PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute • Hacker News Board

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#11

Post by tfe » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:07 AM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #3

Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.

The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#12

Post by jeremyarussell » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:08 AM UTC

Maybe I'm just utterly lost here, but I'm hoping someone can fill me in on how or why PayPal would have told anyone to destroy something they hadn't paid for? This seems rather ridiculous if it's true, on so many levels.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#13

Post by parfe » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:10 AM UTC

hackermom wrote: post #7

I can't believe the buyer didn't reflect over how awkwardly wrong it was to destroy someone else's unpaid-for property on the request of a third party (PayPal). Breathtaking stupidity.

The buyer thought he had been scammed and destroying the violin guaranteed his money back. What does he care?

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#14

Post by leelin » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:10 AM UTC

Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#15

Post by rickyc091 » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:10 AM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #8

Not saying this didn't happen, but let's wait until we see something a little more official than a random claim on a blog that's known for its bias against PayPal before flipping out.

From first hand experience, PayPal has always sided with the buyer. I've definitely run into similar situations where I was forced to give a refund or face losing the item / PayPal withdrawing the money from my bank account even though I stated that no refunds were allowed on my eBay listing. PayPal told me that it meant (crap) and there was no such thing as a no refund policy.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#16

Post by nerfhammer » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:10 AM UTC

tfe wrote: post #11

kennywinker wrote: post #3

Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.

The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.

pretty stupid policy when applied to antique violins.

The manufacturer for that matter has probably been out of business for 70 years.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#17

Post by kennywinker » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:11 AM UTC

tfe wrote: post #11

kennywinker wrote: post #3

Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.

The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.

Yeah, that seems like what happened. A company like paypal that deals with literally every type of transaction imaginable ought to have a little bit more flexibility in their policies.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#18

Post by corroded » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:12 AM UTC

tfe wrote: post #11

kennywinker wrote: post #3

Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.

The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.

While I do get their point of preventing counterfeit circulation, who's to say that it is counterfeit? Paypal? The buyer? Unless they have a violin expert on board their team which handled the product physically, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to destroy something that's not proven as counterfeit.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#19

Post by rickyc091 » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:12 AM UTC

jeremyarussell wrote: post #12

Maybe I'm just utterly lost here, but I'm hoping someone can fill me in on how or why PayPal would have told anyone to destroy something they hadn't paid for? This seems rather ridiculous if it's true, on so many levels.

PayPal is known to protect the buyer over the seller. The buyer already purchased the violin. The buyer wanted a refund, but the seller refused and stated there was no refund for it. The buyer then filed a complaint with PayPal where PayPal told the buyer to destroy the eBay guaranteeing the $2500 back.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#20

Post by Anechoic » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:13 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #6

In the other recent paypal PR debacle I don't think paypal deserved the level of vitriol that was leveled at them. Regretsy screwed up by operating in a way that would have caused most banks to shut them down, but it was horrible customer service on paypal's part that turned it into a disaster. For this I would like to hear more details of the story but I don't see how paypal could possibly be in the right if the fac…

In the other recent paypal PR debacle

Link?

edit: thanks guys