13 ms·

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

988 points by tfe 15y ago

deepkut 15y ago
This is a great case of a "picture is worth a thousand words." That picture is heart breaking... STRIPE STRIPE STRIPE!
sakai 15y ago
This is incredibly disgusting behavior. I have so much respect for the founders of PayPal, but current management is destroying their company and, sadly, their reputations.
- vaksel 15y ago
  um, these problems were present under the original founders as well, you just didn't hear it as much since they were just starting out and didn't have the same market share
kennywinker 15y ago
Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.
- tfe 15y ago
  The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.
  - nerfhammer 15y ago
    pretty stupid policy when applied to antique violins. The manufacturer for that matter has probably been out of business for 70 years.
  - kennywinker 15y ago
    Yeah, that seems like what happened. A company like paypal that deals with literally every type of transaction imaginable ought to have a little bit more flexibility in their policies.
  - corroded 15y ago
    While I do get their point of preventing counterfeit circulation, who's to say that it is counterfeit? Paypal? The buyer? Unless they have a violin expert on board their team which handled the product physically, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to destroy something that's not proven as counterfeit.
  - shasta 15y ago
    Next week: counterfeit kitten claims lead to international PR disaster for Paypal.
    - tibbon 15y ago
      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.
      - gwern 15y ago
        'The Eye of San Jose is on us, Samwise Tibbon!'
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        Paypal has a "Crack of Doom?" Actually, I'm more amused than surprised.
kevingadd 15y ago
Are there any laws regarding the treatment of antiquities and museum pieces like this that could be used to get PayPal to shape up here?
- ars 15y ago
  I think the point is that paypal (and the buyer) are claiming it's not an antique or museum piece, but rather a counterfeit.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  The whole point here is that it's not really an antique piece. If I sell you a 'drawing by Picasso' for $10k, but when you examine it you see that's it's on a kind of paper that was manufactured after Picasso's death, then naturally you will want your money back. Now, the broker (eBay/Paypal) could simply require you to send it back to me and that I refund the money, but that likely means I will just sell it again and again until I find some sufficiently gullible buyer - putting all the risk onto the broker and damaging its reputation. Now, we could argue about whether a drawing by some modern artist that looks very like the work of Picasso is really any less valuable in aesthetic terms, and this question has cropped up a few times in the art world - see Orson Welles' little-known masterpiece F for Fake for a documentary treatment of the subject. But the fact is that the buyer is not satisfied, and whether the buyer has poor taste or is acquiring a famous signature rather than excellent art is beside the point. The buyer could have chosen to love the piece on its own merits or sell it on to some more credulous or indifferent person, but has instead exercised a contractual right to a refund (from the broker). And the broker is, in turn, exercising its contractual right to make the seller carry the cost of the misrepresentation. The seller could have brought the piece to an expert and sold it for cash, as-is and no refunds, but experts are used to such risks and would offer a much lower price. By offloading much of the transactional risk to the broker (compared to, say, advertising it on Craigslist), the seller accepted the broker's conditions. It's all very well to complain about Paypal being terribly mean, but somehow I doubt the original offer of sale was 'possibly-fake violin, buyer beware.' Lots of people sell damaged or otherwise flawed goods on eBay with no problem, but they clearly identify the potential deficiencies so that buyers cannot claim to be surprised after the fact. If authentication disputes are a common issue with used violins, then the seller should have used an authentication service or sold on consignment through a specialty dealer, and accepted the costs involved as a marketing expense.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
In the other recent paypal PR debacle I don't think paypal deserved the level of vitriol that was leveled at them. Regretsy screwed up by operating in a way that would have caused most banks to shut them down, but it was horrible customer service on paypal's part that turned it into a disaster. For this I would like to hear more details of the story but I don't see how paypal could possibly be in the right if the facts as presented are in any way accurate, this is abhorrent.
- Anechoic 15y ago
  In the other recent paypal PR debacle Link? edit: thanks guys
  - simonw 15y ago
    http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay...
  - SpikeGronim 15y ago
    Here it is: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/breaking-news/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/breaking-news/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay... http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/
hackermom 15y ago
I can't believe the buyer didn't reflect over how awkwardly wrong it was to destroy someone else's unpaid-for property on the request of a third party (PayPal). Breathtaking stupidity.
- parfe 15y ago
  The buyer thought he had been scammed and destroying the violin guaranteed his money back. What does he care?
  - BiosElement 15y ago
    He should care because if he did that I'd take his sorry ass to court for destruction of MY property.
    - parfe 15y ago
      You sound angry now. Imagine how angry you'll be when you lose your internet tough-guy lawsuit. https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-c... 10.1 b Further, if you lose a SNAD Claim because we, in our sole discretion, reasonably believe 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 will be destroyed). PayPal Seller protection will not cover your liability.
      - Dove 15y ago
        I don't think he's contemplating suing Paypal, but rather the fellow who destroyed the violin. I don't know if such an act would be legally viable, but it certainly seems morally reasonable to me.
      - droithomme 15y ago
        I don't see at all that they reasonably believed it was counterfeit. Unreasonably speculated, perhaps. Reasonably believed? Nope.
wdewind 15y ago
Not saying this didn't happen, but let's wait until we see something a little more official than a random claim on a blog that's known for its bias against PayPal before flipping out.
- rickyc091 15y ago
  From first hand experience, PayPal has always sided with the buyer. I've definitely run into similar situations where I was forced to give a refund or face losing the item / PayPal withdrawing the money from my bank account even though I stated that no refunds were allowed on my eBay listing. PayPal told me that it meant (crap) and there was no such thing as a no refund policy.
  - click170 15y ago
    If that's the case, I can't wait to go buy a bunch of music CDs and software on Ebay to pay with PayPal, only so that I can pirate them and then get my money back. /sarcasm What a shortsighted policy, but then again PayPal has never been known for their agreeable business decisions...
    - kennywinker 15y ago
      You could definitely do this. But only a few times. Ebay / Paypal is all reputational. They'll side with you at first, but you'll be banned / blocked if you repeat this operation a few times. Credit card companies work similarly. I've known people who've racked up huge bar tabs and then called their card in stolen. In reality, most business is run on the honour system like this. You can dine and dash, but only until the wait staff start recognizing you.
mobileed 15y ago
yea, and get a load of this. I've been purchasing stuff off ebay and paying via paypal. According to Paypal, I am exceeding the amount of purchase I can make. After I reach $10,000, I need to have a "verified" account which entails them having access to my bank account number. Two words, FUCK THAT! I have been an ebay user for 10+ years with a perfect rating. I've never sold anything on ebay. I use it only for purchases I consistently pay for my purchases within minutes of the auction closing. Together, paypal and ebay are at risk of loosing another good user of their services!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jeremyarussell 15y ago
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.
- rickyc091 15y ago
  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.
  - jeremyarussell 15y ago
    Thanks for the answer. A system that allows for this kind of abuse might need checking over, can't say I get why that's allowed at all. Anyone ever seen this used in the right manner? (if such a way to use this method exists.) It just makes so much more sense to send the item back.
    - rickyc091 15y ago
      There's all kinds of people out there. I've had buyers who purchased something and claimed they never received it. I won the claim on that one since the buyer forgot that I shipped the package with delivery confirmation so it showed that it arrived at his door. I also had a buyer who wanted me to ship to him internationally, which I never do and upon receiving the item filed a complaint and said I charged too much for shipping. I was like seriously? I went out of the way to let you ship internationally, so of course it's going to cost more than shipping within the US. Needless to say I won all those battles, but people do file complaints for the stupidest things. Basically you can think of PayPal as a credit card. The buyer is always protected over the seller. So as long as you, as a buyer, don't abuse your right, you'll be able to get away with a few claims.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >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.
leelin 15y ago
Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).
- akozak 15y ago
  Really? I think my childhood violin cost less than $200.
  - kmfrk 15y ago
    Well, that doesn't really mean much, if we don't know how old you are and can't adjust for inflation. :P
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - Zak 15y ago
    I have a friend who teaches violin to kids. He says that really cheap violins won't stay in tune at all, which makes teaching very difficult; it's impossible to tell the difference between poor playing and poor performance from the instrument. $200 (today) is most likely still in that category, with cheap but usable starting somewhere over $500.
    - yoos 15y ago
      This. The violin, bow, and strings all affect the sound produced. In high school, I bought my violin and bow used for around $750. While it was fine for orchestral/symphonic stuff, it definitely paled in tone, volume, and responsiveness compared to some of my friends' more expensive violins. When I got to be the soloist during my senior year, I borrowed a much nicer violin from my director and bought a new bow because I simply couldn't get the right sound out of my own violin.
    - ctrager 15y ago
      Sorry, about staying in tune, I don't physics, mechanics, can support that teacher's belief. Do the pegs slip? That's adjustable. Are the strings crappy? Replace them. My experience is that there is a lot of false belief and superstition about violins including among violin teachers.
angryasian 15y ago
its great that the internet opened up a global market, but the same rules apply Caveat emptor, Caveat venditor
Renai 15y ago
This is atrocious. Couldn't they sue and say that they did not own the violin since they did not pay, thus destroyed someone else's violin?
- BiosElement 15y ago
  Yes, yes you could. But good luck getting at paypal. The law doesn't apply to them.
  - w-ll 15y ago
    Not even in a small claims court?
vonskippy 15y ago
Yeah, Regretsy.com is a bastion of fine journalism. I'd wait to get your panties in a knot until a real news site reports this.
- vonskippy 15y ago
  Hard to understand the down voting. Are people actually that stupid that they believe the story is true?
  - marshray 15y ago
    The story is self-consistent and it's consistent with PayPal's ToS. It's consistent with the destruction of other "counterfeit label" products. Given PayPal's long history of nastiness I don't think there are many people remaining who would give them any benefit of the doubt.
parfe 15y ago
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=10000000001308663 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-Labels-Inside-of-Violins?ugid=10000000001631923 http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-Lab... http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-Ebay?ugid=10000000014298167 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 discretion, reasonably believe 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 will be destroyed). PayPal Seller protection will not cover your liability. https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-c... If Paypal decides you sold a counterfeit item, you lose the item and your money.
- joshz 15y ago
  That's really shitty. It would be interesting to know what sole discretion or reasonable belief constitutes. I doubt ebay/paypal sent experts to 'investigate', they more likely said "If you, the buyer, believe it's counterfeit because of <whatever>, then it is. Seller won't sue anyway."
  - artursapek 15y ago
    Is there a reason not to sue? That's $2,500 in losses. And the principle of it...
    - jackowayed 15y ago
      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.
cpeterso 15y ago
> I sold an old French violin to a buyer in Canada, and the buyer disputed the label. Any more info about the "disputed" label?
udp 15y ago
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.
- ars 15y ago
  > 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, which is unusual for this type of purchase. c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. Obviously I have no actual knowledge here, but that's my sense.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. I have the same (perhaps irrational) emotional attachment to musical instruments (and rare antique computers, old books, etc.) as the GP. It seems like a "sin" against music and the labor of the instrument's creator to destroy an instrument. I also think it would be wrong to destroy a counterfeit painting, for similar reasons.
  - abecedarius 15y ago
    The seller refused the return? What do you base this on?
  - waqf 15y ago
    I don't think you read the email properly. The seller implies that their preferred outcome was to have the violin returned and, presumably, the price refunded. That dispenses completely with your reasons (a) and (b).
Florin_Andrei 15y ago
Yeah. I'm selling some old stuff on eBay, using money to buy newer stuff, drawing the difference from the bank when the PayPal balance is not enough. Repeat. After not even two cycles of this, I get an email from PP saying: > Starting MM/DD/YYYY, money from payments you receive will be placed in a pending balance for up to 21 days. By doing this, we're making sure that there's enough money in your account to cover potential refunds or claims. [...] We reviewed your account and determined that there's a relatively higher than average risk of future transaction issues (such as claims, or chargebacks, or payment reversals). We understand that it may be inconvenient to have your payments temporarily held but please know that we didn't make this decision lightly. That's right. You didn't make this decision lightly. You made it out of greed. You're simply looking for ways to keep my money longer than necessary in order to accrue interest, or whatever. How is this legal? It's my money. Fortunately, I noticed that selling stuff on Amazon is not too different from eBay. So I'm thinking to move my transactions to Amazon and stop using PayPal altogether.
- iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
  it's legal because PayPal is technically not a bank.
  - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
    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?
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      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 taking a large amount of cash to buy something from a stranger. Finally, eBay allows you to reach a much wider market than you could through local classifieds, and takes care of almost all the administrative overhead of the transaction. As a buyer, you want this security so that you can pay a few thousand $ without the fear of getting nothing in return. As a seller, you have to treat the 21-day float period as a cost of doing business, or else impose less generous terms of your own (and see less interest from wary buyers who do not want risk). In the business world suppliers are often expected to provide 30 or even 60 days of credit to commercial customers, and dealing with this is the essence of cash flow management. It seems you want all the benefits of having your money instantly, but that someone else bears all the risk. The opportunity cost of the 21-day wait is the risk premium you pay for access to a large marketplace.
parsnips 15y ago
It's called small claims court. Just take Pay Pal there, and win the $2500 plus costs.
guelo 15y ago
I would sue PayPal in small claims court.
- marshray 15y ago
  That won't bring back the violin. :-(
astrodust 15y ago
I guess there's going to be a lot of counterfeit Roman-era coins that will have to be melted down for scrap!
abruzzi 15y ago
To answer a couple of questions: 1. $2500 is a mid grade violin. I have a 100yo Czech violin that is worth $250. Sears specials for Jr. High students can cost $100. 2. The seller is right that the Label doesn't qualify as intentional counterfeiting. My Czech violins says its a Strad. This is extremely common, and should be taken more like a 'inspired by' tag--unless of course the maker is reputable enough to place their own tags. It seems to me that the problem is paypal's definition of counterfeit shouldn't be expanded to cover objects where you truly need an expert to determine the counterfeit status. Knockoff rolexes are on thing, but at least from the post, it seems they are taking the buyers word, and don't understand the nature of violin labels. Also, isn't PayPal owned by eBay? Aren't there thousands or even tens of thousands of counterfeit items littered across eBay?
- aiscott 15y ago
  I wonder if counterfeits explain this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/1444828...
  - yoos 15y ago
    FWIW, trying to compare two violins with recorded clips like the ones in that blog post is pointless because there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised by the test results. I wonder what kind of credentials these "professionals" have? Even the best violinists probably have tried only a few of the many Strads and Guarneris in existence, so how would the professionals in this experiment know what to listen for?
    - jpitz 15y ago
      <quote>there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone.</quote> I am confused. I think you're claiming that, for example, a KSM-137 has frequency response in some part of the audible range that is so terrible that there are sounds it just flat out isn't capturing. What frequencies?
droithomme 15y ago
Since it was not a counterfeit, what legal recourse might the seller have?
Shenglong 15y ago
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 money! Genius!" Honestly, this just goes to show how important hiring really can be. Someone with enough common sense to say "hey, that doesn't seem right" would eliminate so many of these problems.
- leptons 15y ago
  When faced with incompetence, always ask for another rep. Two employees at the same company will often give you two different experiences. This is true of all the contact I've had with AT&T, and others, and no doubt the same is true at Paypal. Just don't even waste your time if you can tell the person you are talking to does not comprehend your complaint, just hang up and call back and keep calling back until you reach someone with half a brain.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    Yeah that's what I ended up doing. At first, I couldn't believe anyone could be so incompetent, so I kept trying to break up the problem into pieces. Big mistake :(
  - prawn 15y ago
    Very true. We had noticed that any time we had a poor experience with tech support at our main web host, it was the same person. We've turned to either disconnecting chats until we get someone else or (where possible) requesting others specifically by name. The difference can be huge.
- breck 15y ago
  Personally I've had great experiences with PayPal's phone support through PayPal Advantage.
  - 15y ago
irunbackwards 15y ago
I feel like this would make a great MasterCard commercial.
RobertKohr 15y ago
So the moral is, if you are selling a big ticket item, don't accept paypal. There are many cases where it just gets reversed, and the buyer is always right. When selling something like this, accept cashier checks, money orders, bitcoins, etc. You need need it to be non-reversible.
jtchang 15y ago
"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.
- rudiger 15y ago
  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.
Finbarr 15y ago
There's a picture of a broken violin? Then it must be true! Why would anyone ever break such a beautiful instrument unless Paypal had told them to!?
kenmck 15y ago
Paypal's destruction of counterfeits policy is intended to combat counterfeiting of designer items. It's application here seems lame-brained to say the least. I'm curious how it got into Paypal's dispute resolution process however. In the only other original post I could find on the matter the seller says she sold the violin through eBay http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-item/ http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-ite.... Normally this would have gone through eBay's dispute resolution process first.
dataminer 15y ago
About 3 years ago I had to deal with a counterfeit item bought on ebay. In such cases an experienced seller usually offer full refund no questions asked, this is the best policy and saves time and the item, though the seller loses shipping charges they paid when the item was initially shipped and the buyer has to pay the return shipping, sometimes to make the buyer happy, seller even offer to pay return shipping. These small loses are usually considered as "cost of doing business on internet". Paypal use to require the buyer to prove that the "assumed" fake item is actually fake. In my case Paypal asked me to obtain a certificate either from the original brand or some authorized dealer. If I would have gone that route I had to pay for appraisal fees and spend time shipping/taking item to the authorized dealer. I guess this was Paypal's measure against every other buyer crying fake when they start feeling buyers remorse. I hope Paypal has not changed their policy of asking for the counterfeit certificate, making it too easy for buyers to claim fake items.
pbreit 15y ago
Something doesn't sound right here. Does the OP have any correspondence from PayPal showing that it indeed instructed the buyer to destroy the violin? Is it legal for PayPal to instruct and for a person to destroy property like this? Without some sort of third party mediation? Could the seller have offered to pay for an authentication?
josscrowcroft 15y ago
What the ffuuuuu..... Things just keep getting weirder and weirder with PayPal. And more depressing.
petercooper 15y ago
The funny part of this story is in the comments section. A bizarre number of strangers seem to be "cut up" or "I'm crying" over an inanimate object that isn't even theirs!
- marshray 15y ago
  You should really try to appreciate how a musician relates to their antique violin. Would you not understand peoples' sadness if a collection of great paintings were destroyed in a museum fire? The sickest part of it was that it was destroyed intentionally by humans for no good reason at all. Sure, this was not the most valuable piece in the world but there are definitely a finite number of them remaining. My guess is a lot of them are moving to collectors in Asia never to be seen again in the West. Who would have thought that would be the safest place for them? Oooh this makes me sick.
  - AnthonBerg 15y ago
    If only we were as compassionate towards, say, starving people.
    - gjm11 15y ago
      The estimates I've seen for the total amount of humanitarian aid are on the order of $20bn/year. What's the world's annual violin-compassion budget? (I think $20bn/year is way too low and the world would be a better place if we were more compassionate towards starving people and others in distress. But that's no reason at all not to care about old violins being destroyed.)
    - Dove 15y ago
      Puzzling. Do you think people would be less irate if, instead of a violin destroyed, it had been a starving person?
      - st0p 15y ago
        [dystopia]Imagine a starving person from Ethopia being sold on ebay and then destroyed because the buyer said the bought good actually had the Somalian nationality[/dystopia]
pflargger 15y ago
I don't see at all where the seller refused to have the item returned. In fact, in both paypalcomplaints.org and Regretsy.com, the seller said: "Paypal instructed the buyer of a vioin (sic) I sold on Ebay to DESTROY the item rather than return it to me..." - paypalcomplaints.org "Rather than have the violin returned to me, PayPal made the buyer DESTROY the violin in order to get his money back." - Regretsy.com So it looks like the seller tried to get the violin returned, but PayPal wouldn't issue the refund until it was destroyed. Though if someone has that information elsewhere, I'd love to see it.
- rickyc091 15y ago
  We don't know the interaction between the seller / the buyer. My guess is that the seller initially refused to give a refund back. I know as a seller I am generally hesitant to give a refund back if I know there was no issue with my sale. The buyer probably emailed the seller saying, hey you just sold me a fake. The seller probably responded it is not a fake, I will not give you a refund. As a buyer I hate the hassle of refunds since I just wasted X days listing it, then I have to file a complaint with eBay to get my insertion value / final insertion value back. $2500... that would probably be $100-200 in fees that you'll have to take as a lost for a week or two. The buyer escalated the issue straight to PayPal and this is when PayPal will immediately side with the buyer. PayPal would not be able to withdraw the $2500 from the buyer unless it was destroyed. The buyer destroys it, tada, the buyer gets the money and the seller just lost the product / the money. Welcome to eBay/PayPal.
  - pflargger 15y ago
    I've sold a ton on eBay and Etsy and I've issued plenty of refunds for items lost in transit. Luckily, I haven't had an issue where the buyer got the item and wanted a refund, so I have no idea how it would go. I guess as a seller in the Etsy community, I've heard so many shitty buyer stories, I tend to side with the seller. Everything from a simple claiming the item was never received when it actually was, to all sorts of bizarre schemes by buyers to get extra money out of the deal. Regardless, PayPal should have gotten an actual expert to check out the violin before ordering it destroyed.
mbrzuzy 15y ago
This makes me sick. Ordering to destroy? That makes absolutely NO sense to me. If someone told me this story in person, I would have thought that it was a joke. Paypal is right up there with godaddy on the list of worst tech companies.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  The picture of the shredded violin causes me pain verging on the physical. It's probably best we don't know the identity of the buyer.
  - troll24601 15y ago
    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.
    - rmc 15y ago
      The seller agreed that if PayPal, at their sole discresion, thinks it's counterfiet, that they are OK with someone else destroying it.
      - troll24601 15y ago
        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.
      - Vivtek 15y ago
        I hate law pedantry.
imperialdrive 15y ago
What a terrible story - I'm sorry to hear about your violin. I just closed my paypal account; it took 60 seconds...
loceng 15y ago
I think this should be taken to Reddit to get PayPal to change their ways, and/or fundraise money to sue PayPal to change this practice.
jorgecastillo 15y ago
I will never have a PayPal account.
whatusername 15y ago
Step 1: Buy expensive Violin on eBay/PayPal. Step 2: Dispute Authenticity. Ask for a refund / offer to smash as proof. Step 3: Buy and Smash Cheap Violin and send PayPal photos as proof. Step 4: Profit!
dannielo2 15y ago
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.
- tom626 15y ago
  bump
- aplusbi 15y ago
  Here is one for $3300: http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_113_342/products_id/3386 http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catal... Here's one for $1975: http://www.homerweb.com/vintage/GREAT-Old-Antique-BOURGUIGNON-MAURICE-lab-VIOLIN_230644232294.html 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.
gerggerg 15y ago
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.
ruethewhirled 15y ago
It's reasons like this I'll never have a paypal account or offer it as a means of payment on my site
uurayan 15y ago
One thing I don't understand is why didn't the buyer just contact the seller directly and try to return the violin for a full refund? Was it sold under the terms all sales final?
nwmcsween 15y ago
The thing is if an item is counterfeit and paypal allowed payment to proceed they could be litigated. If a third party imported counterfit goods and didn't take due action they could be fined and / or lose their license. Paypal does this to minimize risk and effort (cost) involved, whether this is a good way to minimize risk is apparent but than again this is paypal.
marshray 15y ago
I took violin in 6th grade and all of our student models had the "Stradivarius" label. The teacher said about half the violins in the world had a label like that, it was just the style. PayPal's actions and those of these anti-counterfeiting fascists make me sick. How long until they start organizing "counterfeit violin" burnings in the streets?
jaysonelliot 15y ago
A lot of people are talking about finding an alternative to PayPal. Does anyone have an opinion on Dwolla or Square? I have also heard that Visa is getting into the P2P payment space, I suppose Google Wallet must have similar plans.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I used WePay recently to invoice a client and I really thought it was quite a pleasant experience. I considered using Dwolla but they seemed less established and credible. I had some questions about the service that their site didn't answer. I was really happy with WePay. I hope I can use it more soon, it was really was very simple, and I think the features to "split the ticket" are pretty cool.
nsxwolf 15y ago
Startup idea: Offer insurance to protect sellers against PayPal's counterfeit item policy.
dhughes 15y ago
The sad thing is he could have bought a $5 piece of junk at the pawn shop smashed it to bits then showed Paypal a picture of that.
manojlds 15y ago
I just wish PayPal supports SOPA so that we can make a GoDaddy out of them.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  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.
phaus 15y ago
I'm surprised the dispute got this far. Normal SOP on paypal goes like this. 1. Buyer pays for expensive item with credit card through paypal. 2. Buyer receives shipping confirmation. 3. Buyer disputes credit card transaction. 4. Paypal customer service says "LOL, should have sold it locally. We don't recommend using our service for items like this." 5. Buyer enjoys free $2500 violin.
bhangi 15y ago
Disclaimer - I used to work at eBay but my work was not in any way connected with policies on counterfeits or Paypal. So the following is my speculation only. While this specific case does sound awful, I'd bet that eBay/Paypal's draconian policies towards counterfeits is a result of number of lawsuits that designer labels have filed in the past against eBay. It would likely be impossible for eBay/Paypal to physically examine every item that is claimed to be counterfeit, so the blanket policy which lets them claim in court that they are doing everything reasonable to prevent counterfeit items being traded on eBay. Again, this particular case does suck, but honestly I think the real villains are the Louis Vittons of the world.
Mordor 15y ago
Even something counterfeit is worth something, so the seller is still entitled to sue (for the value of the counterfeit good). The object would then be re-valued during the trial and the seller liable for the full amount. Is this correct?
Confusion 15y ago
The initial problem here is a single PayPal employee that either didn't read the case well enough to understand the item involved or just doesn't care about antiques or violins (or both). Either way: an employee that doesn't actually care about customers and only abstractly cares about getting his job done, which is probably handling hundreds of similar complaints a day. I can't really blame him. The result sucks, but the system necessarily produces some excesses, because guarding against them is too expensive. Welcome to an corporatist, capitalist world with individualistic employees. It doesn't optimize for human happiness, only for added economic value, independent of who benefits from that value.
ck2 15y ago
Congressional hearing please. My only hope is that congress usually destroys instead of fixes whatever it sets it's eyes on, so PayPal would be doomed.
Tinned_Tuna 15y ago
On the one hand, I can see why that particular clause (10.1b) is in their TOS. They don't want you (be you the buyer or the seller who got the item back) to re-sell the counterfeit item, costing PayPal the fees, and all of the lost time on the dispute. However, there should be a reasonable limit, whereby if the item is >£x value, or is claimed to be an antique (or similar), an independent professional who can identify it will be hired -- and charged to whoever they side against (i.e. whoever made the false claim).
Isofarro 15y ago
Note: the story only mentions the end result, not the path to that end results - so we only have a partial story I've been through the PayPal dispute process as a buyer several times. It can only be escalated to a PayPal decision after communications between the buyer and the seller have proved unsuccessful / broken down, as in the seller doesn't reply, or refuses to sort out the situation. It doesn't happen overnight. It's not clear which way this went, but after negotiating with the seller proved fruitless, and then being forced into raising a PayPal dispute, then again the seller failing to resolve the matter forcing an escalation to a PayPal decision - this led to the path of destroying what was claimed to be counterfeit materials. So the seller knows that violin labels are a contentious area, thus perhaps should have been more accommodating and resolved the issue without forcing the buyer to escalate. From the buyers perspective, being asked to destroy an item they claim is counterfeit as a pre-requisite to getting his money back seems a rather straightforward step. Clearly the buyer and seller disagree with the authenticity of the item - but that should have spurred the seller to remedy the situation rather than force an escalation to a PayPal dispute. That way the seller wouldn't have lost out. The seller's failure to resolve the situation appropriately, before the buyer felt it necessary to escalate a Paypal dispute is part of the problem here. I guess the seller was playing hardball instead of negotiating in good faith. And by playing hardball and failing to resolve the problem initially, the seller loses. Where the seller believes that they sold an authentic item, and the buyer disagrees, isn't it logical for the seller to offer a good faith refund and send-back without forcing the buyer to raise a paypal dispute and then escalate it when no resolution could be made?
- chrislomax 15y ago
  This is it though, you don't know the path to the end result. In that it could quite easily be that the buyer is a pain and has escalated it when the seller disputed the buyers claim that it was not authentic and have stated that it has been checked before hand. I have had dealings with people on Paypal and eBay where the issue has been escalated quite quickly because the buyer was a pain in the ass. I had one buyer who escalated a claim because they had paid by eCheque and we sent the item the day after the item had cleared yet they were raising dispute before the eCheque had cleared. Some people just don't work the system properly which can lead to these situations so quickly. From a sellers point of view, the system doesn't work. It's all about the buyer
Keyframe 15y ago
Interesting story, but how is this hacker news?
mverwijs 15y ago
The way I see it the buyer/destroyer should be sued. A sale was agreed upon. The goods were delivered. The money wasn't. Buyer simply did not hold up his end of the bargain and should be taken to court. In my simple view, PayPal does not even enter the picture. Or is there more to it than that?
- Isofarro 15y ago
  The money looks to have been sent - in good faith - by the buyer. Otherwise, why would the seller have dispatched the goods? The seller dispatched the goods in good faith that the money had been sent by the buyer (to Paypal, acting as an intermediary to the seller). The buyer most likely disputed the item after he received it. The dispute got escalated for reasons that haven't yet been established. The goods were deemed to be counterfeit (perhaps the dispute was raised because of that, or it became a material complaint after the dispute was raised). Something/nothing happened which resulted in the seller and buyer unable to reach an appropriate resolution, and the matter was escalated to Paypal for action. Paypal offered a return of the money to the buyer on condition he destroyed the counterfeit goods. Buyer destroyed item. Paypal took the money destined for the seller and gave it back to the buyer. The buyer has satisfied his part of the process. So the outstanding part of the process is between the seller and Paypal. There either the contract was validly enforced, or Paypal need to compensate the seller. IANAL.
kstenerud 15y ago
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.

988 points by tfe 15y ago

This is a great case of a "picture is worth a thousand words." That picture is heart breaking... STRIPE STRIPE STRIPE!

sakai 15y ago

This is incredibly disgusting behavior. I have so much respect for the founders of PayPal, but current management is destroying their company and, sadly, their reputations.

vaksel 15y ago
um, these problems were present under the original founders as well, you just didn't hear it as much since they were just starting out and didn't have the same market share

kennywinker 15y ago

Whoa. I can't believe anybody would do this. Both PayPal demanding it, and the buyer following through.

tfe 15y ago
The official policy is probably to have buyers destroy counterfeit products to prevent their circulation (possibly at the request of manufacturers?), and that's the reason this happened.
- nerfhammer 15y ago
  pretty stupid policy when applied to antique violins. The manufacturer for that matter has probably been out of business for 70 years.
- kennywinker 15y ago
  Yeah, that seems like what happened. A company like paypal that deals with literally every type of transaction imaginable ought to have a little bit more flexibility in their policies.
- corroded 15y ago
  While I do get their point of preventing counterfeit circulation, who's to say that it is counterfeit? Paypal? The buyer? Unless they have a violin expert on board their team which handled the product physically, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to destroy something that's not proven as counterfeit.
- shasta 15y ago
  Next week: counterfeit kitten claims lead to international PR disaster for Paypal.
  - tibbon 15y ago
    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.
    - gwern 15y ago
      'The Eye of San Jose is on us, Samwise Tibbon!'
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      Paypal has a "Crack of Doom?" Actually, I'm more amused than surprised.

kevingadd 15y ago

Are there any laws regarding the treatment of antiquities and museum pieces like this that could be used to get PayPal to shape up here?

ars 15y ago
I think the point is that paypal (and the buyer) are claiming it's not an antique or museum piece, but rather a counterfeit.
anigbrowl 15y ago
The whole point here is that it's not really an antique piece. If I sell you a 'drawing by Picasso' for $10k, but when you examine it you see that's it's on a kind of paper that was manufactured after Picasso's death, then naturally you will want your money back. Now, the broker (eBay/Paypal) could simply require you to send it back to me and that I refund the money, but that likely means I will just sell it again and again until I find some sufficiently gullible buyer - putting all the risk onto the broker and damaging its reputation. Now, we could argue about whether a drawing by some modern artist that looks very like the work of Picasso is really any less valuable in aesthetic terms, and this question has cropped up a few times in the art world - see Orson Welles' little-known masterpiece F for Fake for a documentary treatment of the subject. But the fact is that the buyer is not satisfied, and whether the buyer has poor taste or is acquiring a famous signature rather than excellent art is beside the point. The buyer could have chosen to love the piece on its own merits or sell it on to some more credulous or indifferent person, but has instead exercised a contractual right to a refund (from the broker). And the broker is, in turn, exercising its contractual right to make the seller carry the cost of the misrepresentation. The seller could have brought the piece to an expert and sold it for cash, as-is and no refunds, but experts are used to such risks and would offer a much lower price. By offloading much of the transactional risk to the broker (compared to, say, advertising it on Craigslist), the seller accepted the broker's conditions. It's all very well to complain about Paypal being terribly mean, but somehow I doubt the original offer of sale was 'possibly-fake violin, buyer beware.' Lots of people sell damaged or otherwise flawed goods on eBay with no problem, but they clearly identify the potential deficiencies so that buyers cannot claim to be surprised after the fact. If authentication disputes are a common issue with used violins, then the seller should have used an authentication service or sold on consignment through a specialty dealer, and accepted the costs involved as a marketing expense.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

In the other recent paypal PR debacle I don't think paypal deserved the level of vitriol that was leveled at them. Regretsy screwed up by operating in a way that would have caused most banks to shut them down, but it was horrible customer service on paypal's part that turned it into a disaster. For this I would like to hear more details of the story but I don't see how paypal could possibly be in the right if the facts as presented are in any way accurate, this is abhorrent.

Anechoic 15y ago
In the other recent paypal PR debacle Link? edit: thanks guys
- simonw 15y ago
  http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay...
- SpikeGronim 15y ago
  Here it is: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/breaking-news/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/breaking-news/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay... http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/

hackermom 15y ago

I can't believe the buyer didn't reflect over how awkwardly wrong it was to destroy someone else's unpaid-for property on the request of a third party (PayPal). Breathtaking stupidity.

parfe 15y ago
The buyer thought he had been scammed and destroying the violin guaranteed his money back. What does he care?
- BiosElement 15y ago
  He should care because if he did that I'd take his sorry ass to court for destruction of MY property.
  - parfe 15y ago
    You sound angry now. Imagine how angry you'll be when you lose your internet tough-guy lawsuit. https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-c... 10.1 b Further, if you lose a SNAD Claim because we, in our sole discretion, reasonably believe 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 will be destroyed). PayPal Seller protection will not cover your liability.
    - Dove 15y ago
      I don't think he's contemplating suing Paypal, but rather the fellow who destroyed the violin. I don't know if such an act would be legally viable, but it certainly seems morally reasonable to me.
    - droithomme 15y ago
      I don't see at all that they reasonably believed it was counterfeit. Unreasonably speculated, perhaps. Reasonably believed? Nope.

wdewind 15y ago

Not saying this didn't happen, but let's wait until we see something a little more official than a random claim on a blog that's known for its bias against PayPal before flipping out.

rickyc091 15y ago
From first hand experience, PayPal has always sided with the buyer. I've definitely run into similar situations where I was forced to give a refund or face losing the item / PayPal withdrawing the money from my bank account even though I stated that no refunds were allowed on my eBay listing. PayPal told me that it meant (crap) and there was no such thing as a no refund policy.
- click170 15y ago
  If that's the case, I can't wait to go buy a bunch of music CDs and software on Ebay to pay with PayPal, only so that I can pirate them and then get my money back. /sarcasm What a shortsighted policy, but then again PayPal has never been known for their agreeable business decisions...
  - kennywinker 15y ago
    You could definitely do this. But only a few times. Ebay / Paypal is all reputational. They'll side with you at first, but you'll be banned / blocked if you repeat this operation a few times. Credit card companies work similarly. I've known people who've racked up huge bar tabs and then called their card in stolen. In reality, most business is run on the honour system like this. You can dine and dash, but only until the wait staff start recognizing you.

mobileed 15y ago

yea, and get a load of this. I've been purchasing stuff off ebay and paying via paypal. According to Paypal, I am exceeding the amount of purchase I can make. After I reach $10,000, I need to have a "verified" account which entails them having access to my bank account number. Two words, FUCK THAT! I have been an ebay user for 10+ years with a perfect rating. I've never sold anything on ebay. I use it only for purchases I consistently pay for my purchases within minutes of the auction closing. Together, paypal and ebay are at risk of loosing another good user of their services!

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jeremyarussell 15y ago

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.

rickyc091 15y ago
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.
- jeremyarussell 15y ago
  Thanks for the answer. A system that allows for this kind of abuse might need checking over, can't say I get why that's allowed at all. Anyone ever seen this used in the right manner? (if such a way to use this method exists.) It just makes so much more sense to send the item back.
  - rickyc091 15y ago
    There's all kinds of people out there. I've had buyers who purchased something and claimed they never received it. I won the claim on that one since the buyer forgot that I shipped the package with delivery confirmation so it showed that it arrived at his door. I also had a buyer who wanted me to ship to him internationally, which I never do and upon receiving the item filed a complaint and said I charged too much for shipping. I was like seriously? I went out of the way to let you ship internationally, so of course it's going to cost more than shipping within the US. Needless to say I won all those battles, but people do file complaints for the stupidest things. Basically you can think of PayPal as a credit card. The buyer is always protected over the seller. So as long as you, as a buyer, don't abuse your right, you'll be able to get away with a few claims.
- learc83 15y ago
  >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.

leelin 15y ago

Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).

akozak 15y ago
Really? I think my childhood violin cost less than $200.
- kmfrk 15y ago
  Well, that doesn't really mean much, if we don't know how old you are and can't adjust for inflation. :P
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- Zak 15y ago
  I have a friend who teaches violin to kids. He says that really cheap violins won't stay in tune at all, which makes teaching very difficult; it's impossible to tell the difference between poor playing and poor performance from the instrument. $200 (today) is most likely still in that category, with cheap but usable starting somewhere over $500.
  - yoos 15y ago
    This. The violin, bow, and strings all affect the sound produced. In high school, I bought my violin and bow used for around $750. While it was fine for orchestral/symphonic stuff, it definitely paled in tone, volume, and responsiveness compared to some of my friends' more expensive violins. When I got to be the soloist during my senior year, I borrowed a much nicer violin from my director and bought a new bow because I simply couldn't get the right sound out of my own violin.
  - ctrager 15y ago
    Sorry, about staying in tune, I don't physics, mechanics, can support that teacher's belief. Do the pegs slip? That's adjustable. Are the strings crappy? Replace them. My experience is that there is a lot of false belief and superstition about violins including among violin teachers.

angryasian 15y ago

its great that the internet opened up a global market, but the same rules apply Caveat emptor, Caveat venditor

Renai 15y ago

This is atrocious. Couldn't they sue and say that they did not own the violin since they did not pay, thus destroyed someone else's violin?

BiosElement 15y ago
Yes, yes you could. But good luck getting at paypal. The law doesn't apply to them.
- w-ll 15y ago
  Not even in a small claims court?

vonskippy 15y ago

Yeah, Regretsy.com is a bastion of fine journalism. I'd wait to get your panties in a knot until a real news site reports this.

vonskippy 15y ago
Hard to understand the down voting. Are people actually that stupid that they believe the story is true?
- marshray 15y ago
  The story is self-consistent and it's consistent with PayPal's ToS. It's consistent with the destruction of other "counterfeit label" products. Given PayPal's long history of nastiness I don't think there are many people remaining who would give them any benefit of the doubt.

parfe 15y ago

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=10000000001308663 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-Labels-Inside-of-Violins?ugid=10000000001631923 http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-Lab... http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-Ebay?ugid=10000000014298167 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 discretion, reasonably believe 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 will be destroyed). PayPal Seller protection will not cover your liability. https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-c... If Paypal decides you sold a counterfeit item, you lose the item and your money.

joshz 15y ago
That's really shitty. It would be interesting to know what sole discretion or reasonable belief constitutes. I doubt ebay/paypal sent experts to 'investigate', they more likely said "If you, the buyer, believe it's counterfeit because of <whatever>, then it is. Seller won't sue anyway."
- artursapek 15y ago
  Is there a reason not to sue? That's $2,500 in losses. And the principle of it...
  - jackowayed 15y ago
    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.

cpeterso 15y ago

> I sold an old French violin to a buyer in Canada, and the buyer disputed the label. Any more info about the "disputed" label?

udp 15y ago

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.

ars 15y ago
> 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, which is unusual for this type of purchase. c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. Obviously I have no actual knowledge here, but that's my sense.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. I have the same (perhaps irrational) emotional attachment to musical instruments (and rare antique computers, old books, etc.) as the GP. It seems like a "sin" against music and the labor of the instrument's creator to destroy an instrument. I also think it would be wrong to destroy a counterfeit painting, for similar reasons.
- abecedarius 15y ago
  The seller refused the return? What do you base this on?
- waqf 15y ago
  I don't think you read the email properly. The seller implies that their preferred outcome was to have the violin returned and, presumably, the price refunded. That dispenses completely with your reasons (a) and (b).

Florin_Andrei 15y ago

Yeah. I'm selling some old stuff on eBay, using money to buy newer stuff, drawing the difference from the bank when the PayPal balance is not enough. Repeat. After not even two cycles of this, I get an email from PP saying: > Starting MM/DD/YYYY, money from payments you receive will be placed in a pending balance for up to 21 days. By doing this, we're making sure that there's enough money in your account to cover potential refunds or claims. [...] We reviewed your account and determined that there's a relatively higher than average risk of future transaction issues (such as claims, or chargebacks, or payment reversals). We understand that it may be inconvenient to have your payments temporarily held but please know that we didn't make this decision lightly. That's right. You didn't make this decision lightly. You made it out of greed. You're simply looking for ways to keep my money longer than necessary in order to accrue interest, or whatever. How is this legal? It's my money. Fortunately, I noticed that selling stuff on Amazon is not too different from eBay. So I'm thinking to move my transactions to Amazon and stop using PayPal altogether.

iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
it's legal because PayPal is technically not a bank.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  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?
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    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 taking a large amount of cash to buy something from a stranger. Finally, eBay allows you to reach a much wider market than you could through local classifieds, and takes care of almost all the administrative overhead of the transaction. As a buyer, you want this security so that you can pay a few thousand $ without the fear of getting nothing in return. As a seller, you have to treat the 21-day float period as a cost of doing business, or else impose less generous terms of your own (and see less interest from wary buyers who do not want risk). In the business world suppliers are often expected to provide 30 or even 60 days of credit to commercial customers, and dealing with this is the essence of cash flow management. It seems you want all the benefits of having your money instantly, but that someone else bears all the risk. The opportunity cost of the 21-day wait is the risk premium you pay for access to a large marketplace.

parsnips 15y ago

It's called small claims court. Just take Pay Pal there, and win the $2500 plus costs.

guelo 15y ago

I would sue PayPal in small claims court.

marshray 15y ago
That won't bring back the violin. :-(

astrodust 15y ago

I guess there's going to be a lot of counterfeit Roman-era coins that will have to be melted down for scrap!

abruzzi 15y ago

To answer a couple of questions: 1. $2500 is a mid grade violin. I have a 100yo Czech violin that is worth $250. Sears specials for Jr. High students can cost $100. 2. The seller is right that the Label doesn't qualify as intentional counterfeiting. My Czech violins says its a Strad. This is extremely common, and should be taken more like a 'inspired by' tag--unless of course the maker is reputable enough to place their own tags. It seems to me that the problem is paypal's definition of counterfeit shouldn't be expanded to cover objects where you truly need an expert to determine the counterfeit status. Knockoff rolexes are on thing, but at least from the post, it seems they are taking the buyers word, and don't understand the nature of violin labels. Also, isn't PayPal owned by eBay? Aren't there thousands or even tens of thousands of counterfeit items littered across eBay?

aiscott 15y ago
I wonder if counterfeits explain this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/1444828...
- yoos 15y ago
  FWIW, trying to compare two violins with recorded clips like the ones in that blog post is pointless because there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised by the test results. I wonder what kind of credentials these "professionals" have? Even the best violinists probably have tried only a few of the many Strads and Guarneris in existence, so how would the professionals in this experiment know what to listen for?
  - jpitz 15y ago
    <quote>there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone.</quote> I am confused. I think you're claiming that, for example, a KSM-137 has frequency response in some part of the audible range that is so terrible that there are sounds it just flat out isn't capturing. What frequencies?

droithomme 15y ago

Since it was not a counterfeit, what legal recourse might the seller have?

Shenglong 15y ago

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 money! Genius!" Honestly, this just goes to show how important hiring really can be. Someone with enough common sense to say "hey, that doesn't seem right" would eliminate so many of these problems.

leptons 15y ago
When faced with incompetence, always ask for another rep. Two employees at the same company will often give you two different experiences. This is true of all the contact I've had with AT&T, and others, and no doubt the same is true at Paypal. Just don't even waste your time if you can tell the person you are talking to does not comprehend your complaint, just hang up and call back and keep calling back until you reach someone with half a brain.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  Yeah that's what I ended up doing. At first, I couldn't believe anyone could be so incompetent, so I kept trying to break up the problem into pieces. Big mistake :(
- prawn 15y ago
  Very true. We had noticed that any time we had a poor experience with tech support at our main web host, it was the same person. We've turned to either disconnecting chats until we get someone else or (where possible) requesting others specifically by name. The difference can be huge.
breck 15y ago
Personally I've had great experiences with PayPal's phone support through PayPal Advantage.
- 15y ago

irunbackwards 15y ago

I feel like this would make a great MasterCard commercial.

RobertKohr 15y ago

So the moral is, if you are selling a big ticket item, don't accept paypal. There are many cases where it just gets reversed, and the buyer is always right. When selling something like this, accept cashier checks, money orders, bitcoins, etc. You need need it to be non-reversible.

jtchang 15y ago

"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.

rudiger 15y ago
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.

Finbarr 15y ago

There's a picture of a broken violin? Then it must be true! Why would anyone ever break such a beautiful instrument unless Paypal had told them to!?

kenmck 15y ago

Paypal's destruction of counterfeits policy is intended to combat counterfeiting of designer items. It's application here seems lame-brained to say the least. I'm curious how it got into Paypal's dispute resolution process however. In the only other original post I could find on the matter the seller says she sold the violin through eBay http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-item/ http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-ite.... Normally this would have gone through eBay's dispute resolution process first.

dataminer 15y ago

About 3 years ago I had to deal with a counterfeit item bought on ebay. In such cases an experienced seller usually offer full refund no questions asked, this is the best policy and saves time and the item, though the seller loses shipping charges they paid when the item was initially shipped and the buyer has to pay the return shipping, sometimes to make the buyer happy, seller even offer to pay return shipping. These small loses are usually considered as "cost of doing business on internet". Paypal use to require the buyer to prove that the "assumed" fake item is actually fake. In my case Paypal asked me to obtain a certificate either from the original brand or some authorized dealer. If I would have gone that route I had to pay for appraisal fees and spend time shipping/taking item to the authorized dealer. I guess this was Paypal's measure against every other buyer crying fake when they start feeling buyers remorse. I hope Paypal has not changed their policy of asking for the counterfeit certificate, making it too easy for buyers to claim fake items.

pbreit 15y ago

Something doesn't sound right here. Does the OP have any correspondence from PayPal showing that it indeed instructed the buyer to destroy the violin? Is it legal for PayPal to instruct and for a person to destroy property like this? Without some sort of third party mediation? Could the seller have offered to pay for an authentication?

josscrowcroft 15y ago

What the ffuuuuu..... Things just keep getting weirder and weirder with PayPal. And more depressing.

petercooper 15y ago

The funny part of this story is in the comments section. A bizarre number of strangers seem to be "cut up" or "I'm crying" over an inanimate object that isn't even theirs!

marshray 15y ago
You should really try to appreciate how a musician relates to their antique violin. Would you not understand peoples' sadness if a collection of great paintings were destroyed in a museum fire? The sickest part of it was that it was destroyed intentionally by humans for no good reason at all. Sure, this was not the most valuable piece in the world but there are definitely a finite number of them remaining. My guess is a lot of them are moving to collectors in Asia never to be seen again in the West. Who would have thought that would be the safest place for them? Oooh this makes me sick.
- AnthonBerg 15y ago
  If only we were as compassionate towards, say, starving people.
  - gjm11 15y ago
    The estimates I've seen for the total amount of humanitarian aid are on the order of $20bn/year. What's the world's annual violin-compassion budget? (I think $20bn/year is way too low and the world would be a better place if we were more compassionate towards starving people and others in distress. But that's no reason at all not to care about old violins being destroyed.)
  - Dove 15y ago
    Puzzling. Do you think people would be less irate if, instead of a violin destroyed, it had been a starving person?
    - st0p 15y ago
      [dystopia]Imagine a starving person from Ethopia being sold on ebay and then destroyed because the buyer said the bought good actually had the Somalian nationality[/dystopia]

pflargger 15y ago

I don't see at all where the seller refused to have the item returned. In fact, in both paypalcomplaints.org and Regretsy.com, the seller said: "Paypal instructed the buyer of a vioin (sic) I sold on Ebay to DESTROY the item rather than return it to me..." - paypalcomplaints.org "Rather than have the violin returned to me, PayPal made the buyer DESTROY the violin in order to get his money back." - Regretsy.com So it looks like the seller tried to get the violin returned, but PayPal wouldn't issue the refund until it was destroyed. Though if someone has that information elsewhere, I'd love to see it.

rickyc091 15y ago
We don't know the interaction between the seller / the buyer. My guess is that the seller initially refused to give a refund back. I know as a seller I am generally hesitant to give a refund back if I know there was no issue with my sale. The buyer probably emailed the seller saying, hey you just sold me a fake. The seller probably responded it is not a fake, I will not give you a refund. As a buyer I hate the hassle of refunds since I just wasted X days listing it, then I have to file a complaint with eBay to get my insertion value / final insertion value back. $2500... that would probably be $100-200 in fees that you'll have to take as a lost for a week or two. The buyer escalated the issue straight to PayPal and this is when PayPal will immediately side with the buyer. PayPal would not be able to withdraw the $2500 from the buyer unless it was destroyed. The buyer destroys it, tada, the buyer gets the money and the seller just lost the product / the money. Welcome to eBay/PayPal.
- pflargger 15y ago
  I've sold a ton on eBay and Etsy and I've issued plenty of refunds for items lost in transit. Luckily, I haven't had an issue where the buyer got the item and wanted a refund, so I have no idea how it would go. I guess as a seller in the Etsy community, I've heard so many shitty buyer stories, I tend to side with the seller. Everything from a simple claiming the item was never received when it actually was, to all sorts of bizarre schemes by buyers to get extra money out of the deal. Regardless, PayPal should have gotten an actual expert to check out the violin before ordering it destroyed.

mbrzuzy 15y ago

This makes me sick. Ordering to destroy? That makes absolutely NO sense to me. If someone told me this story in person, I would have thought that it was a joke. Paypal is right up there with godaddy on the list of worst tech companies.

Vivtek 15y ago
The picture of the shredded violin causes me pain verging on the physical. It's probably best we don't know the identity of the buyer.
- troll24601 15y ago
  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.
  - rmc 15y ago
    The seller agreed that if PayPal, at their sole discresion, thinks it's counterfiet, that they are OK with someone else destroying it.
    - troll24601 15y ago
      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.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      I hate law pedantry.

imperialdrive 15y ago

What a terrible story - I'm sorry to hear about your violin. I just closed my paypal account; it took 60 seconds...

loceng 15y ago

I think this should be taken to Reddit to get PayPal to change their ways, and/or fundraise money to sue PayPal to change this practice.

jorgecastillo 15y ago

I will never have a PayPal account.

whatusername 15y ago

Step 1: Buy expensive Violin on eBay/PayPal. Step 2: Dispute Authenticity. Ask for a refund / offer to smash as proof. Step 3: Buy and Smash Cheap Violin and send PayPal photos as proof. Step 4: Profit!

dannielo2 15y ago

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.

tom626 15y ago
bump
aplusbi 15y ago
Here is one for $3300: http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_113_342/products_id/3386 http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catal... Here's one for $1975: http://www.homerweb.com/vintage/GREAT-Old-Antique-BOURGUIGNON-MAURICE-lab-VIOLIN_230644232294.html 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.

gerggerg 15y ago

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.

ruethewhirled 15y ago

It's reasons like this I'll never have a paypal account or offer it as a means of payment on my site

uurayan 15y ago

One thing I don't understand is why didn't the buyer just contact the seller directly and try to return the violin for a full refund? Was it sold under the terms all sales final?

nwmcsween 15y ago

The thing is if an item is counterfeit and paypal allowed payment to proceed they could be litigated. If a third party imported counterfit goods and didn't take due action they could be fined and / or lose their license. Paypal does this to minimize risk and effort (cost) involved, whether this is a good way to minimize risk is apparent but than again this is paypal.

marshray 15y ago

I took violin in 6th grade and all of our student models had the "Stradivarius" label. The teacher said about half the violins in the world had a label like that, it was just the style. PayPal's actions and those of these anti-counterfeiting fascists make me sick. How long until they start organizing "counterfeit violin" burnings in the streets?

jaysonelliot 15y ago

A lot of people are talking about finding an alternative to PayPal. Does anyone have an opinion on Dwolla or Square? I have also heard that Visa is getting into the P2P payment space, I suppose Google Wallet must have similar plans.

cookiecaper 15y ago
I used WePay recently to invoice a client and I really thought it was quite a pleasant experience. I considered using Dwolla but they seemed less established and credible. I had some questions about the service that their site didn't answer. I was really happy with WePay. I hope I can use it more soon, it was really was very simple, and I think the features to "split the ticket" are pretty cool.

nsxwolf 15y ago

Startup idea: Offer insurance to protect sellers against PayPal's counterfeit item policy.

dhughes 15y ago

The sad thing is he could have bought a $5 piece of junk at the pawn shop smashed it to bits then showed Paypal a picture of that.

manojlds 15y ago

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

dangrossman 15y ago
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.

phaus 15y ago

I'm surprised the dispute got this far. Normal SOP on paypal goes like this. 1. Buyer pays for expensive item with credit card through paypal. 2. Buyer receives shipping confirmation. 3. Buyer disputes credit card transaction. 4. Paypal customer service says "LOL, should have sold it locally. We don't recommend using our service for items like this." 5. Buyer enjoys free $2500 violin.

bhangi 15y ago

Disclaimer - I used to work at eBay but my work was not in any way connected with policies on counterfeits or Paypal. So the following is my speculation only. While this specific case does sound awful, I'd bet that eBay/Paypal's draconian policies towards counterfeits is a result of number of lawsuits that designer labels have filed in the past against eBay. It would likely be impossible for eBay/Paypal to physically examine every item that is claimed to be counterfeit, so the blanket policy which lets them claim in court that they are doing everything reasonable to prevent counterfeit items being traded on eBay. Again, this particular case does suck, but honestly I think the real villains are the Louis Vittons of the world.

Mordor 15y ago

Even something counterfeit is worth something, so the seller is still entitled to sue (for the value of the counterfeit good). The object would then be re-valued during the trial and the seller liable for the full amount. Is this correct?

Confusion 15y ago

The initial problem here is a single PayPal employee that either didn't read the case well enough to understand the item involved or just doesn't care about antiques or violins (or both). Either way: an employee that doesn't actually care about customers and only abstractly cares about getting his job done, which is probably handling hundreds of similar complaints a day. I can't really blame him. The result sucks, but the system necessarily produces some excesses, because guarding against them is too expensive. Welcome to an corporatist, capitalist world with individualistic employees. It doesn't optimize for human happiness, only for added economic value, independent of who benefits from that value.

ck2 15y ago

Congressional hearing please. My only hope is that congress usually destroys instead of fixes whatever it sets it's eyes on, so PayPal would be doomed.

Tinned_Tuna 15y ago

On the one hand, I can see why that particular clause (10.1b) is in their TOS. They don't want you (be you the buyer or the seller who got the item back) to re-sell the counterfeit item, costing PayPal the fees, and all of the lost time on the dispute. However, there should be a reasonable limit, whereby if the item is >£x value, or is claimed to be an antique (or similar), an independent professional who can identify it will be hired -- and charged to whoever they side against (i.e. whoever made the false claim).

Isofarro 15y ago

Note: the story only mentions the end result, not the path to that end results - so we only have a partial story I've been through the PayPal dispute process as a buyer several times. It can only be escalated to a PayPal decision after communications between the buyer and the seller have proved unsuccessful / broken down, as in the seller doesn't reply, or refuses to sort out the situation. It doesn't happen overnight. It's not clear which way this went, but after negotiating with the seller proved fruitless, and then being forced into raising a PayPal dispute, then again the seller failing to resolve the matter forcing an escalation to a PayPal decision - this led to the path of destroying what was claimed to be counterfeit materials. So the seller knows that violin labels are a contentious area, thus perhaps should have been more accommodating and resolved the issue without forcing the buyer to escalate. From the buyers perspective, being asked to destroy an item they claim is counterfeit as a pre-requisite to getting his money back seems a rather straightforward step. Clearly the buyer and seller disagree with the authenticity of the item - but that should have spurred the seller to remedy the situation rather than force an escalation to a PayPal dispute. That way the seller wouldn't have lost out. The seller's failure to resolve the situation appropriately, before the buyer felt it necessary to escalate a Paypal dispute is part of the problem here. I guess the seller was playing hardball instead of negotiating in good faith. And by playing hardball and failing to resolve the problem initially, the seller loses. Where the seller believes that they sold an authentic item, and the buyer disagrees, isn't it logical for the seller to offer a good faith refund and send-back without forcing the buyer to raise a paypal dispute and then escalate it when no resolution could be made?

chrislomax 15y ago
This is it though, you don't know the path to the end result. In that it could quite easily be that the buyer is a pain and has escalated it when the seller disputed the buyers claim that it was not authentic and have stated that it has been checked before hand. I have had dealings with people on Paypal and eBay where the issue has been escalated quite quickly because the buyer was a pain in the ass. I had one buyer who escalated a claim because they had paid by eCheque and we sent the item the day after the item had cleared yet they were raising dispute before the eCheque had cleared. Some people just don't work the system properly which can lead to these situations so quickly. From a sellers point of view, the system doesn't work. It's all about the buyer

Keyframe 15y ago

Interesting story, but how is this hacker news?

mverwijs 15y ago

The way I see it the buyer/destroyer should be sued. A sale was agreed upon. The goods were delivered. The money wasn't. Buyer simply did not hold up his end of the bargain and should be taken to court. In my simple view, PayPal does not even enter the picture. Or is there more to it than that?

Isofarro 15y ago
The money looks to have been sent - in good faith - by the buyer. Otherwise, why would the seller have dispatched the goods? The seller dispatched the goods in good faith that the money had been sent by the buyer (to Paypal, acting as an intermediary to the seller). The buyer most likely disputed the item after he received it. The dispute got escalated for reasons that haven't yet been established. The goods were deemed to be counterfeit (perhaps the dispute was raised because of that, or it became a material complaint after the dispute was raised). Something/nothing happened which resulted in the seller and buyer unable to reach an appropriate resolution, and the matter was escalated to Paypal for action. Paypal offered a return of the money to the buyer on condition he destroyed the counterfeit goods. Buyer destroyed item. Paypal took the money destined for the seller and gave it back to the buyer. The buyer has satisfied his part of the process. So the outstanding part of the process is between the seller and Paypal. There either the contract was validly enforced, or Paypal need to compensate the seller. IANAL.

kstenerud 15y ago

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.