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

[PrettySquareGal]

From Regretsy.com "mailbag":

...I sold an old French violin to a buyer in Canada, and the buyer disputed the label.

This is not uncommon. In the violin market, labels often mean little and there is often disagreement over them. Some of the most expensive violins in the world have disputed labels, but they are works of art nonetheless.

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...

http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/

Also:

http://consumerist.com/2012/01/payp...ased-violin-instead-of-return-for-refund.html

Thoughts?

 

[Connery]

^^^
My thought is I will wait until Paypal responds to this as the destruction of an item renders it useless in the event of an actual trial; it appears there is no evidence whether the item was genuine or not regarding Paypal and their decision.


More on the terms of service:
"If you lose a Significantly Not as Described Claim because the item you sold is counterfeit, you will be required to provide a full refund to the buyer and you will not receive the item back (it may be destroyed)."

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I think it's outrageous for PayPal to order an item to be destroyed and not returned, because PAYPAL is determining it's counterfeit based upon a BUYER report, not a third-party professional appraiser, etc.

There was no proof in this case that the item was "counterfeit" but even so, let's say it was sold in good faith as real but turned out not to be authentic. The seller should still have the right to have the item returned to them if they are to issue a refund!

A comment in the second article pointed out how easy it is to game this system if you are a crook; simply claim it was a fake, take a picture of a destroyed replica of the genuine item and keep the genuine for free after you get your money back.

There's a difference between worth less and worthless. The violin in this case, if all presented facts are true, was still a musical instrument with utility plus ornamental and historical value, even if not antique or top of the line.

 

[Tomasso]

This incident doesn't surprise me in the least. Both PayPal and eBay are bureaucratic monstrosities whose employees can not be trusted to differentiate between an authenticity dispute involving Chinese made beanie babies and Italian made violins. The rules say destroy; so you must destroy. This has taken their paranoia of counterfeits to new heights.

 

[gdc]

I am a professional bassist and know a bit about string instruments. Labels are about the last thing buyers should look at. Experienced buyers look at things like varnish, ff holes and other aspects of the design and workmanship. The first thing I saw was the lack of oxidation on the wood-factory fresh. I didn't google the maker's name on the label but suspect it is invented out of thin air.
IMO this is a new instrument, either of Chinese or eastern European origin.

That said, $2500 for a new carved violin of that quality is a fair price. The seller has a legit case here.

 

[sheeplady]

Quite frankly, most dealers/ sellers are not specialists in whatever item you are seeking and a collector should understand this. After years of collecting, the collector will probably know more about the items s/he collects than 90% of sellers they encounter. Most collectors use this knowledge to their advantage, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

If you are buying a big ticket item and are not an expert (I'm assuming this violin was not cheap), you should ask for assurance in writing from the dealer (specialist or not). You should also have a second appraisal from an independent professional that you hire. This is especially important if you are a newish collector of that thing or it is quite expensive for you.

Now, this doesn't excuse the people who knowingly pass items off as being older than they are or make counterfeit items to sell as "old items." PayPal should be smart enough to seize the property and have it appraised by several experts before destroying it, realizing that many collectors and sellers are not experts.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I wouldn't expect PayPal to front the expense to have it appraised, but I don't see how they could order the item destroyed since they haven't had it appraised and it doesn't even belong to them. I can see them ordering the buyer to have it appraised on their dime and then that amount deducted from the amount refunded to them if it turns out to be worth significantly less than paid if based upon false advertising, and only after they produce a copy of the certified appraisal and return the violin to the seller.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Quite frankly, most dealers/ sellers are not specialists in whatever item you are seeking and a collector should understand this. After years of collecting, the collector will probably know more about the items s/he collects than 90% of sellers they encounter. Most collectors use this knowledge to their advantage, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed!

 

[AntonAAK]

Does this mean that all of those 80s suits listed as 40s on Ebay have to be destroyed?

Could take a while...

 

[sheeplady]

I wouldn't expect PayPal to front the expense to have it appraised, but I don't see how they could order the item destroyed since they haven't had it appraised and it doesn't even belong to them. I can see them ordering the buyer to have it appraised on their dime and then that amount deducted from the amount refunded to them if it turns out to be worth significantly less than paid if based upon false advertising, and only after they produce a copy of the certified appraisal and return the violin to the seller.

I don't understand how PayPal can destroy the item without involving the authorities. For instance, if someone is selling something believed to be stolen, I believe they would have to turn it over to the police (in the US), they can't just destroy it. The same if PayPal encountered an illegal substance or something. The police can also seize the item from the seller or buyer.

If someone was claiming an item was counterfeit, wouldn't the authorities be involved as well? Perhaps not.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I don't understand how PayPal can destroy the item without involving the authorities. For instance, if someone is selling something believed to be stolen, I believe they would have to turn it over to the police (in the US), they can't just destroy it. The same if PayPal encountered an illegal substance or something. The police can also seize the item from the seller or buyer.

If someone was claiming an item was counterfeit, wouldn't the authorities be involved as well? Perhaps not.

PayPal didn't destroy it - they had the buyer do it and take a picture.

 

[gdc]

I am not an expert in violins and don't want to be perceived as playing one on internet TV Googling the name of the maker gave several results showing that he was a real person and fine luthier. This violin shows his work: https://ifshin.securesites.net/vln/bourguignon12831.jpg

Comparing the two violins I notice that in the intact example, the flame is much smaller and tighter. That is a characteristic of european maple whereas chinese maple generally has a larger flame. The varnish is quite different as well with the intact one showing wear around the edges as would be expected from 80+ years of use. However, there are some excellent fakes out there and some slip by even the best in the business.

Although I do think the seller has a beef, the buyer isn't blameless. Things that seem to be 'too good to be true' generally are.
Internet auctions are full of fakes and forgeries and if this particular seller knowingly tried to pass one off for a nice profit this episode may have served a useful purpose.

 

[Cobden]

So, does that mean if someone were to put the paypal headquarters on ebay, and I were to win it and claim it as counterfeit, I would have to burn down the paypal headquarters?

 

[sheeplady]

PayPal didn't destroy it - they had the buyer do it and take a picture.

Well, that's all kinds of stupid. There are as many unscrupulous buyers as there are unscrupulous sellers.

Although I do think the seller has a beef, the buyer isn't blameless. Things that seem to be 'too good to be true' generally are.
Internet auctions are full of fakes and forgeries and if this particular seller knowingly tried to pass one off for a nice profit this episode may have served a useful purpose.

I'd agree- this sounds like the buyer thought they had pulled one over on the seller and was disappointed. Or possibly the seller was also involved in some deceit.

I do wonder how this thing would go down in the area of stuff I collect (mainly glass and china). There are a lot of items that have either been in production since the "originals" and lots of reproductions made with original molds. Most of the reproductions are sold as such and not passed off as being the "real deal." Once they end up on the secondary market it's a different story, mainly due to a lack of knowledge about the items being sold and bought. They are not counterfeit, in any way, shape, or form. They weren't created or manipulated to deceive someone- they just happen to look exactly like the original down to the markings- because they come from the same molds.

 

[gdc]

My dad called me last year asking for the name of an appraisal for a 'Stradavarius' labeled violin he found. As tactfully as I could I told him that my daughter owned a 'Strad' as well. Maybe we are both rich.:eusa_clap

In the instrument world, many of the reproductions are fine instruments and are worth the price. With a computer and printer it is possible to add to the price. A little coffee or dirt to add some age and today's buyers are fooled. What happens in tomorrow's market is yet to be seen.

 

[Tomasso]

One thing to point out is that the seller states," I neglected to mention in the original post that the violin was examined and authenticated by a top luthier prior to its sale."

 

[C-dot]

I've had a few problems with PayPal in the past that have jaded my opinion of them - Now I'm just appaulled. I fail to understand why the buyer could simply not provide proof that they mailed the item back to the address it came from before recovering their money - Why in the Sam Hill would any item, regardless of worth or substance, need to be destroyed for this purpose? Few "real" stores accept damaged items for refund if it was the purchaser's doing, never mind a destroyed one. Online sellers should be no different. Furthermore, as Sheeplady pointed out, this is a prime opportunity for small-time con artists. There are no end to the problems with the method and standard of proof that PayPal has set.

This is stupidity in its grandest form.

 

[Undertow]

It would seem this story highlights the fact that services such as Paypal cannot be trusted as a universal means of transaction for all items under the sun.

Personally, if I planned to spend anymore than $500 on a single item, I would only do so in person and with the benefit of various documents of authentication in hand. As awesome as these online auction/payment services are, they rely heavily on good will and luck - two things I prefer not to rely upon in serious business transactions.

I'd also like to note the seeming lack of common sense on behalf of the buyer. It seems entirely too suspicious that a purchaser of fine instruments would be so entirely nearsighted as to destroy an instrument simply because Paypal required as much for refund. It seems far more likely that a lesser quality practice instrument was destroyed in place of the original.

 

[C-dot]

It seems entirely too suspicious that a purchaser of fine instruments would be so entirely nearsighted as to destroy an instrument simply because Paypal required as much for refund. It seems far more likely that a lesser quality practice instrument was destroyed in place of the original.

Excellent point, and the most glaring of several glaring problems with this idiotic policy.

I noticed in the Regretsy comments that many people mentioned how PayPal has no right to demand a buyer destroy an item. However, the buyer's hands are bound - If they want to get their money back, especially if we're talking about thousands, they don't have much of a choice but to comply. How unfortunate for both parties to the transaction, since its probably more often an honest misunderstanding that leads to item exchange issues, and how senseless that the item must be destroyed for it.

 

[Tomasso]

However, the buyer's hands are bound - If they want to get their money back, especially if we're talking about thousands, they don't have much of a choice but to comply.

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.