There's a picture of a broken violin? Then it must be true! Why would anyone ever break such a beautiful instrument unless Paypal had told them to!?
PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
61–70 of 303 posts
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#62Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#63Wait, 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).
For a really good violin, quite likely. My daughter has a cello that she obtained in High School years ago, and it was easily three time that, and it was not considered to be anything extraordinary.
You can spend $2500 on a bow.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#64As 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.
> I really hope whoever has done this gets what they deserve I think they did. They got $2,500. For some reason I believe the buyer and not the seller. I think the seller fraudulently listed the violin as not what it really was, and got called on it. My reasons are: a: The buyer has only a minimal reason to lie (if they didn't like the product and tried to return it but couldn't). b: The seller refused the return, wh…
c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground.
I have the same (perhaps irrational) emotional attachment to musical instruments (and rare antique computers, old books, etc.) as the GP. It seems like a "sin" against music and the labor of the instrument's creator to destroy an instrument. I also think it would be wrong to destroy a counterfeit painting, for similar reasons.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 S…
I don't see at all that they reasonably believed it was counterfeit. Unreasonably speculated, perhaps. Reasonably believed? Nope.
The key words here are "in our sole discretion". Those words are legal kryptonite.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's legal because PayPal is technically not a bank.
Then the law is wrong. I mean, let's drop the literal-mindedness for a second. It's my money. They are holding it hostage. I want it back. They should not be allowed to do this. Still nothing wrong with the situation, in your opinion?
No, you're wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use Paypal, you accept payment that way because it's convenient for both buyer and seller. You could advertise on Craigslist, but would you feel comfortable if someone says, 'I will send you a check, please ship to this address'? No, because the check may be bad and you could have a big financial headache. Likewise, many buyers would not be comfortable sending a check or taking a large amount of cash to buy something from a stranger. Finally, eBay allows you to reach a much wider market than you could through local classifieds, and takes care of almost all the administrative overhead of the transaction.
As a buyer, you want this security so that you can pay a few thousand $ without the fear of getting nothing in return. As a seller, you have to treat the 21-day float period as a cost of doing business, or else impose less generous terms of your own (and see less interest from wary buyers who do not want risk). In the business world suppliers are often expected to provide 30 or even 60 days of credit to commercial customers, and dealing with this is the essence of cash flow management.
It seems you want all the benefits of having your money instantly, but that someone else bears all the risk. The opportunity cost of the 21-day wait is the risk premium you pay for access to a large marketplace.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#67Some guides for buying violins that go back to 2006 which say to ignore the labels on violins. http://reviews.ebay.com/Buying-an-old-violin-on-ebay?ugid=10... http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-Lab... http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-Ebay?ugid=100000000142981... Paypal TOS Covers counterfeit items: 10.1 b Further, if you lose a [Significantly Not as Described] Claim because we, in our sole dis…
That's really shitty. It would be interesting to know what sole discretion or reasonable belief constitutes. I doubt ebay/paypal sent experts to 'investigate', they more likely said "If you, the buyer, believe it's counterfeit because of , then it is. Seller won't sue anyway."
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#68Are there any laws regarding the treatment of antiquities and museum pieces like this that could be used to get PayPal to shape up here?
The whole point here is that it's not really an antique piece. If I sell you a 'drawing by Picasso' for $10k, but when you examine it you see that's it's on a kind of paper that was manufactured after Picasso's death, then naturally you will want your money back. Now, the broker (eBay/Paypal) could simply require you to send it back to me and that I refund the money, but that likely means I will just sell it again an…
I agree that this was not a specific case of PP choosing to be vile and destroy a violin but it's still inexcusable to have a one-solution scenario and keep robotic, unquestioning staff incapable of providing the human element to problem resolution.
This is a case of a corporation dictating legal policy based on their legal interpretation. I am not even sure if they are masking it as legal policy really.
I am really wishing/waiting for a responsible company to be able to enter the international online payments arena but I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#69Yeah. 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 po…
> determined that there's a relatively higher than average risk of future transaction issues
Minority Report?
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#70Some guides for buying violins that go back to 2006 which say to ignore the labels on violins. http://reviews.ebay.com/Buying-an-old-violin-on-ebay?ugid=10... http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-Lab... http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-Ebay?ugid=100000000142981... Paypal TOS Covers counterfeit items: 10.1 b Further, if you lose a [Significantly Not as Described] Claim because we, in our sole dis…
That's really shitty. It would be interesting to know what sole discretion or reasonable belief constitutes. I doubt ebay/paypal sent experts to 'investigate', they more likely said "If you, the buyer, believe it's counterfeit because of , then it is. Seller won't sue anyway."
Is there a reason not to sue? That's $2,500 in losses. And the principle of it...