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

241–250 of 303 posts

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

#241

Post by WettowelReactor »

tokenadult wrote: post #139
walexander wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

We seriously need a viable competitor to the paypal/ebay system yesterday. That may be, and I make extremely little use of PayPal (only as a processor of credit card payments for merchants I trust on other grounds, and never as a seller of goods). But any new viable competitor to PayPal will have to solve all over all the cases of fraud and abuse that were responded to over the years by PayPal's current policies. "Th…

Except that Paypal has only solved fraud from the consumer side. Policies like this leave the sellers ripe for fraud.

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

#242

Post by artursapek »

scottdw2 wrote: post #188
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.

Generally speaking, unilateral provisions in contracts render the contract unenforceable by the party they benefit. The fundamental principal behind common law contracts is the "bargain principal". There must be some "consideration" paid by both parties before a contract is valid (I will give you this, in consideration for your giving me that). A clause in a contract that said, "we have the right to breach this contr…

Agreed with TomAnthony, interesting stuff. Takes me back to the days when my best friend was avoiding the big kid on the block because he owed him a soda. I guess this is a really tough case because the line of reasonable/not reasonable for this decision is extremely blurry.

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

#243

Post by dangrossman »

ryan-allen wrote: post #193
pbreit wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder how much money they actually lose on a chargeback though? Chargebacks are debited from the merchants account (i.e. the merchant wears the cost of the fraud). So despite the origin of the fraud, the merchant wears it. This is at least true with digital goods that can't be returned, I don't know what the policy is in regards to physical goods and PayPal.

I think it's fair to say the answer is "a lot". Especially in cases of fraud, there's not going to be any money in the merchant's PayPal account to debit. They were gone long before the chargeback came through, and they aren't going to leave a legitimate bank or credit card linked to the account to go after either. PayPal takes those losses.

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

#244

Post by dasil003 »

stcredzero wrote: post #134
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…

It seems to be, that most of PayPal's PR blunders result from heavily regulation of stupid employees. Funny, but heavily regulation of stupid employees seems to be the source of many complaints about the TSA, government agencies in general, traffic enforcement, customer service reps, etc...

Understandably. Stupid people need jobs too, and they apply to a lot more of them than average people.

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

#245

Post by aplusbi »

dannielo2 wrote: post #126

I couldn't find on the Internet a Bourguignon Maurice priced at less than $10.000. This certainly looks as if the seller tried to make an "irresistible offer" with their chinese violin that even had a inkjet paper label inside.

Here is one for $3300: http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catal...

Here's one for $1975: http://www.homerweb.com/vintage/GREAT-Old-Antique-BOURGUIGNO...

That said, it doesn't sound like either have been authenticated and have been identified only by the label.

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

#246

Post by dangrossman »

manojlds wrote: post #164

I just wish PayPal supports SOPA so that we can make a GoDaddy out of them.

Unlike GoDaddy, there is no 100% comparable replacement for PayPal's services. You can get 80% there but they're not a commodity, there is value in their brand, their 230 million registered buyers and the dozens of countries they operate in that no other 3rd party processor does.

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

#247

Post by troll24601 »

rmc wrote: post #217
troll24601 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the seller takes the buyer to small claims court. They should be forced to pay for a replacement violin. "but PayPal told me to do it" should not be a valid defense.

The seller agreed that if PayPal, at their sole discresion, thinks it's counterfiet, that they are OK with someone else destroying it.

It's worth testing the validity of that in court. You can write anything into a contract, but it doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.

The "buyer" accepted the risk that they were not legally protected when they voluntarily destroyed the seller's property.

I hope this gets taken to court, and that we get a clear answer.

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

#248

Post by jpitz »

JonnieCache wrote: post #238
StavrosK wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. Is that true? Shannon-Nyquist seems to disagree.

In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear. This is why it is important to record instruments with higher sample rates (192khz is standard) in order to fully preserve their sonic character for further processing. This is one answer to the question "why do musicians record ultrasound,"…

>In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear.

If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

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

#249

Post by kstenerud »

This invites a very lucrative scam:

- Buy an expensive antique using paypal for payment

- Wait for antique to arrive

- Dispute its authenticity

- Once PayPal destroy order arrives, send photo of cheap replica I destroyed.

- Get my money back AND have an expensive antique for free, which I then sell to a local antique dealer.

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

#250

Post by Vivtek »

rmc wrote: post #217
troll24601 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the seller takes the buyer to small claims court. They should be forced to pay for a replacement violin. "but PayPal told me to do it" should not be a valid defense.

The seller agreed that if PayPal, at their sole discresion, thinks it's counterfiet, that they are OK with someone else destroying it.

I hate law pedantry.
Post reply on HN