Members THAT4301 Posted January 4, 2012 Members Share Posted January 4, 2012 The mpg is defined clearly through a specific process that allows model-to-model comparison. Presumably it's that they objected to (or were the cars odometers misrepresenting?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted January 4, 2012 Members Share Posted January 4, 2012 Unfortunately, THIS. Paypal is screwing over sellers big time yet again. While I use Paypal as a buyer quite often I'd be more than a bit hesitant to sell something to an unknown and accept Paypal as a payment method. Paypal gives far too much power to the buyer and allows scams like this to happen all the time. It sucks for the seller of the Violin. In terms of violin pricing $2500 will buy you aa decent student instrument but having done my undergrad in music I know players whose parents put a second mortgage on their house to fund a violin purchase (good luck getting that money back!). Having said that, $2500 is a huge chunk of change and I don't know why the buyer would not simply ship the violin back to the seller unless A. the seller refused, or B. The buyer was a scammer and trashed a dollar store violin for the photo. Without going on a huge rant about the Honda thing I'll say I miss common sense. Honda (and all other car companies) advertise that mileage will vary. It's nothing new and there are many factors that affect it. Expecting that you will get 50 mpg regardless of your driving style, how you maintain the vehicle, and how much weight you're carrying will all affect your mileage. I hope she loses in court. The speedometer in my 2001 Sunfire goes up to 220 KPH. I know the car won't go that fast. Should I take Pontiac to small claims for false advertising too? Rant over. I love you all. Maybe, but you can't legally drive a car over a certain speed limit anyway. The problem Honda has (and I like Honda, and own an Odyssey that I very much like) is that the mileage claims on a hybrid are exactly why people buy these products, they're not buying them to go 150mph. And apparently the mileage isn't even close to being accurate. So either Honda has a faulty product (which seems likely here, given a class action lawsuit) or every driver of their hybrid is lying and just wants $100. Personally I hope the lady wins, when we as consumers buy something, especially with a car that is $20k+, we should expect that it meets certain requirements as advertised. I can see if mileage is off by 5-8%, you can chalk that up to driver style, etc. But when the mileage is off by as much as the defendant claims, I think she has a legitimate case. She isn't asking for a new car, but she is asking for more than $100, and instead of the lawyers in the class action suit getting paid millions, she's going it on her own to recoup up to $10k. Seems like a fair fight to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oinkbanana Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 i'd be curious to see the original ebay listing. i find it a shame that they've decreased the amount of 'completed' listings they keep on file.how far back does ebay "completed listings" go nowadays?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Seth Carmody Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think it would take more than just the buyer's claim that the item was a counterfeit before PayPal would ask them to destroy it. I'm guessing the buyer took it to an expert who confirmed it was a counterfeit, and PayPal decided to side with the buyer's expert rather than the seller's. Perhaps the buyer's expert was credentialed, and the seller's was just the guy at the local music store who fixes broken violins.The seller also admitted that label disputes are common, so she may have known, or at least had a strong suspicion, that the violin was a fake, but felt comfortable selling it as authentic anyway because she got a vote of confidence from her "top luthier". She seemed more concerned with the fact that the violin was an antique that survived WWII then with her claim that it was authentic. She only mentioned the "top luthier" in a post script.Heck, even if it was a fake it was still probably worth what she was asking for because it was an antique, but if she represented it as authentic and it turned out to be counterfeit then PayPal did the right thing. This policy reeks of the heavy hand of a monopoly meethinks. By that reasoning Paypal would be doing the "right thing" if a noob mistakenly sold a road-worn Blues jr as a "vintage heavily used guitar amp", as it's authenticity had been misrepresented. It's true that we don't have all the information about what steps, if any, Paypal took in arriving at its decision, however I really fail to see how, when there is a dispute as to the authenticity of such an item, it is ever an appropriate course to destroy the item to the loss of the vendor. This is not contriband or obvious counterfeit on a commercial scale we're talking about, which actually requires a court order for the authorities to dispose of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members McManus Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Bought an LP that turned out to have had a neck crack repair. The posting specifically stated only a small scuff and email responses from the seller during the auction assured no previous repairs. Was going to start the claim process through Ebay but accepted the seller's offer for me to keep the guitar and a refund of half the selling price. You may be surprised that ... I'm with Paypal on this one. Maybe a compromise could have been reached and the violin saved but this wastes even more time, energy, and money only to benefit the seller that is to blame in the first place. Ebay shouldn't be about getting hooked in and negotiating compromises after the fact to cut your losses. I've had much better experiences buying and selling items exactly as described for the winning bid amount. (in story - No mention of much interaction with buyer prior to claim being filed? I think you are required to contact the seller as part of that process. hmmm) Probably a little more to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CodeMonk Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 They somehow deemed the violin as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pewtershmit Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hi there, former eBay/PayPal rep. PayPal would have requested proof that it was a fake and have it scanned to the (they'll also call the authenticator usually to check the vailidity), unless the rep made a mistake and didn't do that step, which would be odd as the reps that work counterfeits are usually the more experienced ones. And I completely agree with destroying the confirmed fake too and not sending it to the seller just to sell again. Since Paypal is the middleman they are put in a very pracarious position regarding fakes, sure the Violin could have sound like jesus when ripping through Canon in D, but if you misrepresent the item to the potential buyer, you deserve much more than being out aviolin, you deserve the police getting involved. also lol @ people still using eBay. Seriously guys, please stop. Let it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amp_surgeon Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 This policy reeks of the heavy hand of a monopoly meethinks. By that reasoning Paypal would be doing the "right thing" if a noob mistakenly sold a road-worn(tm) Blues jr as a "vintage heavily used guitar amp", as it's authenticity had been misrepresented.It's true that we don't have all the information about what steps, if any, Paypal took in arriving at its decision, however I really fail to see how, when there is a dispute as to the authenticity of such an item, it is ever an appropriate course to destroy the item to the loss of the vendor. This is not contriband or obvious counterfeit on a commercial scale we're talking about, which actually requires a court order for the authorities to dispose of. ...except when you enter into a binding agreement allowing any item you sell to be destroyed without any compensation to you if it's determined to be counterfeit. No doubt that the only reason PayPal and eBay make these rules is because they can. They don't have any serious competition, which is pretty sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ambient Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Online terms and conditions may be 'binding' but I'm pretty sure the courts are kinda squeamish about enforcing anything out of the ordinary. They know people don't read that {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faldoe Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Sounds like standard paypal yep. Standard corporate behavior as well; no logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members houseofglass21 Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well I hope the seller had taken the money out of their paypal account before this happened and let Paypal reimburse out of their own pocket. That would have put their account in the negative with Paypal and they'll put it on your credit. But to hell with it, I'd rather let them try and {censored} my credit than let them "no vaseline" me like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amp_surgeon Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Online terms and conditions may be 'binding' but I'm pretty sure the courts are kinda squeamish about enforcing anything out of the ordinary. They know people don't read that {censored}. True enough. I'm not sure what angle the seller could use in court that would be successful, though. What you're describing is basically the "I'm a dumbass and didn't read the contract, and didn't realize I agreed to ridiculous terms" defense. That would require the seller to convince a jury that the terms were, indeed, ridiculous. I'm sure PayPal's army of lawyers went over the contract with a nit comb and confirmed that it's all legal and enforceable. A better angle might be to concede that she agreed to the terms, and that the terms were enforceable, but that the policy was misapplied in her case. In that case, everything hinges on how the item was described in the eBay listing. The basis for PayPal's actions is "Significantly Not As Described - Counterfeit". This would mean she came right out and stated that it was genuine - no ifs, ands, or buts. Given that authenticity claims are common with old violins, by the seller's own admission, it would have been lunacy to make a blanket statement about the authenticity of the violin. It would be far better just to state that she believes it's authentic, and then present her evidence in the listing. There's a seller's forum on eBay and antique dealers are often discussing how to phrase claims in a listing to avoid a SNAD complaint. Anyway, I think there's a lot more to how this whole thing went down than just the seller's brief story that's making the rounds on the internet. Pewt pretty much confirmed that PayPal usually does the necessary research before they drop the hammer like this. If they followed their own claim process then the seller probably had a couple of chances to refund the buyer, beginning with buyer's initial dispute, and again when the buyer escalated to a claim. From her description, I get the feeling she thought it was worth $2500 because of it's age, regardless of whether or not it was authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theboywho Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well I hope the seller had taken the money out of their paypal account before this happened and let Paypal reimburse out of their own pocket. That would have put their account in the negative with Paypal and they'll put it on your credit. But to hell with it, I'd rather let them try and {censored} my credit than let them "no vaseline" me like that. I believe paypal take the money from the sellers bank or card in this case. I bought an amp on ebay a while ago which was never send so I filed a case. The seller never replied so I won, but ebay said as the seller had no funds or linked bank they couldn't refund me. This process went on for so long I send a few complaint emails but didn't keep it up, wish I had have done now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members THAT4301 Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 That situation is paypal's problem anyway, surely? They're offering you 'buyer protection' for their 5%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ambient Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 A better angle might be to concede that she agreed to the terms, and that the terms were enforceable, but that the policy was misapplied in her case. In that case, everything hinges on how the item was described in the eBay listing. The basis for PayPal's actions is "Significantly Not As Described - Counterfeit". This would mean she came right out and stated that it was genuine - no ifs, ands, or buts. Given that authenticity claims are common with old violins, by the seller's own admission, it would have been lunacy to make a blanket statement about the authenticity of the violin. It would be far better just to state that she believes it's authentic, and then present her evidence in the listing. There's a seller's forum on eBay and antique dealers are often discussing how to phrase claims in a listing to avoid a SNAD complaint.Anyway, I think there's a lot more to how this whole thing went down than just the seller's brief story that's making the rounds on the internet. Pewt pretty much confirmed that PayPal usually does the necessary research before they drop the hammer like this. If they followed their own claim process then the seller probably had a couple of chances to refund the buyer, beginning with buyer's initial dispute, and again when the buyer escalated to a claim. From her description, I get the feeling she thought it was worth $2500 because of it's age, regardless of whether or not it was authentic. Quite probably and I would say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 Hmmmm...what would be the best way to destroy a Freekish Blues pedal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vinnies Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 what are the alternatives to ebay at this point? i use ebay to sell my {censored} because CL doesn't work so well in a smallish area like mine. i'd rather not, but i need to sell this stuff, not wait for potential CL'ers to wake up after 6 months of posting/reposting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amp_surgeon Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 If youtube put in their terms and conditions that they could take ownership of my care without notice, and I agreed to them without reading, I doubt they would successfully be able to do so. I suppose it would depend on how they worded it in their contract. They do, in fact, own the files you upload, as in you can't hold them accountable if the files are lost or destroyed, and they aren't obligated to make those files available for download to you or anyone else. They don't own the content of the files, though. If they had a clause in their terms of service that allowed them to unilaterally and arbitrarily claim ownership of the copyright then you'd probably have a pretty solid case against them. On the other hand, if the terms of service explicitly spelled out under what conditions they could acquire ownership of the content then I doubt you'd be able to successfully challenge it. Clauses that allow you to lose ownership of your property usually require a failure to act on your part. A good example would be the contract you sign with a pawnbroker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ambient Posted January 6, 2012 Members Share Posted January 6, 2012 woops type, that was supposed to say "If youtube put in their terms and conditions that they could take ownership of my car without notice, and I agreed to them without reading, I doubt they would successfully be able to do so." Extreme example I know. It seems to me there is a line between what can/can't be 'agreed' to somewhere, but where? Great post though, you're a rather knowledgeable fellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RadioSilence Posted January 9, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think that's it exactly. If it's a good instrument, it's a good instrument.In college my girlfriend played viola, she said the way she bought it was she played a load of instruments, without knowing the prices, and bought the one that suited her best; it just happened to be 275 years old, made by one of Stradivarius' apprentices and cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members McManus Posted January 9, 2012 Members Share Posted January 9, 2012 Have heard this story in a few places since seeing it here. Funny how the details manage to get stretched like playing the telephone game. Mainly people use it as a precursor to bashing corporations and pretending to care about old violins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.