
PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute - tfe
http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/
======
parfe
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=10...](http://reviews.ebay.com/Buying-an-old-violin-on-
ebay?ugid=10000000001308663)

[http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-
Lab...](http://reviews.ebay.com/What-apos-s-in-a-Name-A-Guide-to-Labels-
Inside-of-Violins?ugid=10000000001631923)

[http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-
Ebay?ugid=100000000142981...](http://reviews.ebay.com/Violins-on-
Ebay?ugid=10000000014298167)

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-c...](https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-
bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-
content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US)

If Paypal decides you sold a counterfeit item, you lose the item and your
money.

~~~
joshz
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
Is there a reason not to sue? That's $2,500 in losses. And the principle of
it...

~~~
jackowayed
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.

~~~
scottdw2
Generally speaking, unilateral provisions in contracts render the contract
unenforceable by the party they benefit. The fundamental principal behind
common law contracts is the "bargain principal". There must be some
"consideration" paid by both parties before a contract is valid (I will give
you this, in consideration for your giving me that). A clause in a contract
that said, "we have the right to breach this contract at any time we choose"
would render the contract void, because there is no "bargin" involved. Such
types of promise (a promise to give something with nothing in return) are
called "charity" and are not enforced by law. You can tell Jery Lewis, "I
promise to give you $20 at your next telethon", but he can't sue you if you
don't pay.

So... that means that the either:

1) The provision in the contract can't mean "we have the write to breach
whenever we feel like it"

2) or, that the TOS are unenforceable.

The wording in the TOS is designed specifically to not mean "we can breach
whenever we want", but instead to mean "if you sell counterfeit goods through
our service we will destroy them and not refund your money".

The words "we ... reasonably believe the item you sold is counterfeit" were
deliberately chosen for this purpose. The fact that paypal can use its sole
discretion just tips the scales in their favor. If they have reasonable
evidence that something is fake, then they can destroy it, even if they
haven't done due diligence to prove it's a fake.

The question comes down to wether or not paypal had reason to believe the item
was counterfeit.

Their are certain cases where only a customer complaint would be sufficient to
establish a "reasonable believe".

For example, if Picasso bought a painting that was said to be a Picasso
original, and he called paypal and said "I didn't paint this, it's a fake",
they would definetly be within their rights if they distroyed it, even if
further investigation could have revealed he was lying.

In this particular case... you could potentially argue that the customer's
complaint was in no way sufficient for paypal to reach a "reasonable believe".
This does make the whole thing wildly open to judicial interpretation,
however.

~~~
stcredzero
_The fundamental principal behind common law contracts is the "bargain
principal"._

Principle. (JSYK)

~~~
scottdw2
I wrote it on my iPhone @ 2 am....There are many typos.

In any case, once someone posts a comment I can't edit a post, so by posting a
reply about a typeo, you only ensure that it will never be fixed....

~~~
stcredzero
Better than it be out there, posing as correct.

------
abruzzi
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
I wonder if counterfeits explain this:
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/1444828...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-
blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs)

~~~
yoos
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?

~~~
StavrosK
> there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a
> microphone.

Is that true? Shannon-Nyquist seems to disagree.

~~~
JonnieCache
In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room
(reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the
frequency range you _can_ hear.

This is why it is important to record instruments with higher sample rates
(192khz is standard) in order to fully preserve their sonic character for
further processing.

This is one answer to the question "why do musicians record ultrasound," I
hope it is correct. There are many answers given to this question and even a
lot of sound engineers don't understand the concepts correctly, so hopefully I
have got this right.

You also hear a lot of stuff about how filters need headroom to avoid creating
aftefacts in the data; a LP filter creates more artefacts the sharper its
cutoff curve, so therefore by having a lot of ultrasound one can have a very
gradual cutoff (or a cheaper filter) and only discard data in the inaudible
range. I'm less sure that this is true however.

Then there are a lot of people who think it's simply the usual "higher numbers
are better" type of marketing games. They may well be right. All I know is,
there is nowhere near enough double blind testing in the pro audio industry,
and if they started doing in en-mass it would cause terrible trouble.

Hopefully, as usual, some expert will jump in here and lay down some solid
facts. Be aware though that one cannot simply apply electromagnetic
principles, it isn't always the same.

~~~
jpitz
>In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room
(reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the
frequency range you can hear.

If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave
traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

~~~
cube13
>If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave
traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

Microphones don't respond in the same way to the same frequencies that your
eardrum does. They can generally only record a subset of the total audio
spectrum. So they're unable to completely reproduce the sound that was created
by the instrument. If the ultrasonic frequencies resonate with a frequency
that you can hear, it can cause some odd things to happen if the mic isn't
able to record the frequency directly.

~~~
jpitz
( Background: I was a professional musician in a past life and I was quite
involved in sound reinforcement. ) No two ears, nor no two microphones have
the exact same response curve. I'm not yet convinced that what you or the
original comment I reply'd to can be explained by differences in curves which,
AFAIK, are relatively flat in the sonic regions we're discussing. The mic I
referred to earlier looks to be flat to within 3db from 200hz to 20k. Are we
discussing signals outside that range or within it?

------
Shenglong
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.

~~~
stcredzero
_It seems to be, that most of PayPal's PR blunders result from heavily
regulation of stupid employees._

Funny, but heavily regulation of stupid employees seems to be the source of
many complaints about the TSA, government agencies in general, traffic
enforcement, customer service reps, etc...

~~~
dasil003
Understandably. Stupid people need jobs too, and they apply to a lot more of
them than average people.

~~~
stcredzero
So our social organization tends to place stupid people into customer service
positions. This is why a company like Zappos that puts non-stupid and caring
people into such positions distinguishes itself.

~~~
Shenglong
Somewhat entertaining example:

A company I worked for briefly that services the UK had its sales team in
Canada, and its customer service team in India. Not saying Indians are stupid
of course, but labor is certainly cheaper there, as compared to Canada.

------
udp
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
> 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
_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.

------
Isofarro
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
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

------
Florin_Andrei
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.

~~~
pbreit
I can assure you they do not do it to earn interest. PayPal loses far more
money on chargebacks, fraud, payment reversals, dispute resolutions, etc. than
it makes on a measly 21 days of interest.

Further, "hold backs" (aka "reserves") are very common in bank-operated credit
card merchant accounts.

~~~
ryan-allen
I wonder how much money they actually lose on a chargeback though? Chargebacks
are debited from the merchants account (i.e. the merchant wears the cost of
the fraud). So despite the origin of the fraud, the merchant wears it.

This is at least true with digital goods that can't be returned, I don't know
what the policy is in regards to physical goods and PayPal.

~~~
dangrossman
I think it's fair to say the answer is "a lot". Especially in cases of fraud,
there's not going to be any money in the merchant's PayPal account to debit.
They were gone long before the chargeback came through, and they aren't going
to leave a legitimate bank or credit card linked to the account to go after
either. PayPal takes those losses.

------
InclinedPlane
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
_In the other recent paypal PR debacle_

Link?

edit: thanks guys

~~~
InclinedPlane
<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/2011/12/06/breaking-news/>

[http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-
pay...](http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/)

<http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/07/paypal-update/>

<http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/09/two-fantastic-updates/>

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

~~~
tfe
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.

~~~
shasta
Next week: counterfeit kitten claims lead to international PR disaster for
Paypal.

~~~
tibbon
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.

~~~
stcredzero
Paypal has a "Crack of Doom?" Actually, I'm more amused than surprised.

------
whatusername
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!

------
dataminer
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.

------
wdewind
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
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
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
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.

------
pflargger
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
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
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.

------
leelin
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
Really? I think my childhood violin cost less than $200.

~~~
Zak
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.

~~~
ctrager
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.

~~~
Zak
I suspect it's more likely that the wood warps in response to some combination
of temperature, humidity and the mechanical forces applied to it during
playing. It wouldn't take very much warping to cause a change in the sound.

~~~
ctrager
Two thoughts:

1) The operative pieces of wood here are the nut, the bridge, and the
fingerboard. These pieces are all non-integral, relatively easily, cheaply
replaceable parts of the violin. I can see how a nut or bridge that's too high
would make the violin harder to play with good intonation, and for sure, a
fingerboard that is worn or misshapen could, but other than that, I don't
think there's any other part piece of wood that matters.

2) Not a rule, but sort of a default rule of thumb for a certain level of
violin playing is don't play on open strings because you can't do vibrato and
you can't adjust the pitch while you're playing. I remember my kid's intense,
Teutonic teacher saying to him, "Well, your strings are out of tune, but
that's NO EXCUSE for playing out of tune!", meaning, she expected my kid to
have been able to make the adjustments on the fly with his finger placements.

------
kevingadd
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?

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
zabraxias
I agree that this was not a specific case of PP choosing to be vile and
destroy a violin but it's still inexcusable to have a one-solution scenario
and keep robotic, unquestioning staff incapable of providing the human element
to problem resolution.

This is a case of a corporation dictating legal policy based on their legal
interpretation. I am not even sure if they are masking it as legal policy
really.

I am really wishing/waiting for a responsible company to be able to enter the
international online payments arena but I don't see this happening anytime
soon.

~~~
anigbrowl
The thing is that any seller could go with a company that will handle this on
a case-by-case basis - _ie_ a dealer - but the commissions will be a lot
higher because you're renting the dealer's expertise/reputation. Paypal's
benefit is being ubiquitous and cheap, not as an expert arbitrator in
specialty transactions.

------
phaus
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.

------
kenmck
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-ite...](http://paypalcomplaints.org/paypal-told-buyer-to-destroy-
item/). Normally this would have gone through eBay's dispute resolution
process first.

------
sakai
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
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

------
jtchang
"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
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.

------
Renai
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
Yes, yes you could. But good luck getting at paypal. The law doesn't apply to
them.

~~~
w-ll
Not even in a small claims court?

------
marshray
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
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
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.

------
mbrzuzy
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
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
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
The seller agreed that if PayPal, at their sole discresion, thinks it's
counterfiet, that they are OK with someone else destroying it.

~~~
Vivtek
I hate law pedantry.

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

------
bhangi
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.

------
mverwijs
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
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.

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

------
jeremyarussell
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
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
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
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.

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

~~~
dangrossman
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.

------
cpeterso
> _I sold an old French violin to a buyer in Canada, and the buyer disputed
> the label._

Any more info about the "disputed" label?

------
Confusion
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.

------
kstenerud
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.

------
dannielo2
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.

~~~
aplusbi
Here is one for $3300:
[http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catal...](http://www.audubonstrings.com/oscommerce-2.2ms2-051113/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_113_342/products_id/3386)

Here's one for $1975: [http://www.homerweb.com/vintage/GREAT-Old-Antique-
BOURGUIGNO...](http://www.homerweb.com/vintage/GREAT-Old-Antique-BOURGUIGNON-
MAURICE-lab-VIOLIN_230644232294.html)

That said, it doesn't sound like either have been authenticated and have been
identified only by the label.

------
Tinned_Tuna
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).

------
nwmcsween
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.

------
dhughes
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.

------
pbreit
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?

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

------
guelo
I would sue PayPal in small claims court.

~~~
marshray
That won't bring back the violin. :-(

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

------
RobertKohr
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.

------
Mordor
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?

------
josscrowcroft
What the ffuuuuu.....

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

------
uurayan
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?

------
irunbackwards
I feel like this would make a great MasterCard commercial.

------
loceng
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.

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

------
deepkut
This is a great case of a "picture is worth a thousand words." That picture is
heart breaking...

STRIPE STRIPE STRIPE!

------
angryasian
its great that the internet opened up a global market, but the same rules
apply

Caveat emptor, Caveat venditor

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

------
ck2
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.

------
jorgecastillo
I will never have a PayPal account.

------
Keyframe
Interesting story, but how is this hacker news?

------
hackermom
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
The buyer thought he had been scammed and destroying the violin guaranteed his
money back. What does he care?

~~~
BiosElement
He should care because if he did that I'd take his sorry ass to court for
destruction of MY property.

~~~
parfe
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-c...](https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-
bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-
content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&locale.x=en_US)

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._

~~~
droithomme
I don't see at all that they reasonably believed it was counterfeit.
Unreasonably speculated, perhaps. Reasonably believed? Nope.

~~~
kstenerud
The key words here are "in our sole discretion". Those words are legal
kryptonite.

~~~
buff-a
You might want to add "IANAL".

------
Finbarr
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!?

------
vonskippy
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
Hard to understand the down voting.

Are people actually that stupid that they believe the story is true?

~~~
marshray
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.

------
petercooper
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
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
If only we were as compassionate towards, say, starving people.

~~~
Dove
Puzzling. Do you think people would be less irate if, instead of a violin
destroyed, it had been a starving person?

~~~
st0p
[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]

~~~
petercooper
I smell a new Spielberg movie.

