261–270 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be trivial for someone to dispute the authenticity of the coin, receive PayPal's request for its destruction, photograph something that looked like a mangled coin, and then essentially get the coin for free?
That's why PayPal insists on you destroying the counterfeit item and providing proof that you did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Principle. (JSYK)
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…
How many instances of "moral superiority" have you witnessed, and how firm is your proof of their "wrongness"? Can you list at least 3?
Is there a mechanism preventing people who are genuinely entitled to the moral high ground from taking it, especially if they have been egregiously wronged? Your post doesn't make sense unless this exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I where in your situation, I would immediately add that text to all of my auctions with a justification as to why you will not accept pay-pal for your particular transactions. I would then use a third party escrow service for anything that pay-pal could consider a counterfeit. This sounds to me like Pay-Pal is doing the bidding of trademark holders. When that is not it's role in society. It's not the counterfeit p…
On eBay, accepting Paypal is mandatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The terms don't allow that. It says that Paypal must reasonably believe the item to be counterfeit. For this kind of item, clearly only a physical inspection would be reasonable, and I would sue them over it. But I agree - it's clearly better not to use Paypal at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next week: counterfeit kitten claims lead to international PR disaster for Paypal.
Frodo should have just sold the ring via eBay as a counterfeit 'ring of dancing +1', had Paypal deem it fraudulent and then had Paypal use its magical powers to destroy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The fundamental principal behind common law contracts is the "bargain principal". Principle. (JSYK)
In any case, once someone posts a comment I can't edit a post, so by posting a reply about a typeo, you only ensure that it will never be fixed....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the absolute best response to this post that we could ever have expected. Nailed it.
A good way to read Hacker News is just to follow 'anigbrowl comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=anigbrowl He's like this all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You CAN get a great sounding violin on eBay for $200, but you might have to buy and return a couple dozen violins to end up with one you like. My story is, that for my kid, I bought a $5,000 violin from a dealer after doing blind testing among a range of violins with ourselves and my kid's high-powered teachers. Everybody agreed that this was a great sounding violin. A couple years later, I wanted a cheap violin for…
This is pretty much why I can't believe that any serious musician would buy a musical instrument for over a few hundred dollars, sight unseen. There are simply too many variables to make that kind of purchase worthwhile. If the buyer isn't serious about it, a cheaper instrument will probably be exactly what they need for years. For serious musicians, an instrument that they're comfortable with is more important than…