Seller fit
When pair.deal suits the seller
The seller-side case for pair.deal depends on the value of supporting the sale, the willingness to keep funds available, and the preference for a structured process over an uncertain private-sale argument.
Commitment
What the seller is really agreeing to
The seller is not agreeing to a broad after-sale guarantee. The seller is agreeing to keep a fixed amount available and to work through a defined review process if claims arise.
The funding commitment
The seller commitment is financial, timed, and capped.
↓
The funding commitment
The seller commitment is financial, timed, and capped.
- Funds equal to the protection amount must remain available.
- The commitment begins when the sale completes.
- The cap limits reimbursement but does not remove late-payment consequences.
The process commitment
The seller is also agreeing to engage with the review process on time.
↓
The process commitment
The seller is also agreeing to engage with the review process on time.
- The seller must respond within the review windows.
- The seller has one inspection route.
- Non-engagement can amount to deemed acceptance and lead to enforcement consequences.
Limits
What remains outside the seller's exposure
The seller retains important limits. The arrangement does not make every cost claimable and does not remove the need for proper evidence.
Go next
How known issues and uncertainty should shape the seller position.
The deeper treatment of what may still be claimed after purchase.
Expenditure that stays outside
Not every post-sale cost can be pushed back to the seller, and sellers should understand that only eligible expenditure can be claimed back.
↓
Expenditure that stays outside
Not every post-sale cost can be pushed back to the seller, and sellers should understand that only eligible expenditure can be claimed back.
- Excluded expenditure stays outside the arrangement.
- Claims still have to be evidenced properly.
- The reimbursement amount is reduced by the selected coverage percentage.
- Known defects can be excluded up front instead of being left to a later argument.
Example calculation
If a buyer tries to claim a €1000 repair under a 40% Tier setting, the maximum they can theoretically claim is €400. You are never liable for the full bill.
When transparency is the better answer
There are cases where clearer disclosure and a lower price are more sensible than entering the arrangement.
↓
When transparency is the better answer
There are cases where clearer disclosure and a lower price are more sensible than entering the arrangement.
- The seller may not want any post-sale funding commitment.
- If the seller is doubtful about condition, frank disclosure and a fair discount may be the cleaner answer.
- If exact defects are known, they may be better dealt with through explicit exclusions.
- A lower price may be cleaner than adding a capped protection arrangement.
- The seller should also remember that only eligible expenditure can be claimed back, so the deal is narrower than it may first appear.