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

121–130 of 303 posts

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

#121

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

#122

Post by breck »

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…

Personally I've had great experiences with PayPal's phone support through PayPal Advantage.

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

#123

Post by walexander »

dotBen wrote: post #84
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…

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.

I froze for a second after reading that statement, which I was completely unaware of.

I sometimes buy and sell rare coins (particularly US Morgan dollars), which regularly go for thousands of dollars. I have one on eBay at this very moment that I'm attempting to get $3000+ for.

I've never heard of such a dispute happening before, or have I had any issues in the past, but now knowing this, i'm really scared of what might happen.

We seriously need a viable competitor to the paypal/ebay system yesterday.

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

#124

Post by learc83 »

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.

>The buyer wanted a refund, but the seller refused and stated there was no refund for it.

That was nowhere in the original article. I'll grant that it may have happened that way, but to state it as fact to someone asking for clarification is misleading.

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

#127

Post by rudiger »

jtchang wrote: post #59

"They somehow deemed the violin as “counterfeit” even though there is no such thing in the violin world." Are you kidding me? Of course there are counterfeit violins. Just like there are counterfeit art pieces.

It's a bit more complicated than that. When buying antique violins, you generally ignore the labels on violins, as they're meaningless for determining authenticity. So being "counterfeit," as in not being what's written on the label, doesn't mean much.

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

#128

Post by incongruity »

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…

The buyer need not lie for this to happen – it could be as simple as they were mistaken and genuinely believed that it was fake (assuming it wasn't).

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

#129

Post by gerggerg »

This is a tad ridiculous. Very few of you know anything about violins and I'm sure none of you know the details of this story or if it's even true. Regretsy was being irresponsible in posting it without any evidence and many people here are behaving like key members of a lynch mob.

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

#130

Post by Shenglong »

breck wrote: post #122
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…

Personally I've had great experiences with PayPal's phone support through PayPal Advantage.

Sad, I always keep missing the threshold
Post reply on HN