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.
If Paypal decides you sold a counterfeit item, you lose the item and your money.
NEVER use PayPal to sell anything that could in anyway be disputed as counterfeit given that the terms allow PayPal to deems what is genuine/fake remotely, without physical inspection and results in not only money witheld but a potentially genuine item being destroyed.
So so crazy.
I sometimes buy and sell rare coins (particularly US Morgan dollars), which regularly go for thousands of dollars. I have one on eBay at this very moment that I'm attempting to get $3000+ for.
I've never heard of such a dispute happening before, or have I had any issues in the past, but now knowing this, i'm really scared of what might happen.
We seriously need a viable competitor to the paypal/ebay system yesterday.
That may be, and I make extremely little use of PayPal (only as a processor of credit card payments for merchants I trust on other grounds, and never as a seller of goods). But any new viable competitor to PayPal will have to solve all over all the cases of fraud and abuse that were responded to over the years by PayPal's current policies. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881), page 1.
Let payments be payments like cash, and solve trust issues separately with things like escrow services.
There are plenty of ways to destroy it physically (throw it in a forge, bend it with pliers, etc).
I'm a bit more concerned that a scammer wouldn't destroy the coin per se, but make a claim on authenticity, causing me to lose my money and also the coin.
1) Get the original (say, $3000 coin) carefully out of the holder - then smash the holder with a hammer.
2) Find a replica of that year coin, which really is a fake, for $10-$50. Scratch it up, bend it, whatever.
3) Send the original coin back for grading to be certified with a new graded coin holder and serial number, to be sold for $3000.
This is just the "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality applied to property.
So to answer your question: In some cases, not well enough. ;)
EDIT: source: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/euro_coin_recy...
Funny fact: at that time it was illegal in my country (France). This law has been abrogated since then to allow machines that crush coins to make souvenirs.
But I agree - it's clearly better not to use Paypal at all.
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.
Its a shame that contracts have these kinds of protections in them that most people are unaware of as they get pummelled by these sorts of contracts.
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....
tl;dr lawyer up.
They had a professional appraisal on the violin that said it was authentic. Paypal has its TOS saying they can call anything counterfeit and their TOS says they can't be held liable for it.
Sorry it's a judges job to say if you can or can't be held liable for your business terms and practices.
(Americans also make typos which look odd to Britons, for example "mute point".)
So there's that.
I think that tossing a coin and using reason are different, and I believe that a court would uphold my expectation that reason was used. Paypal will then have an opportunity to present their reasons. In this case, IMHO, it would appear that a "reasonable standard" of "reason" was not used.
From a brief search, it looks like eBay had to pay large sums multiple times for selling counterfeit goods. $2500 violin, as sad as it is, is small fries. It seems that it's cheaper to operate under the assumption that if there's a suspicion an item is counterfeit, then that's more likely than not. Even if they messed up and lose a lawsuit from a seller, they'll pay a small fraction of what they'd pay a manufacturer.
I thought ebay provided a marketplace, I didn't realise they also sold goods?
2. Sue Paypal for negligence.
3. Show up any conversation with buyer stating that the piece was priceless and the sale was only symbolic because he proved that he would keep the violin soul alive by playing it.
4. Add psychological trauma and other stuff to step 2.
Antiques are irreplaceable and you'd better be sure what you're doing before destroying something like that.
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?
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?
Is that true? Shannon-Nyquist seems to disagree.
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.
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.
that might sound crazy, so let me give an example. cheap active speakers (the kind you plug into a computer) will often pick up radio transmissions from passing emergency vehicles. the speaker cable acts like an antenna and picks up the radio signal. now the radio signal is, of course, at radio frequencies, but there's some non-linearity in the amp that results in an audio signal (an understandable one) coming out of the speaker.
that's a fairly extreme example, but here's another more biologically believable one. perhaps there are frequencies which are high enough to be inaudible, but which influence the ear in how it responds to audible frequencies. for example, perhaps the ultra-high frequency signal stimulates the ear in some way that makes it more sensitive to audible higher frequencies. then you would hear a brighter tonal balance when listening live than when listening to a band-limited recording.
i am not saying this must happen; i am saying this may be the (physically reasonable) basis for some belief / rumour / knowledge in the audio business.
[also, note that the non-linearity must be in the ear; if it's in the surroundings then the mic will pick it up too. and it must be influenced by frequencies that are outside the recording bandwidth otherwise you'd hear it on playback.]
(Difference tones are a convenient way to tune a violin: when two strings are a fifth apart (as they should be), the difference tone is at the octave, and it's easier to get an octave right than a fifth.)
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?
There are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone and accurately play back with average computer speakers, at least in my experience.
Whether the loss in quality is the microphone's fault or the speakers' fault, I don't know. Regardless, there are sounds the musician hears and feels that not even the average in-person audience can hear, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's impossible to accurately judge violins based on digital recordings.
I am wary of the argument that there exists this great gap between average listeners and trained musicians. There is a training gap, surely, but IMHO the raw auditory discrimination capacity just isn't all that different. I'm just a dumb brass player, but trumpets all sounds very, VERY distinct from one another to me, generally. I attribute that to practice, not acuity.
When I said there are sounds the musician hears and feels the audience cannot, I wasn't referring to the ability to pick out different sounds, but rather the physical impossibility of certain sounds (e.g., higher-frequency overtones, squeaking strings, rasping strings) to be heard beyond a certain distance away from the instrument being played.
To go off on even more of a tangent, I sometimes feel bad that not enough people get a chance to listen to musical performances up close. I mean really close, with the musician in front of them in the same room so they can hear "almost" everything.
"Almost" because, at least for violins, you can't hear or feel everything until you actually play the instrument (can any violinist here vouch for this?). This is especially so because the chinrest transfers some of the vibrations to the ear through the bone, and there are sounds made by the bow and strings that only the person playing can hear simply because they are too quiet, and that only during quiet pieces, etc.
I've never played a Strad, nor do I have much experience, but I wonder if nearly irrelevant details such as these are a part of what sets the best instruments apart from the rest?
I agree that performances are vastly better experienced in person.
A doctor recently was allowed to subject a museum Stradivarius to a CAT scan. Hopefully we'll be learning more about what truly distinguishes these instruments.
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.
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...
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.
Whether it's the fault of PayPal or not, 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.
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.
How many instances of "moral superiority" have you witnessed, and how firm is your proof of their "wrongness"? Can you list at least 3?
Is there a mechanism preventing people who are genuinely entitled to the moral high ground from taking it, especially if they have been egregiously wronged? Your post doesn't make sense unless this exists.
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?
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
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.
> It's my money.
Actually, no. See, if someone pays through PayPal with a CC, they are paying on credit. Not cash. Credit cards work through credit card companies and banks, and they have rules. Because you are using PayPals association with these banks, you have to play by PayPals rules.
If you want to accept credit cards, you can do so without PayPal. Just get it from your bank directly, but it won't be as easy as setting up a PayPal account.
Further, "hold backs" (aka "reserves") are very common in bank-operated credit card merchant accounts.
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.
It depends on where you are, in the EU it definitely is a bank.
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?
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.
In fact, he is not wrong to expect that reasonable regulation be imposed on a company which borrows and handles funds. Paypal's system is highly unusual in comparison to other comparable banking services and is predictably often the target of these types of complaints.
Florian says the law is wrong, that paypal should be regulated as a bank. In response, you reject regulation in general. His position makes a lot more sense than your own.
In my opinion their rules are exploitative and out of line with what I would expect from a company that I would do business with. (Edited to remove 'out of line with what rational people expect' comment, I do not presume to speak for anyone.)
"Cost of doing business"? ROTFL, I'm just a dude selling a handful of trinkets and baubles on eBay, once in a blue moon.
Your argument is like one of those math "proofs" that make sense internally, but are stemming from axioms utterly divorced from reality. You could "demonstrate" anything that way. You could even "demonstrate" how PayPal is "right" to keep my money for no good reason, or how Sony is "right" to have me waive my rights to sue them if I use their product. When they do it, it's called "EULA" and "cost of doing business" or some other kind of standard boilerplate bullshit like that.
But let me try the same tactics on their skin. Then it's called "theft" or "piracy" and I go to jail.
And what's the difference? They own immense quantities of cash, out of which they can afford to pay armies of lawyers and lobbyists, effectively superseding the law. I don't have that much cash, so I must dance to whatever tune they like to play.
All they have to do is couch this behavior in intricate pseudo-rational arguments like yours, or lofty but flawed rhetoric like you see all the time on TV, and "all is well" with the world.
This is bullshit. It needs to stop.
PayPal provides a service and you are getting benefits from it at a relatively low cost. They are taking risk on from you selling stuff that is making them very little money (trinkets and baubles, as you described).
I'm not saying PayPal are a bunch of saints, or that they don't have some policies which aren't right. As a musician, I find the situation described in the article to be abhorrent, and it's behavior like this that prevents me from using PayPal except as a last resort. But what you are saying basically boils down a temper tantrum about how things should be different. Well, if you have an idea as to how to do this in a way that doesn't bankrupt you, there's your entrepreneurial opportunity. Go change the world.
They're not superseding the law at all. You have no automatic legal right to enter a private marketplace; if you want eBay/Paypal's low fees, you accept their conditions. If you want the full-service luxury treatment of an established auctioneer like Sotheby's, then you pay their huge fees. If you want the no-questions-asked simplicity of a flea market, then you rent a table and stand in the cold for hours.
He's like this all the time.
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.
edit: thanks guys
The manufacturer for that matter has probably been out of business for 70 years.
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!
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.
What a shortsighted policy, but then again PayPal has never been known for their agreeable business decisions...
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.
"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.
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.
So, the buyers would come with their own current violins and I would put my eBay specials AND my kid's $5,000 into the mix for the blind sound tests. The $5,000 violin was always one of the leaders but not always the winner.
Eventually I settled on a single violin that I liked the best to keep for my own. I took it to the violin shop where people had much more skill than me and spent about $600 to get a nicer bridge, soundpost, and for some repair work that I didn't have the skills to tackle. So, yes, I got a great sounding violin for $200, a couple years of trial and error learning, and then another $600 for rehab.
>So, the buyers would come with their own current violins and I would put my eBay specials AND my kid's $5,000 into the mix for the blind sound tests. The $5,000 violin was always one of the leaders but not always the winner.
Just maybe don't sell it on eBay.
For that student, spend a little more. The cost of the lessons soon makes a extra couple hundred bucks for the violin insignificant.
You can spend $2500 on a bow.
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.
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.
They didn't go through anything like what Japan, Germany, or Russia did, with the cities razed by fighting (Stalingrad), fire-bombing (Tokyo or Dresden), or atomic bombs (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). If a French violin had survived the siege of Stalingrad - now that would be impressive. But just being in France? That's about as impressive as a random Englishman surviving the Battle of Britain.
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.
Violins often have fake labels but that doesn't make the violin fake (whatever that means). If the violin sold for $2500, then it was probably made by a relatively unknown maker whether the label was faked or not. As such, the violin should be judged by the quality/playability of the instrument.
Obviously we only have one side of the story, but either way it seems that Paypal didn't do its due diligence in determining the authenticity of the violin.
Edit: The label is visible in the photo and says it was made by Bourguignon Maurice. A quick search online reveals that his violins go for anywhere from $2500 - $1000 and he is certainly not unheard of. That said, there are plenty of violins by unknown makers that sell for the same amount so without any other details we really don't know whether the buyer was ripped off or not.
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.
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.
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.... Normally this would have gone through eBay's dispute resolution process first.
Are you kidding me? Of course there are counterfeit violins. Just like there are counterfeit art pieces.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Any more info about the "disputed" label?
- 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.
Here's one for $1975: 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.
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).
When selling something like this, accept cashier checks, money orders, bitcoins, etc. You need need it to be non-reversible.
Things just keep getting weirder and weirder with PayPal. And more depressing.
STRIPE STRIPE STRIPE!
Caveat emptor, Caveat venditor
My only hope is that congress usually destroys instead of fixes whatever it sets it's eyes on, so PayPal would be doomed.
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.
(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.
I don't know if such an act would be legally viable, but it certainly seems morally reasonable to me.
(Yes, people have done physical violence against another for FAR less than $2500)
That's not something paypal can cope with, or is it?
I'd wait to get your panties in a knot until a real news site reports this.
Are people actually that stupid that they believe the story is true?
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.
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.
Their violin. Not some random stranger's on the Internet.
People are losing their lives and homes every day. An emotionally healthy and sane person's psychology allows one to not cry or get "cut up" about every such incident, while allowing one to feel empathy for the afflicted.
A strong attachment to one's own material possessions is unhealthy enough without taking on the emotional ownership of a third party's.
(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.)