The buyer isn't entrusting any property to the seller in the Airbnb situation. Putting down money through a buyer friendly system is one thing.. giving a PS3 to a basically unknown entity on top of that is something else.
Sorry, but I still don't get it. Surely giving person X access to your home carries more risk than just giving person X your PS3. Is your point that you have less legal recourse or is there something more practical I am missing?
Ah, but in that case the /seller/ is the only one with property on the line. Sellers in most markets are used to taking on risk (eBay and PayPal's policies are oriented around this pattern, for example) whereas buyers are not.
Comments
This was my reaction when I looked at airbnb. They seem to enjoy success. Any insight into why that trust model works? What makes it better than this?
The buyer isn't entrusting any property to the seller in the Airbnb situation. Putting down money through a buyer friendly system is one thing.. giving a PS3 to a basically unknown entity on top of that is something else.
Sorry, but I still don't get it. Surely giving person X access to your home carries more risk than just giving person X your PS3. Is your point that you have less legal recourse or is there something more practical I am missing?
Ah, but in that case the /seller/ is the only one with property on the line. Sellers in most markets are used to taking on risk (eBay and PayPal's policies are oriented around this pattern, for example) whereas buyers are not.
Thanks, that's what I was missing.