Originally Posted by Ken Maltby
It appears to me, that Paypal is the only one who is disadvantaged in this case.
Ectaco was paid for the device, and, as far as we know, still has that.
Interesting: this information is nowhere to be found in all these postings.
How could it, as neither Ectaco nor PayPal contibuted to the thread.
As far as we know? I don't know and neither do you - all speculation and fantasies.
Is it the business model of PayPal to pay for all the transactions gone wrong? I don't think so.