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

#71

Post by kennywinker » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:08 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #22

rickyc091 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's the case, I can't wait to go buy a bunch of music CDs and software on Ebay to pay with PayPal, only so that I can pirate them and then get my money back. /sarcasm What a shortsighted policy, but then again PayPal has never been known for their agreeable business decisions...

You could definitely do this. But only a few times. Ebay / Paypal is all reputational. They'll side with you at first, but you'll be banned / blocked if you repeat this operation a few times.

Credit card companies work similarly. I've known people who've racked up huge bar tabs and then called their card in stolen.

In reality, most business is run on the honour system like this. You can dine and dash, but only until the wait staff start recognizing you.

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

#72

Post by kenmck » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:08 AM UTC

Paypal's destruction of counterfeits policy is intended to combat counterfeiting of designer items. It's application here seems lame-brained to say the least.

I'm curious how it got into Paypal's dispute resolution process however. In the only other original post I could find on the matter the seller says she sold the violin through eBay http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-ite.... Normally this would have gone through eBay's dispute resolution process first.

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

#73

Post by chris_gogreen » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:09 AM UTC

leelin wrote: post #14

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).

The violin in the article supposedly made it through WWII.

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

#74

Post by jackowayed » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:13 AM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #70

joshz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The above clause of the TOS is the reason not to sue. The seller agreed to a TOS that says that if PayPal decides that it is counterfeit, they refund the money and the item is destroyed, without any restriction on what care PayPal has to take to decide that it's counterfeit. So PayPal acted within the terms of their agreement.

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

#75

Post by leptons » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:14 AM UTC

Shenglong wrote: post #54

It seems to be, that most of PayPal's PR blunders result from heavily regulation of stupid employees. I know we don't tolerate personal insults here on HN, but those of you who have spoken to as many PayPal reps as I have, will probably agree that there are few other ways to describe them. I guess their logic is: "If we can hire dumb people for less money, and regulate them so they can't make mistakes, we can save mo…

When faced with incompetence, always ask for another rep. Two employees at the same company will often give you two different experiences. This is true of all the contact I've had with AT&T, and others, and no doubt the same is true at Paypal. Just don't even waste your time if you can tell the person you are talking to does not comprehend your complaint, just hang up and call back and keep calling back until you reach someone with half a brain.

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

#76

Post by pbreit » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:16 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #40

Yeah. 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…

I can assure you they do not do it to earn interest. PayPal loses far more money on chargebacks, fraud, payment reversals, dispute resolutions, etc. than it makes on a measly 21 days of interest.

Further, "hold backs" (aka "reserves") are very common in bank-operated credit card merchant accounts.

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

#77

Post by jeremyarussell » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:17 AM UTC

rickyc091 wrote: post #19

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.

Thanks for the answer. A system that allows for this kind of abuse might need checking over, can't say I get why that's allowed at all. Anyone ever seen this used in the right manner? (if such a way to use this method exists.) It just makes so much more sense to send the item back.

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

#78

Post by dataminer » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

About 3 years ago I had to deal with a counterfeit item bought on ebay. In such cases an experienced seller usually offer full refund no questions asked, this is the best policy and saves time and the item, though the seller loses shipping charges they paid when the item was initially shipped and the buyer has to pay the return shipping, sometimes to make the buyer happy, seller even offer to pay return shipping. These small loses are usually considered as "cost of doing business on internet".

Paypal use to require the buyer to prove that the "assumed" fake item is actually fake. In my case Paypal asked me to obtain a certificate either from the original brand or some authorized dealer. If I would have gone that route I had to pay for appraisal fees and spend time shipping/taking item to the authorized dealer. I guess this was Paypal's measure against every other buyer crying fake when they start feeling buyers remorse.

I hope Paypal has not changed their policy of asking for the counterfeit certificate, making it too easy for buyers to claim fake items.

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

#79

Post by pbreit » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

Something doesn't sound right here. Does the OP have any correspondence from PayPal showing that it indeed instructed the buyer to destroy the violin? Is it legal for PayPal to instruct and for a person to destroy property like this? Without some sort of third party mediation? Could the seller have offered to pay for an authentication?

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

#80

Post by chc » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:22 AM UTC

jackowayed wrote: post #74

artursapek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason not to sue? That's $2,500 in losses. And the principle of it...

The above clause of the TOS is the reason not to sue. The seller agreed to a TOS that says that if PayPal decides that it is counterfeit, they refund the money and the item is destroyed, without any restriction on what care PayPal has to take to decide that it's counterfeit. So PayPal acted within the terms of their agreement.

Are you a lawyer? Because it doesn't look like users are actually required to hold PayPal harmless in the event of property loss due to bad counterfeit decisions.