PayPal Tells Buyer To Destroy Purchased Violin Instead Of Return For Refund

[Connery]

The following is from the seller, "rather than have the violin returned to me, PayPal made the buyer destroy the violin in order to get his money back. They somehow deemed the violin as “counterfeit” even though there is no such thing in the violin world."

The seller apparently was willing to take the violin back, but, Paypal did not want to have that effectuated. This is starting to sound a bit fishy. The seller can have this matter resolved through arbitration or court and has a the "authentication" by a luthier in hand which would be the only true assessment of the instrument as the item that was smashed or could have has a substitute instrument destroyed.

 

[Tomasso]

The seller apparently was willing to take the violin back, but, Paypal did not want to have that effectuated. .

But the seller must have initially refused to refund because PP would not have involved themselves in the transaction unless the buyer filed a dispute.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

But the seller must have initially refused to refund because PP would not have involved themselves in the transaction unless the buyer filed a dispute.

That's not true at all. It's possible for a buyer to file a complaint without contacting the seller first, even though it's suggested.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

True as it appears that the seller was not willing to take back the violin, which I'm sure she wishes she had at this point.

I've learned this the hard way. Now more than ever, eBay and Paypal have determined that the buyer is always right. Always! If, for instance, you sell a vintage suit that is absolutely, positively from the 1930s, and the buyer says "No, it's clearly from the 1970s, give me my money back", then DO IT. Doesn't matter if you're in the right and can show evidence to prove it. eBay and Paypal will take the buyer's side, period.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I've learned this the hard way. Now more than ever, eBay and Paypal have determined that the buyer is always right. Always! If, for instance, you sell a vintage suit that is absolutely, positively from the 1930s, and the buyer says "No, it's clearly from the 1970s, give me my money back", then DO IT. Doesn't matter if you're in the right and can show evidence to prove it. eBay and Paypal will take the buyer's side, period.

Yup. And you will get a $25 fee on top of having your money taken.

PayPal doesn't have control over credit cards doing a charge back for SNAD.

But if PayPal will now ask the buyer to cut up the suit.........

 

[Connery]

But the seller must have initially refused to refund because PP would not have involved themselves in the transaction unless the buyer filed a dispute.

I am thinking about the entire course of the transaction. It appears in the end the seller wanted the violin. It is not known how Paypal made their determination. The seller is only presenting a side where I have several questions, beginning with: why is the seller pleading their cause on the internet when it is clear that there are dispute resolution provisions within the the agreement with Paypal which appear not to have been followed.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

And you will get a $25 fee on top of having your money taken.

Yes. It's called a 'chargeback dispute fee', and it allegedly reimburses the buyer's credit card company for the time and trouble it took to open a chargeback dispute case with Paypal.

 

[Tomasso]

That's not true at all. It's possible for a buyer to file a complaint without contacting the seller first, even though it's suggested.

Oh, I thought the protocol was to have the parties at least attempt to resolve the issue before a dispute was filed. So you think that the buyer ran right to PP without contacting the seller?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Oh, I thought the protocol was to have the parties at least attempt to resolve the issue before a dispute was filed. So you think that the buyer ran right to PP without contacting the seller?

It's possible.

My issue isn't with when or why the case was filed, we could go around and around on that one. My issue is with PayPal's policy that states a buyer must destroy an item while the seller loses the money AND their item.

 

[Tomasso]

My issue is with PayPal's policy that states a buyer must destroy an item while the seller loses the money AND their item.

It is a unique action for an intermediary to order the destruction of one party's property. I don't know that you'll see that anywhere else in commerce. Could you imagine a real estate deal gone bad and a bank ordering the property razed.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It is a unique action for an intermediary to order the destruction of one party's property. I don't know that you'll see that anywhere else in commerce. Could you imagine a real estate deal gone bad and a bank ordering the property razed.

It's totally outrageous!

 

[Captain Neon]

It is a unique action for an intermediary to order the destruction of one party's property. I don't know that you'll see that anywhere else in commerce. Could you imagine a real estate deal gone bad and a bank ordering the property razed.

IMHO, if a bancque pre-approves some one to buy a house, and then the bancque decides not to approve the loan, the bancque should be required to buy the house from seller if the seller so wishes.

 

[sheeplady]

It is a unique action for an intermediary to order the destruction of one party's property. I don't know that you'll see that anywhere else in commerce. Could you imagine a real estate deal gone bad and a bank ordering the property razed.

I can't think in any scenario where the destruction ordered by the intermediary makes sense, except in the case of insurance claims for major car accidents (totaled). And that's nowhere near the same situation, people don't just have their car taken and totaled without compensation of some kind from the insurance company (if it is worth more than their deductable and they have the coverage). The insurance company is more the buyer of the totalled car, even if they in turn sell it to a junk yard and write "junk" on the title.

What about in cases where the counterfeit item is worth more than the real thing? I'm sure there are cases- for example, an early counterfeit coin perhaps? Sold as the real thing but later discovered to be an early copy or something?

 

[Undertow]

Like I said earlier, this has suspicious written all over it.

A discerning buyer savvy enough to tell the difference between one violin and another could not possibly have been so short-sighted to destroy a musical instrument without at least exhausting every possible avenue of resolution. If it's not a scam, then the buyer is incredibly stupid.

The seller should have their lawyer on the horn, and we shouldn't being seeing this article at all. Unless that's a scam, the seller is incredibly lazy.

In any case, this doesn't add up on either side. [huh]

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Like I said earlier, this has suspicious written all over it.

A discerning buyer savvy enough to tell the difference between one violin and another could not possibly have been so short-sighted to destroy a musical instrument without at least exhausting every possible avenue of resolution. If it's not a scam, then the buyer is incredibly stupid.

The seller should have their lawyer on the horn, and we shouldn't being seeing this article at all. Unless that's a scam, the seller is incredibly lazy.

In any case, this doesn't add up on either side. [huh]

An attorney is likely cost-prohibitive for a 2.5k item, since many charge $400 an hour.

I like the court of public opinion when a Goliath like PayPal acts with disregard towards us little people, their customers. This story has been getting a lot of publicity and according to regretsy they are looking into it. It was only last month that PayPal stole Christmas, but due to the negative (and rightfully so!) publicity, they made it right! http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/paypal_kills_christmas.php

 

[LizzieMaine]

It is a unique action for an intermediary to order the destruction of one party's property. I don't know that you'll see that anywhere else in commerce. Could you imagine a real estate deal gone bad and a bank ordering the property razed.

There are cases where this sort of thing has had to be done as a result of a tax action -- notably in the film industry, where when the cost of an unreleased, unfinished project is written off as a loss, the IRS will require the negative of the picture in question to be burned to ensure it's never released. The most notable case of this happened to no less a figure than Charles Chaplin, who was forced to incinerate a 1926 film called "Woman of the Sea" in order to claim a loss on the project. The burning was witnessed by IRS agents, who furnished an "Affadavit of Destruction."

 

[4spurs]

PayPal & eBay --one look at Meg Whitman will tell you all you need to know.

 

[Connery]

This is what I needed in order for me to make some sense of the actions of Paypal. I hope the seller exercises her rights under the disputes with Paypal resolution provisions.


Paypal said:
"We carefully review each case, and in general we may ask a buyer to destroy counterfeit goods if they supply signed evidence from a knowledgeable third party that the goods are indeed counterfeit," PayPal said in an e-mailed statement. "The reason why we reserve the option to ask the buyer to destroy the goods is that in many countries, including the US, it is a criminal offense to mail counterfeit goods back to a seller."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/04/paypal-ordered-canadian-to-smash-antique-violin-woman-alleges

 

[PrettySquareGal]

PayPal & eBay --one look at Meg Whitman will tell you all you need to know.

? She left long ago.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I've learned this the hard way. Now more than ever, eBay and Paypal have determined that the buyer is always right. Always! If, for instance, you sell a vintage suit that is absolutely, positively from the 1930s, and the buyer says "No, it's clearly from the 1970s, give me my money back", then DO IT. Doesn't matter if you're in the right and can show evidence to prove it. eBay and Paypal will take the buyer's side, period.

So then it's better to be somewhat vague and noncommittal with descriptions of vintage items for sale then? Or maybe have a known vintage item carbon dated as indisputable proof? It's really rather ridiculous, placing this huge burden of proof upon a seller that is in all likelihood NOT an expert just opens up a world of opportunity for scammers to exploit the system. Also it would serve to eventually eliminate maybe 90% of all ebayers that ocasionally dabble in unique and unusual vintage items, thus destroying their incentive to buy and/or sell vintage items there. As if other recent changes and fee increases were not enough. I fear that ebay is well on the way to becoming simply another marketing venue for big corporations.