83 ms·

PayPal told customer her death breached its rules

188 points by adzicg 8y ago

hayksaakian 8y ago
My best guess is this is a "cover our asses" (literally) template not intended to be read by the recipient. Maybe their target reader is people who fake their deaths?
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Sounds plausible, but it is surprising this special case handling would be automated.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Most likely reason is that they automated the automation of these issues. They always will need a row in DB for these cases, and their automation of automation probably doesn't distinguish this very special case.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
      Premature automation ought to be the root of all evil instead.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        I'm not sure it was premature, or at least I'm not sure if anything that has been said here implies that it was premature. Perhaps they have thousands of these letters and it would be too much of a hassle to pick out the several hundreds that are edge cases.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    It's not a special case. Every one of your customers will die. If you test account creation, try testing this.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It’s not a special case Indeed it’s not: “Dead Facebook users will soon outnumber the living” https://www.theloop.ca/dead-facebook-users-will-soon-outnumber-the-living/ https://www.theloop.ca/dead-facebook-users-will-soon-outnumb...
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        I beat them to that by a considerable amount of time: https://jacquesmattheij.com/deadbook-the-long-term-facebook/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/deadbook-the-long-term-facebook/
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        And by "soon" they mean 47 years from now. I wonder what they consider "long term."
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      > Every one of your customers will die. "Corporations are people, my friend". Undead people, I'll add, who do not have an upper limit for age, and might as well be immortal.
      - amyjess 8y ago
        And at the rate mergers and acquisitions are going, in the end there may very well only be one.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        Starzelius Verily?
      - 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
        GE just died (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/ge-ceo-john-flannery-im-very-comfortable-now-with-whats-going-on-in.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/ge-ceo-john-flannery-im-very...)
- coryfklein 8y ago
  > "cover our asses" (literally) Don't you mean, "figuratively"? Or are you implying that there is some dude at PayPal that is using this legal template as undergarments?
  - bredren 8y ago
    This is paypal. It is possible.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    I think the charitable interpretation is that a manager said the literal words "cover our asses" when setting this up. Or possibly the GP meant "exists for literally no other reason than "cover our asses"".
    - hayksaakian 8y ago
      Sorry, I meant it it's literally a letter that was not intended to be read by anyone.
  - miles 8y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
  - jacobush 8y ago
    That use case seems much more apt, though.
walrus01 8y ago
In the United States private debt collectors will attempt to get bereaved family members of a recently dead person to begin payment on the deceased person's debt, with social engineering tactics. When the appropriate legal response is: "NAME is deceased, here is the contact info the for executor of the estate".
- SamuelAdams 8y ago
  I've never understood this behavior. How is this not considered harassment?
  - cremp 8y ago
    Because debt collectors have literal exceptions to harassment laws.
    - djsumdog 8y ago
      I hate debt collectors as much as anyone, but they do have quite a few rules. Most jurisdictions have times during which you can call someone (collects need to be sure to adjust for the destination timezone; since they might not realize they're called at 6am if they're on a different coast). In Australia (if they show Tricky Business is at all realistic), Mercantile agents can't present you with a notice in front of other people and must serve you in person (similar to a legal summons in the US). So there are _some_ regulations in place.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      In the US at least, you can serve debt collectors notice that they must cease all future communications with you, and if they disregard that, the FTC can and will go after them. I'd recommend reading the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-...
  - yebyen 8y ago
    It's not outlandish to think that if, say, your parent bought a vehicle for you to use, and they held the <strike>title</strike> title documentation and lien note... while they were making payments on it on your behalf, and you were driving or in possession of the car when they died, that it follows logically that you should simply assume that debt and maintain an uninterrupted record of payments in order to be able to continue uninterrupted use of the car. Stretch that example to "a car that was bought with a credit card" and you can see how this could be a legitimate effort. I don't know how that plays out legally, but I assume there's not any legal option where the debt simply goes unpaid by the estate and by you, and the car is not legally meant to be repossessed. You may not have known that the car you are driving is not paid in full. Large assets can be repo'ed if the account that paid for them is in arrears. This is not necessarily going to happen right away, the estate may have accounted for this already, there are plenty of reasons why this contact is bogus, but it could also be possibly in your interest to follow up with payments in certain cases. (Fight me?) You could give the car back to the estate (probably the right answer?), or argue that it was a gift, and the estate should pay for it, but I don't know if either of those arguments will actually get you anywhere / prevent the car from being repossessed. You might have documentation that it was a gift, but there's also a lien on the title. Your gift might have been smaller than a car, there's no title, and you might not have any documentation of the gift. (I'm not sure if it matters that you can prove it was meant to be a gift.) It's probably not considered harassment or illegitimate on about the same basis that you can be newly considered responsible for your own debts that are "past the statute of limitations" that you have started payments on again, even if your last contact was some time after the statute of limitations had already expired. At that point the debt collectors can continue contacting you, but the collection efforts must include language that explains the fact that you can't be sued for these debts. Well, what they don't explain is that by making a payment, you could be resetting the statute of limitations and newly assuming responsibility for the whole debt, with a brand new expiry date. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but this is my understanding of why you "just don't answer those letters.") You wouldn't have started making payments if you didn't feel that you ought to be responsible for the debt, "QED." Not saying it's fair or right, but there are cases where that's what the law assumes and approximately why it is so. There are also a lot of things that collectors can do, that would easily be considered harassment if you simply asked them to stop (and then they persisted anyway). People don't always ask, or know that they should ask. Especially if they don't want to pay! (Whether or not responsible, it rightfully makes people go on the defensive to receive a contact from a bill collector.) I'm getting downvoted but nobody is telling me if I've said something incorrect. That "disagree" button...
coldtea 8y ago
How did she took it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sizzzzlerz 8y ago
  She rolled over
walrus01 8y ago
This email would not have been totally abnormal from a legal perspective, if the first person references and grammar were changed to third person, and it was addressed to an estate executor rather than directly to the deceased. Credit card companies and similar will do the same.
lainga 8y ago
What does section 15.4(c) of the Paypal Credit agreement say?
- astura 8y ago
  Won't let me see it without logging in: https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/legalhub-full?locale.x=en_GB https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/legalhub-full?local... My PayPal account is American, so I didn't try to login and read it. EDIT: Yep, redirects me the the US credit card agreement when I login.
- matthewheath 8y ago
  I tried to look at it for you, but because I don't have an existing PayPal Credit agreement with them, they won't let me view it. :-(
- ilarum 8y ago
  This is 15.4 (c) of the Paypal Credit agreement - "We may close the Credit Account and demand repayment of the full amount you owe us if you die or become of unsound mind"
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    "demand [...] if you die" I'm sure it will be very fruitful to make such a demand.
    - coryfklein 8y ago
      If the customer's estate has enough assets to pay the balance then the demand will be fruitful.
- disord3r 8y ago
  It's not unreasonable for a company to ask for repayment of outstanding debt upon death. Your outstanding mortgage balance, auto loan, credit card balances, etc., don't magically become discharged upon your death. Those matters are normally handled by one's estate. To say that it's a breach of agreement is inaccurate. You agree to repay those on death, so it would only be a breach of agreement if your estate attempts to avoid payment. For that reason, the letter definitely was insensitive as there's no reason to call her out for not fulfilling her agreement, unless maybe her estate is valueless and they are unable to collect?
astura 8y ago
Title is borderline a little clickbaity. There's not a ton of information but from what I gather it seems like the following happened: She had a PayPal credit card or some other form of revolving account with PayPal (the letter references to "PayPal Credit" agreement) with a balance of just over £3,000. Dead people can't legally hold credit cards so she "breached" her credit card agreement by dying - that is, an action on her part made the agreement no longer valid. This caused PayPal to close the revolving credit line and the balance to be due in full. As I understand it her estate would be legally required to pay the balance if it had the funds to do so. (99.9% sure - correct me if I'm wrong) The letter was sent informing her of the above. So seems like the letter was "technically correct" (the best kind of correct!) but horribly insensitive to the point of basically being straight up cruel. The other mistake is it should have been addressed to the executor of her estate instead of her personally. EDIT: Here's the UK version of "PayPal Credit": https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-virtual-credit https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-virtual-credit Looks like it's a revolving account without a physical card.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > Title is borderline a little clickbaity What? It's literally what the letter they sent to the dead customer says. > PayPal told customer her death breached its rules > You are breach in [rule] because ... you are deceased
  - astura 8y ago
    To me it makes it seem much more outrageous than it is. The letter is absolutely terrible, horribly insensitive, cruel, and should have never been sent. However, like I said, it seems "technically correct" with the information we are given.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > Dead people can't legally hold credit cards so she "breached" her credit card agreement by dying No it is not technically correct. Death is not a breach of contract in UK law. It causes the contract to end.
DeepYogurt 8y ago
I bet the customer didn't mind.
psycombi 8y ago
I always see Paypal's negative stories on Ycombinator and only positive stories of Square & Stripe. Let's not be an unnecessary devil's advocate or a cheerleader!
- chris_wot 8y ago
  Have Square or Stripe addressed letters of demand to dead people?
- captain_perl 8y ago
  Excuse me, but Paypal is not a regulated bank in the USA, and they routinely hold customer account money for 6 months. Additionally, periodically they purge entire business categories by locking accounts until you can prove you're not violating their terms of service du jour. The complaints about Paypal are justified.
  - ythn 8y ago
    You can say that about anything. Pick a technology/company you like and I'll write an "excuse me, but" piece that "justifiably" criticizes it.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Can you think of any good thing about paypal beyond user experience? I am open to suggestions, but I don't know of anything.
    - Avamander 8y ago
      So everything sucks, so what? Are we not allowed to complain?
- psycombi 8y ago
  Paypal is too big compared to Square & Stripe combined.Also as per my knowledge, in the case of holding money, it depends on case by case basis. I am extensively using Paypal in my day to day online purchases and i never had any issues. If they are holding money it may be bcoz of some risk associated with that account. Call customer care and your issue will be resolved.
parliament32 8y ago
Although it's insensitive, it makes sense from a legal perspective. IANAL, but I imagine it's something like: 1. paypal receives notice she's deceased, so they have to collect the remaining balance 2. the creditor must notify the client (hence the letter being addressed to her) of their account being closed, and that the full amount is due 3. the creditor must specify a reason for terminating the account, hence the "see section X of the agreement that says you have to be alive to hold an account", "...you are deceased"
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >it makes sense from a legal perspective No it doesn't. This is the work of a second rate player on paypal's legal team. You do not address letters to dead people. You address letters to their estate or if you know who the individual is, the executor of the estate in respect of their estate. You do not say someone breached a contract when in fact you're exercising a right to wind up the account triggered by death. Either one of these errors is an annoying mistake. Both of them together is a fairly large fuck-up. Lawyers put a LOT of work into drafting the right tone into their correspondence. Estates law isn't particularly esoteric, either, but most in-house counsel practice corporate law, primarily, so it's probably just a case of a few corporate guys going "It looks okay, I guess" when proofing the template and not firing off a quick call to their pal that works in estates to review the deceased creditor notice.
  - parliament32 8y ago
    I'm just saying it sounds like legal CYA. Consider [1] defines "you" in the agreement as "The person who applied for this Account and agrees to this Agreement." Further down, section 12 specifies that the account automatically moves to a "in default" state if you "Pass away or become incompetent;" Considering that "you" needs to be notified when their account goes into default, does "you" automatically become "the estate"? Is "the estate" the one who "applied for this Account and agrees to this Agreement"? Can an estate agree to anything? Is it possible a deceased person would be able to get off the hook for this kind of debt is the agreement isn't followed to the letter by the creditor? [1] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/bmlterms#accountAgreement https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/bmlterms#accountAgreem...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

188 points by adzicg 8y ago

My best guess is this is a "cover our asses" (literally) template not intended to be read by the recipient. Maybe their target reader is people who fake their deaths?

SiempreViernes 8y ago
Sounds plausible, but it is surprising this special case handling would be automated.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Most likely reason is that they automated the automation of these issues. They always will need a row in DB for these cases, and their automation of automation probably doesn't distinguish this very special case.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
    Premature automation ought to be the root of all evil instead.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      I'm not sure it was premature, or at least I'm not sure if anything that has been said here implies that it was premature. Perhaps they have thousands of these letters and it would be too much of a hassle to pick out the several hundreds that are edge cases.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  It's not a special case. Every one of your customers will die. If you test account creation, try testing this.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It’s not a special case Indeed it’s not: “Dead Facebook users will soon outnumber the living” https://www.theloop.ca/dead-facebook-users-will-soon-outnumber-the-living/ https://www.theloop.ca/dead-facebook-users-will-soon-outnumb...
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      I beat them to that by a considerable amount of time: https://jacquesmattheij.com/deadbook-the-long-term-facebook/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/deadbook-the-long-term-facebook/
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      And by "soon" they mean 47 years from now. I wonder what they consider "long term."
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > Every one of your customers will die. "Corporations are people, my friend". Undead people, I'll add, who do not have an upper limit for age, and might as well be immortal.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      And at the rate mergers and acquisitions are going, in the end there may very well only be one.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        Starzelius Verily?
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
      GE just died (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/ge-ceo-john-flannery-im-very-comfortable-now-with-whats-going-on-in.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/ge-ceo-john-flannery-im-very...)
coryfklein 8y ago
> "cover our asses" (literally) Don't you mean, "figuratively"? Or are you implying that there is some dude at PayPal that is using this legal template as undergarments?
- bredren 8y ago
  This is paypal. It is possible.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  I think the charitable interpretation is that a manager said the literal words "cover our asses" when setting this up. Or possibly the GP meant "exists for literally no other reason than "cover our asses"".
  - hayksaakian 8y ago
    Sorry, I meant it it's literally a letter that was not intended to be read by anyone.
- miles 8y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
- jacobush 8y ago
  That use case seems much more apt, though.

walrus01 8y ago

In the United States private debt collectors will attempt to get bereaved family members of a recently dead person to begin payment on the deceased person's debt, with social engineering tactics. When the appropriate legal response is: "NAME is deceased, here is the contact info the for executor of the estate".

SamuelAdams 8y ago
I've never understood this behavior. How is this not considered harassment?
- cremp 8y ago
  Because debt collectors have literal exceptions to harassment laws.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    I hate debt collectors as much as anyone, but they do have quite a few rules. Most jurisdictions have times during which you can call someone (collects need to be sure to adjust for the destination timezone; since they might not realize they're called at 6am if they're on a different coast). In Australia (if they show Tricky Business is at all realistic), Mercantile agents can't present you with a notice in front of other people and must serve you in person (similar to a legal summons in the US). So there are _some_ regulations in place.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    In the US at least, you can serve debt collectors notice that they must cease all future communications with you, and if they disregard that, the FTC can and will go after them. I'd recommend reading the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-...
- yebyen 8y ago
  It's not outlandish to think that if, say, your parent bought a vehicle for you to use, and they held the <strike>title</strike> title documentation and lien note... while they were making payments on it on your behalf, and you were driving or in possession of the car when they died, that it follows logically that you should simply assume that debt and maintain an uninterrupted record of payments in order to be able to continue uninterrupted use of the car. Stretch that example to "a car that was bought with a credit card" and you can see how this could be a legitimate effort. I don't know how that plays out legally, but I assume there's not any legal option where the debt simply goes unpaid by the estate and by you, and the car is not legally meant to be repossessed. You may not have known that the car you are driving is not paid in full. Large assets can be repo'ed if the account that paid for them is in arrears. This is not necessarily going to happen right away, the estate may have accounted for this already, there are plenty of reasons why this contact is bogus, but it could also be possibly in your interest to follow up with payments in certain cases. (Fight me?) You could give the car back to the estate (probably the right answer?), or argue that it was a gift, and the estate should pay for it, but I don't know if either of those arguments will actually get you anywhere / prevent the car from being repossessed. You might have documentation that it was a gift, but there's also a lien on the title. Your gift might have been smaller than a car, there's no title, and you might not have any documentation of the gift. (I'm not sure if it matters that you can prove it was meant to be a gift.) It's probably not considered harassment or illegitimate on about the same basis that you can be newly considered responsible for your own debts that are "past the statute of limitations" that you have started payments on again, even if your last contact was some time after the statute of limitations had already expired. At that point the debt collectors can continue contacting you, but the collection efforts must include language that explains the fact that you can't be sued for these debts. Well, what they don't explain is that by making a payment, you could be resetting the statute of limitations and newly assuming responsibility for the whole debt, with a brand new expiry date. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but this is my understanding of why you "just don't answer those letters.") You wouldn't have started making payments if you didn't feel that you ought to be responsible for the debt, "QED." Not saying it's fair or right, but there are cases where that's what the law assumes and approximately why it is so. There are also a lot of things that collectors can do, that would easily be considered harassment if you simply asked them to stop (and then they persisted anyway). People don't always ask, or know that they should ask. Especially if they don't want to pay! (Whether or not responsible, it rightfully makes people go on the defensive to receive a contact from a bill collector.) I'm getting downvoted but nobody is telling me if I've said something incorrect. That "disagree" button...

coldtea 8y ago

How did she took it?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sizzzzlerz 8y ago
She rolled over

walrus01 8y ago

This email would not have been totally abnormal from a legal perspective, if the first person references and grammar were changed to third person, and it was addressed to an estate executor rather than directly to the deceased. Credit card companies and similar will do the same.

lainga 8y ago

What does section 15.4(c) of the Paypal Credit agreement say?

astura 8y ago
Won't let me see it without logging in: https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/legalhub-full?locale.x=en_GB https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/legalhub-full?local... My PayPal account is American, so I didn't try to login and read it. EDIT: Yep, redirects me the the US credit card agreement when I login.
matthewheath 8y ago
I tried to look at it for you, but because I don't have an existing PayPal Credit agreement with them, they won't let me view it. :-(
ilarum 8y ago
This is 15.4 (c) of the Paypal Credit agreement - "We may close the Credit Account and demand repayment of the full amount you owe us if you die or become of unsound mind"
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  "demand [...] if you die" I'm sure it will be very fruitful to make such a demand.
  - coryfklein 8y ago
    If the customer's estate has enough assets to pay the balance then the demand will be fruitful.
disord3r 8y ago
It's not unreasonable for a company to ask for repayment of outstanding debt upon death. Your outstanding mortgage balance, auto loan, credit card balances, etc., don't magically become discharged upon your death. Those matters are normally handled by one's estate. To say that it's a breach of agreement is inaccurate. You agree to repay those on death, so it would only be a breach of agreement if your estate attempts to avoid payment. For that reason, the letter definitely was insensitive as there's no reason to call her out for not fulfilling her agreement, unless maybe her estate is valueless and they are unable to collect?

astura 8y ago

Title is borderline a little clickbaity. There's not a ton of information but from what I gather it seems like the following happened: She had a PayPal credit card or some other form of revolving account with PayPal (the letter references to "PayPal Credit" agreement) with a balance of just over £3,000. Dead people can't legally hold credit cards so she "breached" her credit card agreement by dying - that is, an action on her part made the agreement no longer valid. This caused PayPal to close the revolving credit line and the balance to be due in full. As I understand it her estate would be legally required to pay the balance if it had the funds to do so. (99.9% sure - correct me if I'm wrong) The letter was sent informing her of the above. So seems like the letter was "technically correct" (the best kind of correct!) but horribly insensitive to the point of basically being straight up cruel. The other mistake is it should have been addressed to the executor of her estate instead of her personally. EDIT: Here's the UK version of "PayPal Credit": https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-virtual-credit https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-virtual-credit Looks like it's a revolving account without a physical card.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> Title is borderline a little clickbaity What? It's literally what the letter they sent to the dead customer says. > PayPal told customer her death breached its rules > You are breach in [rule] because ... you are deceased
- astura 8y ago
  To me it makes it seem much more outrageous than it is. The letter is absolutely terrible, horribly insensitive, cruel, and should have never been sent. However, like I said, it seems "technically correct" with the information we are given.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > Dead people can't legally hold credit cards so she "breached" her credit card agreement by dying No it is not technically correct. Death is not a breach of contract in UK law. It causes the contract to end.

DeepYogurt 8y ago

I bet the customer didn't mind.

psycombi 8y ago

I always see Paypal's negative stories on Ycombinator and only positive stories of Square & Stripe. Let's not be an unnecessary devil's advocate or a cheerleader!

chris_wot 8y ago
Have Square or Stripe addressed letters of demand to dead people?
captain_perl 8y ago
Excuse me, but Paypal is not a regulated bank in the USA, and they routinely hold customer account money for 6 months. Additionally, periodically they purge entire business categories by locking accounts until you can prove you're not violating their terms of service du jour. The complaints about Paypal are justified.
- ythn 8y ago
  You can say that about anything. Pick a technology/company you like and I'll write an "excuse me, but" piece that "justifiably" criticizes it.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Can you think of any good thing about paypal beyond user experience? I am open to suggestions, but I don't know of anything.
  - Avamander 8y ago
    So everything sucks, so what? Are we not allowed to complain?
psycombi 8y ago
Paypal is too big compared to Square & Stripe combined.Also as per my knowledge, in the case of holding money, it depends on case by case basis. I am extensively using Paypal in my day to day online purchases and i never had any issues. If they are holding money it may be bcoz of some risk associated with that account. Call customer care and your issue will be resolved.

parliament32 8y ago

Although it's insensitive, it makes sense from a legal perspective. IANAL, but I imagine it's something like: 1. paypal receives notice she's deceased, so they have to collect the remaining balance 2. the creditor must notify the client (hence the letter being addressed to her) of their account being closed, and that the full amount is due 3. the creditor must specify a reason for terminating the account, hence the "see section X of the agreement that says you have to be alive to hold an account", "...you are deceased"

ABCLAW 8y ago
>it makes sense from a legal perspective No it doesn't. This is the work of a second rate player on paypal's legal team. You do not address letters to dead people. You address letters to their estate or if you know who the individual is, the executor of the estate in respect of their estate. You do not say someone breached a contract when in fact you're exercising a right to wind up the account triggered by death. Either one of these errors is an annoying mistake. Both of them together is a fairly large fuck-up. Lawyers put a LOT of work into drafting the right tone into their correspondence. Estates law isn't particularly esoteric, either, but most in-house counsel practice corporate law, primarily, so it's probably just a case of a few corporate guys going "It looks okay, I guess" when proofing the template and not firing off a quick call to their pal that works in estates to review the deceased creditor notice.
- parliament32 8y ago
  I'm just saying it sounds like legal CYA. Consider [1] defines "you" in the agreement as "The person who applied for this Account and agrees to this Agreement." Further down, section 12 specifies that the account automatically moves to a "in default" state if you "Pass away or become incompetent;" Considering that "you" needs to be notified when their account goes into default, does "you" automatically become "the estate"? Is "the estate" the one who "applied for this Account and agrees to this Agreement"? Can an estate agree to anything? Is it possible a deceased person would be able to get off the hook for this kind of debt is the agreement isn't followed to the letter by the creditor? [1] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/bmlterms#accountAgreement https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/bmlterms#accountAgreem...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]