What the ffuuuuu.....
Things just keep getting weirder and weirder with PayPal. And more depressing.
PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
81–90 of 303 posts
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#82Some 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…
It actually seems reasonable that PayPal would destroy counterfeit merchandise but it better be certain before doing so. Seems like it would make more sense for the item to be turned over to PayPal or law enforcement but perhaps that's too costly?
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 S…
$2500 is enough of a loss for some people to show up at the buyer's door; great lot a TOS does when police response is a good 8-12 minutes away.
(Yes, people have done physical violence against another for FAR less than $2500)
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#84Some 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…
Didn't know this 10.1 b clause until now but it makes it VERY clear to me:
NEVER use PayPal to sell anything that could in anyway be disputed as counterfeit given that the terms allow PayPal to deems what is genuine/fake remotely, without physical inspection and results in not only money witheld but a potentially genuine item being destroyed.
So so crazy.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#85Earlier 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.
The reason I said that isn't entirely because of the TOS but also because of the cost and logistics. Various courts could potentially decide that such clause isn't legal.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#86Wait, 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.
I have a friend who teaches violin to kids. He says that really cheap violins won't stay in tune at all, which makes teaching very difficult; it's impossible to tell the difference between poor playing and poor performance from the instrument. $200 (today) is most likely still in that category, with cheap but usable starting somewhere over $500.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#87Earlier 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.
TOS mean as much as the lawyer you have. PayPal can't get you to agree to things that are illegal, and improperly designating counterfeits would/should qualify. Especially when PayPal is a defacto monopoly.
tl;dr lawyer up.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#88As 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…
The seller refused the return? What do you base this on?
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#89Earlier 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.
The mere existence of a contract is not evidence of its legality/enforceability.
Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute
#90Are 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…
Without knowing the actual details of the transaction, it's possible a more apt analogy would be buying a Picasso and receiving a Matisse - not what you ordered but you're not going to destroy a Matisse.
Violins often have fake labels but that doesn't make the violin fake (whatever that means). If the violin sold for $2500, then it was probably made by a relatively unknown maker whether the label was faked or not. As such, the violin should be judged by the quality/playability of the instrument.
Obviously we only have one side of the story, but either way it seems that Paypal didn't do its due diligence in determining the authenticity of the violin.
Edit: The label is visible in the photo and says it was made by Bourguignon Maurice. A quick search online reveals that his violins go for anywhere from $2500 - $1000 and he is certainly not unheard of. That said, there are plenty of violins by unknown makers that sell for the same amount so without any other details we really don't know whether the buyer was ripped off or not.