Paypal Ebay Strike Again!

jim 249

Hi All Read this article. Makes you really wonder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57352136-501465/paypal-makes-ebay-customer-destroy-$2500-violin-seller-left-empty-handed/?tag=re1.channel#comments

jim 249

The link won't work. Do a copy and paste. Sorry

VR3

I would be pissed - that is retarded

Drenis

Wow...

I just dealt with a load of BS with PayPal last week. If I didn't have top use their service, I wouldn't.

tonyb

I stopped using them long ago after they wouldn't stand up for a disputed purchase and cost me a couple hundies. No more 3rd party crap for me.

steveinaz

I'm done with the on-line garage sales. Too many f'd up people these days. If I can't afford it from a retailer, I don't need it.

polkfarmboy

Win some loose some. Just use a credit card with paypal and make sure you have proof of everything. These day I take out the video camera and tape the whole ordeal these days either buying or selling

heiney9

Very unfortunate, but certainly not the norm and we really don't have much to go on based on the short article that really didn't do any research beyond the letter from the seller. Not really defending EBay or it's actions, but this is NOT the normal practice and without full disclosure by all parties involved, it's nothing more than sensationalistic journalism.

Come on guys stop believing everything you read on the internet as the whole unadultered truth.

H9

inspiredsports

I'm not a big fan of some of their policies either, but HOW MANY OF YOU COMPALINING ABOUT PAYPAL HAVE A REAL MERCHANT ACCOUNT?

If you do, you might know that Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express have similar fine-print policies.

The problem is that most normal credit card buyers contact the seller first instead of the credit card company. The biggest problem is that most eBay buyers are RETARDS.

Another point for those who want to villianize PayPal/eBay is that their (yes, high) profits are no where near as high as what the bank card companies (even with defaults) are raking in on credit card transactions and interest.

BeefJerky

I agree with the general dismay towards Paypal regarding this. If anything, they should have required the buyer to return the violin, even if it was at the sellers expense. There is absolutely no reason to have something like that destroyed, especially without any real proof that it was a counterfeit. This is extremely poor judgement by Paypal.

I agree with what someone else mentioned, though. Paypal is known not to back up buyers in some cases, so always use a credit card to pay. That's what I do, even though it means manually selecting the payment method each time I use it. If Paypal won't back me up as a buyer, than my credit card company will.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

I agree with the general dismay towards Paypal regarding this. If anything, they should have required the buyer to return the violin, even if it was at the sellers expense. There is absolutely no reason to have something like that destroyed, especially without any real proof that it was a counterfeit. This is extremely poor judgement by Paypal.

I agree with what someone else mentioned, though. Paypal is known not to back up buyers in some cases, so always use a credit card to pay. That's what I do, even though it means manually selecting the payment method each time I use it. If Paypal won't back me up as a buyer, than my credit card company will.

How can you make such an assessment based on that single article that had absolutey no facts beyond the broken pieces of the violin? It's ridiculous for anyone beside the people directly involved to even comment. I am not saying one way or another, there isn't close to enough facts from all parties involved to make such assumptions. Notice I said "facts", not he said/she said.

H9

Drenis

polkfarmboy wrote: »

Just use a credit card with paypal

That's fine until PayPal's retarded system decides to use whatever payment method IT feels like instead of your default.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

How can you make such an assessment based on that single article that had absolutey no facts beyond the broken pieces of the violin? It's ridiculous for anyone beside the people directly involved to even comment. I am not saying one way or another, there isn't close to enough facts from all parties involved to make such assumptions. Notice I said "facts", not he said/she said.

H9

H9, I'm sure that my being in orchestra when I was younger and having fond appreciation for these instruments affects my opinion. However, there is really no reason that the violin should have been destroyed like that, much less at the direction of Paypal. If you click the link to the original page that the letter was posted on, it states that the violin was examined and authenticated by a luthier. Sorry, but I would trust the claim of authenticity from an actual luthier rather than some schmuck at Paypal. Again, there is absolutely no valid reason that it should have been destroyed rather than returned.

heiney9

You have no basis whatsoever to base your assumption. Perhaps the buyer was an ****, or lied, or it WAS a fake, or an insurance scam. Point is YOU have absolutely no way of knowing by just reading a couple paragraphs.

Sorry if it seems I'm being harsh, but this is a rampant problem with the technology age. No one takes the time to research anything, they start making assumptions based on the first thing they read and before you know it, it spirals out of control and there are absolutely no facts to support any of it. Yet, it's taken as gospel and truth, etc.

H9

heiney9

In fact I don't really care at all about the story, just the fact that so many people are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn without any of the facts.

H9

jim 249

In fact I don't really care at all about the story, just the fact that so many people are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn without any of the facts.

So what would be convincing to you that such a thing did happen? How much fact do you require?

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

You have no basis whatsoever to base your assumption. Perhaps the buyer was an ****, or lied, or it WAS a fake, or an insurance scam. Point is YOU have absolutely no way of knowing by just reading a couple paragraphs.

Sorry if it seems I'm being harsh, but this is a rampant problem with the technology age. No one takes the time to research anything, they start making assumptions based on the first thing they read and before you know it, it spirals out of control and there are absolutely no facts to support any of it. Yet, it's taken as gospel and truth, etc.

H9

heiney9 wrote: »

In fact I don't really care at all about the story, just the fact that so many people are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn without any of the facts.

H9

H9, you are correct that we have a limited amount of information. However, just on the simple fact that Paypal had the buyer destroy the violin (counterfeit or not) is absurd. If it was a playable instrument, it should not have been destroyed for any reason in my opinion.

However, this opinion would hold for anything that they choose to use that clause for. I don't think it's right to take the sellers money back from their account and them not get the product back. It would be one thing if the seller decided they didn't want it back and authorized Paypal to instruct the buyer to destroy it. However, I honestly don't believe that is the case here. I don't see how this decision was in either the buyers or sellers best interest. However, I can see how it would be in Paypal's best interest since they can quickly finish and close the case; the consequences don't affect them and they know it.

heiney9

More than a random blog posting, with essentially part of one side of the story. I have come not to believe too much at face value anymore especially if it's part of a blog on the internet. I am not at all saying it's not real. What I'm saying is no one can determine anything objectively based on the sparse info given so far.

Except Beef, he seems to be all knowing on all subjects.

H9

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

H9, you are correct that we have a limited amount of information. However, just on the simple fact that Paypal had the buyer destroy the violin (counterfeit or not) is absurd. If it was a playable instrument, it should not have been destroyed for any reason in my opinion.

However, this opinion would hold for anything that they choose to use that clause for. I don't think it's right to take the sellers money back from their account and them not get the product back. It would be one thing if the seller decided they didn't want it back and authorized Paypal to instruct the buyer to destroy it. However, I honestly don't believe that is the case here. I don't see how this decision was in either the buyers or sellers best interest. However, I can see how it would be in Paypal's best interest since they can quickly finish and close the case; the consequences don't affect them and they know it.

Who states that is was Ebay that said to destroy the violin besides the seller who is out the $$$ and the violin? Maybe I missed where a credible spokesperson from Ebay admitted they gave a direct order to destroy the violin, if so, I apologize.

inspiredsports

Drenis wrote: »

That's fine until PayPal's retarded system decides to use whatever payment method IT feels like instead of your default.

You have to read and select the correct payment link.

I personally use PayPal to run the back end transactions of a substantial sales site and did over 1,000 transactions in 2011 (about 6,000 since 2005).

I haven't had a single glitch. We have very few defects or returns, perhaps just 1 a month, but no one had to destroy their merchandise for a refund.

Many of you who gripe have no real-world basis for your attacks. I've put 1.75 million through PayPal in 7 years with no hint of the problem the OP outlined.

I've also processed 6,000 orders where the buyer had no trouble selecting PayPal or his/her credit card of choice.

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Who states that is was Ebay that said to destroy the violin besides the seller who is out the $$$ and the violin? Maybe I missed where a credible spokesperson from Ebay admitted they gave a direct order to destroy the violin, if so, I apologize.

Although I don't know the whole story,it's not hard to believe. It's Paypal's policy to destroy counterfeit goods, and they clearly state they will not be returned. I've heard of this happening before, although it's usually designer clothing.

If you are a Seller and you lose a SNAD Claim because the item you sold is counterfeit, you will be required to provide a full refund to the buyer and you will not receive the item back (it will be destroyed)

https://cms.paypal.com/al/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full

Drenis

inspiredsports wrote: »

You have to read and select the correct payment link.

I personally use PayPal to run the back end transactions of a substantial sales site and did over 1,000 transactions in 2011 (about 6,000 since 2005).

I haven't had a single glitch. We have very few defects or returns, perhaps just 1 a month, but no one had to destroy their merchandise for a refund.

Many of you who gripe have no real-world basis for your attacks. I've put 1.75 million through PayPal in 7 years with no hint of the problem the OP outlined.

I've also processed 6,000 orders where the buyer had no trouble selecting PayPal or his/her credit card of choice.

While I'm sure you've had great success, it simply isn't that easy. Especially when the system decides to take money from alternative sources because of a random security check.

I'm not going to get into a debate about it. I've had mostly good experiences but the bad ones I've had have hurt. Hurt in the pockets. I dislike PayPal. End of story.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Although I don't know the whole story,it's not hard to believe. It's Paypal's policy to destroy counterfeit goods, and they clearly state they will not be returned. I've heard of this happening before, although it's usually designer clothing.



https://cms.paypal.com/al/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full

That's in the disclosure, I can see that and saw it before. But who/how was it determined to be a fake and what is the full process for determining such? That is the root of my question.

BeefJerky

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Although I don't know the whole story,it's not hard to believe. It's Paypal's policy to destroy counterfeit goods, and they clearly state they will not be returned. I've heard of this happening before, although it's usually designer clothing.



https://cms.paypal.com/al/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full

This pretty much sums up my thought process on the matter. I don't agree with this policy, however, a little Googling did turn up the possible reason behind it. According to Paypal, it would be illegal for the buyer to ship counterfeit goods back to the seller, even though it is a return. I haven't researched further, but if this is true, I understand why Paypal has adopted that policy. I'll probably look further into this at a later time to see how accurate it is. I also wonder if this is only applicable if shipping via USPS, but not if using a service like UPS or FedEx. If it is only USPS related, that I think the requirement should simply be shipping back via a carrier other than USPS.

I suppose what this story really does need is some sort of documentation of the authenticity from the luthier she claims looked at it. If that does happen to surface, then Paypal would clearly be in the wrong.

heiney9 wrote: »

That's in the disclosure, I can see that and saw it before. But who/how was it determined to be a fake and what is the full process for determining such? That is the root of my question.

This is a valid question, and I hope that an answer will surface.

heiney9

How do we know the buyer didn't take upon himself to destroy the violin because he thought it was fake and was abiding by Ebay's disclosure on his own? That's what my question was getting at, not whether or not Ebay has a policy for such things. They obviously do.

H9

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

That's in the disclosure, I can see that and saw it before. But who/how was it determined to be a fake and what is the full process for determining such? That is the root of my question.

Having been involved in a couple of Paypal disputes over the years, I can tell you that they won't even tell the parties involved the full process of determining who's right and wrong. So I doubt we will ever know.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

How do we know the buyer didn't take upon himself to destroy the violin because he thought it was fake and was abiding by Ebay's disclosure on his own? That's what my question was getting at, not whether or not Ebay has a policy for such things. They obviously do.

H9

This is a very good question H9. However, if this was the case, I would hope that Paypal wouldn't give the money back based solely on that.

At any rate, I can understand why you were/are wanting more information than the little bit that the articles give.

heiney9

That is true for the few disputes I was in and won. I think in my case, I was more level headed, laid things out chronologically and intelligently than the kukoo bird that sold me the item. If he wrote to Ebay like he wrote emails to me, they may have put him in a rubber room.

So what was the reason for destroying it again? Did the buyer ever get the $$$ refunded? If not, seems like a completely pointless exercise. Not to mention if I were the buyer now I'm out the $$$ and the ooprtunity to recoup my costs for something I didn't think was real.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

That is true for the few disputes I was in and won. I think in my case, I was more level headed, laid things out chronologically and intelligently than the kukoo bird that sold me the item. If he wrote to Ebay like he wrote emails to me, they may have put him in a rubber room.

This is something that can make or break a case. I know when dealing with Dell executive relations recently, I put together a professional and well-written letter that laid things out clearly and chronologically. I'm sure if I had written a non-coherent letter with poor grammar and spelling it would have been sent directly to the trash.

So what was the reason for destroying it again? Did the buyer ever get the $$$ refunded? If not, seems like a completely pointless exercise. Not to mention if I were the buyer now I'm out the $$$ and the ooprtunity to recoup my costs for something I didn't think was real.

H9

According to the link, it was destroyed because it was counterfeit. The letter from the seller also implies that the buyer got his money back, but doesn't come out directly and say it. Really, we do need more information regarding this case to make a proper assessment, which is what you said all along. I will admit that I overreacted in my first couple of posts on this topic, and for that I apologize. I believe it is due to those kind of instruments having a special place in my heart, and it just bothered me to see one destroyed like that.

heiney9

My intention was not to overreact in the opposite direction. I see so many times people making complete judgments about things without any of the facts or based on a minute percentage of facts. That's all. I use Ebay and Paypal because it's convenient. I don't agree with a lot of their policies but I'm willing to suck it up because their service is to my advantage. Could it be better, more transparent, sure, but it's a large entity that deals with millions of transactions a month. It is what it is.

If everything rings true as laid out in the blog, then it certainly is a travesty. Somehow there has to be more to the story, IMO.

H9

mdaudioguy

jim 249 wrote: »

So what would be convincing to you that such a thing did happen? How much fact do you require?

For starters, it's a "news" story about a blog post, instead of what we should expect from news services, which would be an objective, at-least-somewhat-thoroughly researched report. I'm getting tired of news stories about someone's twitter post, or editorial comments being portrayed as a story. This is more or less what I refer to as garbage news. It's designed to catch people's interest by sparking a little outrage, and upon further review, all objectivity seems to be out the door.