4 ms·

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).

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.
      - kstenerud 15y ago
        The key words here are "in our sole discretion". Those words are legal kryptonite.
        buff-a 15y ago
        You might want to add "IANAL".
    - toomuchtodo 15y ago
      $2500 is enough of a loss for some people to show up at the buyer's door; great lot a TOS does when police response is a good 8-12 minutes away. (Yes, people have done physical violence against another for FAR less than $2500)
    - Silhouette 15y ago
      (a) It sounds like Paypal made no attempt to verify the counterfeit claim at all, and would not have been qualified to do so even if they had examined the item themselves. Arguing that they had any sort of reasonable belief that it was a counterfeit would last about five seconds in a small claims court. (b) Paypal's terms are probably irrelevant here anyway unless they owned either the money or the instrument. If they don't have a valid legal claim on them, then they have no right to tell anyone else what to do with them, regardless of any document their lawyers write. (c) Even if the terms are relevant, this policy is so obviously unreasonable that you can't assume any court is going to automatically uphold the contractual term. (d) This is all to protect Paypal, not the buyer. Notwithstanding any of Paypal's legalese, and obviously without knowing all the details, it seems very possible that a court would hold that a contract of sale existed here between the buyer and seller directly, and that as such the buyer who destroyed the instrument but did not pay for it is either in breach of contract (and thus owes the money anyway) or guilty of theft/criminal damage/other similar offences (in which case they are potentially in bigger trouble and might actually have police showing up on their doorstep, though even in the best case for them if the violin was as specified then they have conveniently accepted what a valid level of compensation would be). (e) The fact that the destruction was done at Paypal's request is probably irrelevant following such a finding, other than to the extent that Paypal may have some sort of indirect liability for the damages in a civil suit, or that whichever idiot working for them sent the request might even be regarded as an accessory to a crime if someone in authority wanted to make a point. Actually, I imagine that would shake their staff down pretty quickly, since no amount of contractual anything from Paypal's legal team is going to protect the staff personally in that sort of situation. Standard disclaimers apply: I'm not a lawyer, but I have found that if you actually get your day in court then usually the court has some amount of common sense and a much smaller amount of tolerance for lawyers obviously trying to intimidate other citizens with legalese. Internet tough-guy defences pointing at tricky legalese don't always end well, if the Internet tough-guy law suit actually reaches a court room. It's usually the cost/inconvenience/lack of understanding of bringing a small-scale lawsuit that protects the companies from wronged individuals, not the power of their obviously one-sided form contracts.
DanBC 15y ago
How do we know buyer did destroy the violin, and not some random shitty violin?
- hackermom 15y ago
  We don't, but the end result for the affected party (the seller) is the same - he lost $2500 worth of goods due to the buyer violating his property and material rights on request of PayPal.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    I'm trying to ask "How do we know the buyer is not malicious? He buys a violin; disputes authenticity; destroys some stand in violin (keeping original); gets money back; sells original violin via different account; gets more money." That's not something paypal can cope with, or is it?
    - hackermom 15y ago
      THAT is a good point. I could see how that scenario can be abused - almost entirely because of PayPal having the "destroy counterfeit products" clause in the first place. Feels like this should be enough to put the law on their behinds to have this loophole plugged. Someone should bring this to the attention of the proper authorities.
rmc 15y ago
Legally the person who sent them the property agreed "If PayPal decides it's counterfiet, then I'm OK with it being destroyed"

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.
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      The key words here are "in our sole discretion". Those words are legal kryptonite.
      - buff-a 15y ago
        You might want to add "IANAL".
  - toomuchtodo 15y ago
    $2500 is enough of a loss for some people to show up at the buyer's door; great lot a TOS does when police response is a good 8-12 minutes away. (Yes, people have done physical violence against another for FAR less than $2500)
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    (a) It sounds like Paypal made no attempt to verify the counterfeit claim at all, and would not have been qualified to do so even if they had examined the item themselves. Arguing that they had any sort of reasonable belief that it was a counterfeit would last about five seconds in a small claims court. (b) Paypal's terms are probably irrelevant here anyway unless they owned either the money or the instrument. If they don't have a valid legal claim on them, then they have no right to tell anyone else what to do with them, regardless of any document their lawyers write. (c) Even if the terms are relevant, this policy is so obviously unreasonable that you can't assume any court is going to automatically uphold the contractual term. (d) This is all to protect Paypal, not the buyer. Notwithstanding any of Paypal's legalese, and obviously without knowing all the details, it seems very possible that a court would hold that a contract of sale existed here between the buyer and seller directly, and that as such the buyer who destroyed the instrument but did not pay for it is either in breach of contract (and thus owes the money anyway) or guilty of theft/criminal damage/other similar offences (in which case they are potentially in bigger trouble and might actually have police showing up on their doorstep, though even in the best case for them if the violin was as specified then they have conveniently accepted what a valid level of compensation would be). (e) The fact that the destruction was done at Paypal's request is probably irrelevant following such a finding, other than to the extent that Paypal may have some sort of indirect liability for the damages in a civil suit, or that whichever idiot working for them sent the request might even be regarded as an accessory to a crime if someone in authority wanted to make a point. Actually, I imagine that would shake their staff down pretty quickly, since no amount of contractual anything from Paypal's legal team is going to protect the staff personally in that sort of situation. Standard disclaimers apply: I'm not a lawyer, but I have found that if you actually get your day in court then usually the court has some amount of common sense and a much smaller amount of tolerance for lawyers obviously trying to intimidate other citizens with legalese. Internet tough-guy defences pointing at tricky legalese don't always end well, if the Internet tough-guy law suit actually reaches a court room. It's usually the cost/inconvenience/lack of understanding of bringing a small-scale lawsuit that protects the companies from wronged individuals, not the power of their obviously one-sided form contracts.

DanBC 15y ago

How do we know buyer did destroy the violin, and not some random shitty violin?

hackermom 15y ago
We don't, but the end result for the affected party (the seller) is the same - he lost $2500 worth of goods due to the buyer violating his property and material rights on request of PayPal.
- DanBC 15y ago
  I'm trying to ask "How do we know the buyer is not malicious? He buys a violin; disputes authenticity; destroys some stand in violin (keeping original); gets money back; sells original violin via different account; gets more money." That's not something paypal can cope with, or is it?
  - hackermom 15y ago
    THAT is a good point. I could see how that scenario can be abused - almost entirely because of PayPal having the "destroy counterfeit products" clause in the first place. Feels like this should be enough to put the law on their behinds to have this loophole plugged. Someone should bring this to the attention of the proper authorities.

rmc 15y ago

Legally the person who sent them the property agreed "If PayPal decides it's counterfiet, then I'm OK with it being destroyed"