Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

regretsy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 303 posts

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

#101

Post by anigbrowl »

zabraxias wrote: post #68
anigbrowl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing is that any seller could go with a company that will handle this on a case-by-case basis - ie a dealer - but the commissions will be a lot higher because you're renting the dealer's expertise/reputation. Paypal's benefit is being ubiquitous and cheap, not as an expert arbitrator in specialty transactions.

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

#102

Post by Vivtek »

ars wrote: post #57
udp wrote: post #37

As 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…

According to the article, PayPal didn't give the seller the option to accept a return. So (b) is out, and that undermines the logic of your position in my opinion.

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

#103

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

Banks do this as well. In fact, it's fairly common.

> It's my money.

Actually, no. See, if someone pays through PayPal with a CC, they are paying on credit. Not cash. Credit cards work through credit card companies and banks, and they have rules. Because you are using PayPals association with these banks, you have to play by PayPals rules.

If you want to accept credit cards, you can do so without PayPal. Just get it from your bank directly, but it won't be as easy as setting up a PayPal account.

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

#104

Post by lylejohnson »

MikeW wrote: post #34
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).

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.

> If you still have it, it might be worth examining it and looking for a better resale value all these years later.

Just maybe don't sell it on eBay.

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

#105

Post by rickyc091 »

pflargger wrote: post #93

I don't see at all where the seller refused to have the item returned. In fact, in both paypalcomplaints.org and Regretsy.com, the seller said: "Paypal instructed the buyer of a vioin (sic) I sold on Ebay to DESTROY the item rather than return it to me..." - paypalcomplaints.org "Rather than have the violin returned to me, PayPal made the buyer DESTROY the violin in order to get his money back." - Regretsy.com So it…

We don't know the interaction between the seller / the buyer. My guess is that the seller initially refused to give a refund back. I know as a seller I am generally hesitant to give a refund back if I know there was no issue with my sale. The buyer probably emailed the seller saying, hey you just sold me a fake. The seller probably responded it is not a fake, I will not give you a refund. As a buyer I hate the hassle of refunds since I just wasted X days listing it, then I have to file a complaint with eBay to get my insertion value / final insertion value back. $2500... that would probably be $100-200 in fees that you'll have to take as a lost for a week or two. The buyer escalated the issue straight to PayPal and this is when PayPal will immediately side with the buyer. PayPal would not be able to withdraw the $2500 from the buyer unless it was destroyed. The buyer destroys it, tada, the buyer gets the money and the seller just lost the product / the money. Welcome to eBay/PayPal.

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

#107

Post by westicle »

joshz wrote: post #85
jackowayed wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In any event, even if the clause is legal you can challenge the decision to declare the item counterfeit. If the court finds that the decision was procedurally deficient or unreasonable it can be overturned.

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

#109

Post by cgag »

ars wrote: post #57
udp wrote: post #37

As 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…

Yeah I agree that's a solid case for destroying an antique instrument and fining someone $2500.

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

#110

Post by loceng »

parfe wrote: post #30

Some 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…

I would ask for proof of their 'reasonable belief' that it was counterfeit; If they don't provide, sue them for breaking TOS.
Post reply on HN