Interesting here. If you didn't email the seller, and won the item, paid by b/deposit. Do you think the seller will refund the extra fee?
If the answer is no, I see no reason for one to blame ebay and not the seller. If the answer is yes, then at least there is work around. You can still blame ebay, if that is a worthy effort.
Actually no, I don't think the seller would have automatically refunded it, and still, I will blame Ebay for creating this type of culture that didn't previously exist....... where sellers have to add costs on here and there to recoup fees on a payment system they don't choose or wish to pay for.
Hands up any sellers here who wish to pay for the buyers use of Paypal, and/or....... how many actually prefer to be payed by Bank Deposit costing neither party a cent?
If Paypal were not a mandatory option that same seller would have the right to refuse Paypal....unless the buyer were willing to pay the fee. If Ebay hadn't lobbied the RBA heavily to disallow traders from passing those fees on...then the same seller could list that as an added fee in the listing without fear of being punitively sanctioned.
Low...why do you think the ACCC disallowed Ebay from imposing 'Paypal Only'????......Because it was considered to be anti competitive in the EFT marketplace, and thereby in breach of TPA for exclusive dealing. Do you think for a second that Ebay didn't already know that it was in breach of TPA before they even proposed it?....try anything.....They managed to get Mandatory Paypal Option past ACCC, but then it came to light that they were deterring other payment methods via site propaganda and the checkout system itself......
That got the attention of RBA and Payment Systems board for several reasons...one was associated with being anti competitive, and the other was associated with Paypal's refusal to allow traders to pass costs onto consumers?......
The way competition works is that each product competes on its own merit....and consumers decide which one meets their needs.......
The way Ebay has this all set up, Paypal doesn't have to compete....the cost of using their service cannot be passed onto the consumer, so it has the appearance to buyers that they are getting it for free, when in fact, it's being funded by the seller. If traders were allowed to pass on the cost of Paypal to consumers as other payment method costs can be passed on.....then Paypal would have to improve its buyer protection to make the fee worthwhile for the consumer to choose it over other payment methods....all healthy in the world of competition...under those circumstances, a listing might look like this:
PAYMENT OPTIONS:
Cash on Pick up: Free
Bank Deposit : Free
Money Order: $3.00 paid by consumer to AP
Personal Cheque: Free (shipped on clearance - bank fee?)
Paymate: (Whatever fee they charge to transfer funds)
Paypal: ( Percentage of final price and postage).
Merchant Facility: (whatever fee charged by bank to trader).
As you can see, the payment products then compete on their own merit and cost, and the seller is able to be up front about the costs from the outset. The buyer chooses the payment system that suits them according to the advantages offered by that payment system. I always pay registration on my purchases...and that's my choice as a consumer...I want the extra protection, so I pay the extra fee.....same should apply to Paypal...if you want to swallow their rubbish about buyer protection, then the buyer should pay the fee for that fallacy....
Ebay create the culture of deception because sellers are not allowed to pass Paypal costs onto consumers openly...... prior to the Paypal Push, sellers were free to offer whatever payment system they liked, and refuse any they didn't like.....A LOT has changed.