not even receive.

Crypto is weird, but the transactions are transparent. It should be pretty simple. Get the tx id, see if it reached the address seller gave the customer during the communication. If it reached, it reached. If not, it is not seller’s fault. If it was seller’s fault, the whole e commerce industry will be exploited to death in a day.

Cloutsy could have dealt with this a little more intelligently. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding on both the sides. Can’t be sure.

 

[flprocess]

Neither. But if he bought 200 worth of goods from my store i am legally responsible to provide them. Even if my payment gateway lost the transaction. I then get the option to sue my payment gateway for the 200 they lost. But if that payment processor is paypal, then i agreed to indemnify them against anything more than the refund of paypal fees. So i would be out of pocket the difference.

Sorry bro but you are avoiding. Seller should not have any responsibility for the buyer losing his payment. The buyer is a client of coinbase as much as the seller.

The seller could and should help his customer I agree, but not refund or give service without actually receiving payment.

 

[INCC]

Neither. But if he bought 200 worth of goods from my store i am legally responsible to provide them. Even if my payment gateway lost the transaction. I then get the option to sue my payment gateway for the 200 they lost. But if that payment processor is paypal, then i agreed to indemnify them against anything more than the refund of paypal fees. So i would be out of pocket the difference.

This is a completely different situation.

If someone walks into your store and pays via CC and the terminal says Transaction Approved - Then yes you need to provide them the goods they paid you for.

If the terminal says "Transaction Denied" - Are you still giving them the goods?

Now if the terminal said Transaction Approved but later you figure out that you didn't receive the payment due to the gateway issue then you can sue them.

The same goes for the buyer. If the terminal says Transaction Denied but the money was taken from them THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE then the customer has also the right to sue the Gateway.

 

[Chris Newman]

But if that payment processor is paypal

Paypal is fun for buyers nowadays. Buyers can simply even raise a Paypal dispute claiming "The product I received is haunted by a ghost" or "The service I received is haunted by a ghost". And that's it, Paypal will resolve the dispute in favour of the buyer.
I cannot digest the fact that even in these days of wide spread education about Paypal, buyers are asking "I need an smm panel that accepts Paypal". That sounds quite funny to me. But, why does it sound funny to me ? Let me explain and let me educate gullible buyers about the TRUTH AND REALITY of how Paypal is NOWADAYS :-
Selling AND BUYING of counterfeit products & services, is against Paypal's T&Cs. SMM services are considered as a counterfeit service by Paypal, because (as per Paypal), SMM services often use bots / automation. So, it violates Paypal's T&C's. And for selling AND BUYING what Paypal considers as counterfeit, nowadays Paypal suspends the Paypal accounts of BOTH the seller AND THE BUYER.
Let buyers keep buying SMM services, etc, etc, etc using Paypal and when their Paypal accounts get suspended, they are clueless as to why it got suspended. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
DISCALIMER : What I have mentioned about Paypal's T&Cs are as per Paypal's T&Cs and NOT as per my whims & fancies. I have absolutely no control over Paypal's T&Cs. I do not own Paypal, nor does my dad own Paypal.

 

[FluffyStuff]

Neither. But if he bought 200 worth of goods from my store i am legally responsible to provide them. Even if my payment gateway lost the transaction. I then get the option to sue my payment gateway for the 200 they lost. But if that payment processor is paypal, then i agreed to indemnify them against anything more than the refund of paypal fees. So i would be out of pocket the difference.

I think you're misunderstanding. The customer did not purchase anything, he deposited via Coinbase which later the seller found out that they have not received it.

How can you refund to someone the money which you never received.

Customer said it was sent due to txid but seller did not see that deposit. Why none of them contact Coinbase is the really question.

 

[Gogol]

Why none of them contact Coinbase is the really question.

Exactly… I am puzzled by this as well. Makes me think the seller had some other mess here that we do not know about, and he decided that fck it, lol.


Ps.. Outta here guys and girls. There’s no point fighting over this. Ultimately, admin decisions stand. That’s how it works everywhere (you can debate here because the admins allow it. Try doing it on amazon for example).


Have a great xmas everyone.

 

[gavaryus]

I don't know how to feel about this one. I don't think he deserved to be banned imo. he should have just been put on the shit list until he resolved the case. I don't think he would ruin his brand for $20 I spent thousands with him and he delivered on his end. If I was in his shoes he should just take the L and give the customer a $20 credit. it's the cost of doing business.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

If I was in his shoes he should just take the L and give the customer a $20 credit. it's the cost of doing business.

Wisdom.

 

[K-One]

It’s sad and feel a bit bad for a seller if they get banned when they might rely heavily on a platform such as bhw to earn a living, especially in this case as a question of who’s liable and fault for a payment processing error is controversial.

That being said, I remember that this seller did get issued a ‘final warning’ some time ago by a mod. If there are so many SL claims against a member visible or not, it’s a clear indiciation to me that there’s some kind of problem in the way they’re running their business… operations, customer service and so on and it was just unlucky the straw that broke the camels back here was a controversial one. Not that folding your arms about the matter and huffing and puffing helped here.

The staff here have limited time and resources on their hands… personally I think if there is a problematic seller like this involved in multiple SLs over some duration for ‘borderline bannable offences’ but otherwise provide an ‘ok’ service (according to some anyway)… maybe it’s about time they started getting fines by bhw admin each time it’s beyond reasonable doubt fault and liability is there’s as a penalty for the time and resources taken for staff to constantly handle their stuff. I imagine that might keep them on their toes a little better esp when they obviously want to keep their account but are bickering over $20.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

Those of you that think this was a bad move... do you really think that this is who we want to be providing services or products to our members?

 

[Lipstick Spoiler]

Those of you that think this was a bad move... do you really think that this is who we want to be providing services or products to our members?

how many warning points in total before we get banned?

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

how many warning points in total before we get banned?

At least that many.

 

[INCC]

Those of you that think this was a bad move... do you really think that this is who we want to be providing services or products to our members?

Off-topic but how are those no-tier shitlist warnings generally handled?

I have a few despite never losing an SL thread:

• Someone added their home address to a press release by mistake - The PR went out with their address, they opened SL that got closed as it was their mistake.
• Seller here faked screens that I have withdrawn some funds from their SMM panel - Got caught, shit list closed. (surprised they didn't get banned for extortion)
• Buyer requested a refund for a service that they thought wasn't fit - The mods sided with me but a complementary partial refund of 25% was in order. Actually, the buyer had a fake claim and did this to another seller here and finally, he got banned himself.

Asking because I saw earlier that Cloutsy had many that never went public. I have those tiers under my account too.. If the SL is up and the accuser ends up losing the shitlist then the warnings are still under the seller's profile despite their name being cleaned in the SL thread.

 

[nirajjoshi]

I am curious about the situation if it was $2000 instead of $20.

Should the seller just refund $2000 or mods would do deep investigation in such situations.

I think the best bet is to use a payment system that protects both sellers and customers. I wouldn't trust crypto based payment system anytime soon.