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
PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
31–40 of 303 posts
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#32I 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?
He should care because if he did that I'd take his sorry ass to court for destruction of MY property.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#33This is atrocious. Couldn't they sue and say that they did not own the violin since they did not pay, thus destroyed someone else's violin?
Yes, yes you could. But good luck getting at paypal. The law doesn't apply to them.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#34Wait, 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).
My poor Violin cost less than USD $100, you really ought to have got a very nice violin for USD $2500! If you still have it, it might be worth examining it and looking for a better resale value all these years later.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#35Wait, 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).
Really? I think my childhood violin cost less than $200.
Well, that doesn't really mean much, if we don't know how old you are and can't adjust for inflation. :P
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#36> I sold an old French violin to a buyer in Canada, and the buyer disputed the label.
Any more info about the "disputed" label?
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#37As a musician, there's something genuinely horrific about the destruction of a musical instrument.
Whether it's the fault of PayPal or not, I really hope whoever has done this gets what they deserve.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#38Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The buyer thought he had been scammed and destroying the violin guaranteed his money back. What does he care?
He should care because if he did that I'd take his sorry ass to court for destruction of MY property.
You sound angry now. Imagine how angry you'll be when you lose your internet tough-guy lawsuit.
https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-c...
10.1 b Further, if you lose a SNAD Claim because we, in our sole discretion, reasonably believe the item you sold is counterfeit, you will be required to provide a full refund to the buyer and you will not receive the item back (it will be destroyed). PayPal Seller protection will not cover your liability.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#40Yeah. I'm selling some old stuff on eBay, using money to buy newer stuff, drawing the difference from the bank when the PayPal balance is not enough. Repeat.
After not even two cycles of this, I get an email from PP saying:
> Starting MM/DD/YYYY, money from payments you receive will be placed in a pending balance for up to 21 days. By doing this, we're making sure that there's enough money in your account to cover potential refunds or claims. [...] We reviewed your account and determined that there's a relatively higher than average risk of future transaction issues (such as claims, or chargebacks, or payment reversals). We understand that it may be inconvenient to have your payments temporarily held but please know that we didn't make this decision lightly.
That's right. You didn't make this decision lightly. You made it out of greed. You're simply looking for ways to keep my money longer than necessary in order to accrue interest, or whatever. How is this legal? It's my money.
Fortunately, I noticed that selling stuff on Amazon is not too different from eBay. So I'm thinking to move my transactions to Amazon and stop using PayPal altogether.