I can't see why anyone should subsidize the credit card companies like this.
Paying their way is convenient but costs more (at least it did) and an
informed consumer should be able to choose what he/she wants: convenience or
Ditto Paypal. As a buyer I have no objection to splitting the fee with the
seller. We both benefit: the payment is more convenient, faster, surer and
has a "paper trail" (there's a historical phrase). But I'd like the fee and
the split to be public and above board.
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:09:56 -0700
> From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
> I was informed by EB*AY that it is against the law to do that with credit
> card fees (before or after the fact) but am not sure what their position is
> with PayPal fees. Asking for it after the fact is a bad practice and they
> should be told "no".
>> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of IanG
>> I've been getting the opposite where I've paid by Paypal and subsequently
>> received an email from the vendor requesting an additional 2 or 3% to cover
>> Paypal charges - although they had not stipulated this in the listing.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >