Dells July

Here are some more information for Dells July:

Ebay and Paypal Settled For Millions For Deception But Continue to Deceive the Public

Complaint against: Defendents, Ebay, inc, corporate location: 2145 Hamilton ave San Jose, California, 95125; Paypal, Corporate location: Ebay park north, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, Ca, 95131 was filed in the United States District Court. For Violation under:
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1-7 ETC... This court also has jurisdiction under 28 USC Section 1343(a)(1),42 UCS Section 1985(3).

complaint
"FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES"

1. On or about May 15, 2009, after December 14, 2008 time for filing certification and claim form had expired, the plaintiff , Joseph W. Higgins, had applied for a Paypal account and a Ebay account for the purpose of selling products on Ebay auction site. The plaintiff open the account under a email address. Contract agreement was accepted. The plaintiff is a affiliate member of linkshare.com, and promotes products for ShopNBC and Tigerdirect. .

2. Both Paypal and Ebay, required that the plaintiff provide his social security number as a requirement to participate on there auction site program. Status verified.

3. Once this was provided, only then was plaintiff allowed to list products on Ebay auction site. The plaintiff's social security number was being used to identify the plaintiff's account and transfer money from the buyer's account to Ebay and Paypal's account upon purchase of products listed.

4. Under this email address, , the plaintiff had numerous amounts of bidders, about 40 who bidded on the plaintiff's products but never met the reserve except for one. On mostly all these bids, the starting prices were starting at 0.99 cents. But the reserve prices were 5 hundred, 8 hundred, one thousand and more. .

5. The plaintiff needed the mark up on the auction block to meet the fees required of Ebay and Paypal once the products are sold. But on the website no mark ups were being used.

6. When the time for auction of the plaintiff's listing expired, Ebay site offered a buy it now button, that should of allowed the customers to see the reserve price and meet it. But what this button did was offer all the plaintiff's products to be brought at the starting prices.

7. So now the plaintiff had 40 or more people, rushing to purchase the plaintiff's thousand dollar items, his 8 hundred dollar items and his 5 hundred dollar items for 099 cent.

8. Only one person was honest enough to purchase the plaintiffs's product at the correct reserve price. This is the person who left a positive feedback on plaintiff's Ebay account.

9. The plaintiff filed with Ebay, a complaint addressing this button. Both Ebay and Paypal address the issue by closing the plaintiff's account, and providing the plaintiff with a debt of $700.00. Every single customer was refunded there money back that tried to purchase the product below the reserve price. The plaintiff only received proceeds from one customer on a item that was $258.00. The plaintiff was only with that account for two weeks. Clearly, the plaintiff did not owe Ebay, $700.00. Both Ebay and Paypal attempted to debt the plaintiff's bank account for the funds without consent.

10. Both Ebay and Paypal, useing my email address and social security number, placed this debt in the plaintiff's Paypal account, blocking the plaintiff from useing this account on any other transaction outside Ebay. Paypal, is a company who places themselves as the only money transfer system on mostly all website where people seek to make a living.

11. Months later, the plaintiff applys with paypal again under a new email address.

12. At this time, the plaintiff was given a choice, as to provide either a social security number or a bank account information inorder to be verified. The plaintiff choose to provide a bank account information, not social security number.

13. At this same time, the plaintiff applied with Ebay again also, and they provided a choice whether to use paypal or direct deposit. The plaintiff choose to use direct deposit not paypal to transact business with the customers.

14. Under the screen name joestore2 on Ebay account, On October 12, 2009, the plaintiff had 319 bids from 319 customers all across the United States, after entering into a contract once again with Ebay. This contract agreement entrusted the plaintiff to sell his products on Ebay. And in every description, the plaintiff offered lower price then the reserve bid for that same item if the customers are willing to purchase said items on joehigginsstore

15. On October 12, 2009, some of the customers have either met the reserve price or was expected to meet the reserve prices when Ebay and Paypal both closed down both accounts, demanding the plaintiff provide his social security number. Both Ebay and Paypal blocked transaction from further being made. Then charged this plaintiff's bank account $199.99. According to there sellers policy, a relist of products never sold, is not required to owe fees if the seller relist the products. This plaintiff was not allow to continue in there program at all. A complaint was made with both companies again. They both avoided the complaint and continued to demand a social security number. In Steele, both Ebay, paypal and the plaintiffs agreed in a million dollar settlement that credit card information was sufficent to transact business with them. But there deception continues.

In Steele et al. V. Paypal, Inc and Ebay, Inc, Civil Action No: 1:05-CV-01720, the defendents are settleing for 3. 5 million dollars for deceptive behavior on the buyers point of view.
In March 2005, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in New York state court on behalf of themselves and the Class. The lawsuit alleges claims against PayPal and eBay arising out of representations contained in certain provisions of the PayPal User Agreement regarding PayPal's policies and practices for responding to refund requests (or "Buyer Complaints") from those customers who pay for transactions through PayPal using funds from sources other than a credit card. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that PayPal's policies and practices constitute deceptive trade practices, fraudulent inducement and misrepresentations, and breach of the PayPal User Agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Essex, a company that sold goods through eBay, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about Essex's goods and services.

On July 24, 2008, Judge Glasser entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement and certifying the following "Class" for purposes of the Settlement: all U.S. based PayPal account holders who funded a PayPal transaction after February 1, 2004, using a source other than a credit card: (i) who subsequently requested a reversal of the transaction through PayPal's prevailing Buyer Complaint Policy and/or Buyer Protection Policy (collectively, "Policies"); (ii) who did not receive a refund equal to 100% of their transaction payment in response to such request from PayPal or their bank; and (iii) who, through the timely submission of a Claim Form under oath, attest to a reasonable and good faith belief that they would have received a full reversal of such payment had they used a valid credit card in their possession at the time of the subject transaction to fund the payment and filed a timely chargeback request with their credit card issuing bank.

On April 30, 2009, Judge Glasser entered an order granting final approval and modified the class definition. The class as modified includes: All U.S. based PayPal account holders who funded a PayPal transaction after February 1, 2004, using a source other than a credit card: (i) who subsequently requested a reversal of the transaction through PayPal's prevailing Buyer Complaint Policy and/or Buyer Protection Policy (collectively, "Policies"); and (ii) who did not receive a refund equal to 100% of their transaction payment in response to such request from PayPal or their bank.

Steele et al. V. Paypal, Inc and Ebay, Inc, Civil Action No: 1:05-CV-01720; and Joseph Higgins, Vs. Paypal,etal, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 8B,HON. I LEO GLASSER, Presiding.

About the Author

Founded in 2006, Higgins' electronics store is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company that specializes in gateway to top ranked shopping websites. With more than 3 million Preferred Customers and 180,000 Distributors and UnFranchise� Business Owners worldwide, Higgins' electronics store is contributing to over $2.5 billion USD in accumulated retail sales. In that time, individuals have earned over $1.6 billion USD in commissions and estimated retail profits. Headquartered in Newark Nj, , the company employs over 100 people globally with international operations in the United States, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Through gateway of many electronic products, Higgins' electronics store combines the Internet with the power of people, creating the ultimate online destination. As a result, we have revolutionized a brand-new industry, setting a standard by which all other businesses are measured: Built on Product. Powered by People. Please visit www.joehigginsstore.com

I bought a Dell Laptop at BEST BUY I was to get an upgrade of the new win7/or Vista. That was July. nothing!?

Do I contact Dell or Best Buy? That was a few months before the new version was to be out.
That time came & went and I still do not have any info on it.

You will have to sign up at the Dell's Windows 7 Upgrade Program: https://win7.dell.com/

Tea party to be held here
The organizers associated with the national tea parties are hosting a summit in Wisconsin Dells next month that is expected to draw 3,000 to 5,000 people.

Thanks for visiting!