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

111–120 of 303 posts

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

#111

Post by rickyc091 »

jeremyarussell wrote: post #77
rickyc091 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's all kinds of people out there. I've had buyers who purchased something and claimed they never received it. I won the claim on that one since the buyer forgot that I shipped the package with delivery confirmation so it showed that it arrived at his door. I also had a buyer who wanted me to ship to him internationally, which I never do and upon receiving the item filed a complaint and said I charged too much for shipping. I was like seriously? I went out of the way to let you ship internationally, so of course it's going to cost more than shipping within the US. Needless to say I won all those battles, but people do file complaints for the stupidest things.

Basically you can think of PayPal as a credit card. The buyer is always protected over the seller. So as long as you, as a buyer, don't abuse your right, you'll be able to get away with a few claims.

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

#112

Post by DanBC »

hackermom wrote: post #7

I 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.

How do we know buyer did destroy the violin, and not some random shitty violin?

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

#113

Post by Lukeas14 »

blantonl wrote: post #95
FreakLegion wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mere existence of a contract is not evidence of its legality/enforceability.

Unless you are someone who cannot afford the legal fees that would allow you to challenge said legality/enforceability. Which is pretty much anyone.

A $2500 case would go to small claims court in most US states where legal fees are not as much of an issue.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #31
Anechoic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the other recent paypal PR debacle Link? edit: thanks guys

http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/breaking-news/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay... http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by gscott »

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.

PayPal is not qualified to know if the Violin is real or not, So there would be grounds that it would be impossible for them to know without an expert.

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

#116

Post by pflargger »

rickyc091 wrote: post #105
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…

I've sold a ton on eBay and Etsy and I've issued plenty of refunds for items lost in transit. Luckily, I haven't had an issue where the buyer got the item and wanted a refund, so I have no idea how it would go.

I guess as a seller in the Etsy community, I've heard so many shitty buyer stories, I tend to side with the seller. Everything from a simple claiming the item was never received when it actually was, to all sorts of bizarre schemes by buyers to get extra money out of the deal.

Regardless, PayPal should have gotten an actual expert to check out the violin before ordering it destroyed.

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

#117

Post by artursapek »

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.

Right, I get that the TOS covers what they did, but couldn't the argument be made that they acted on their TOS irresponsibly? It doesn't sound like they did much to verify/investigate whether the violin was indeed counterfeit.

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

#118

Post by blantonl »

anigbrowl wrote: post #66
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tak…

This is the absolute best response to this post that we could ever have expected. Nailed it.

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

#119

Post by blantonl »

anigbrowl wrote: post #66
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tak…

This is the absolute best response to this post that we could ever have expected. Nailed it.

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

#120

Post by blantonl »

anigbrowl wrote: post #66
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tak…

This is the absolute best response to this post that we could ever have expected. Nailed it.
Post reply on HN