PayPal: if you don't like the violin you bought, smash it and we'll give you your mon

• Lan wrote on 2012-01-05 00:09
  [Image: http://craphound.com/images/bourg.jpg]

  
  

  Just when you thought PayPal couldn't get any stupider, well, they get stupider. Erica sold an antique violin to someone who paid $2500 for it over PayPal. The buyer disputed the authenticity of the violin -- which had been authenticated by a top luthier -- and PayPal instructed him that he could have his money back if he destroyed the violin. He did, and sent the photo of the destroyed, one-of-a-kind, precious instrument to the seller and PayPal. PayPal took the $2500 back from Erica, gave it to the violin-smasher, and called it a day.[QUOTE]I am now out a violin that made it through WWII as well as $2500. This is of course, upsetting. But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins and other antiquities that they know nothing about. It is beyond me why PayPal simply didn’t have the violin returned to me.
  
  I spoke on the phone to numerous reps from PayPal who 100% defended their action and gave me the party line.

  [/QUOTE]
  
  http://boingboing.net/2012/01/04/paypal-if-you-dont-like-the.html
  
  

  [Image: http://i42.tinypic.com/suvvxs.png]
• Chillax wrote on 2012-01-05 00:10
  Only $2500? That must be a crappy violin.
• Chockeh wrote on 2012-01-05 00:10
  Why would paypal ask them to smash the violin? lmfao
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-05 00:10
  [Image: http://www.bandwidthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/jackie_chan_what.jpg]
• Science wrote on 2012-01-05 00:11

  Quote from Chockeh;722566:

  Why would paypal ask them to smash the violin? lmfao

  
  
  It's apparently written in their terms.
  
  Like, literally, they reserve the right to have you destroy a purchased item and they need proof of it's destruction.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-05 00:25
  What the f***?
  I hope there is some kind of legal recourse she can and will take here. $2500 may or may not be a lot of money to her, but the bigger deal here is respect, ethics and principle, from what I can tell. =_=;
• Kazuni wrote on 2012-01-05 00:26
  Sooo.. seller loses $2500 with no compensation.
• Bakuryu wrote on 2012-01-05 00:28
  What's the reasoning behind this, why does PayPal demand the destruction of the object? WHATTHEHELLISWRONGWITHEWORLD:c
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-05 00:28
  Upon re-reading this, I noticed that once the dude had smashed the girl's violin, they ALSO took back the money for said violin. Meaning he basically cost her all that cash + her violin. Leaving the poor girl with nothing.
  
  How is that even legal.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-05 00:30
  I'm.. guessing that PayPal wanted it destroyed because the buyer claimed it was a bootleg. That would make the seller illegitimate, along with their merchandise. But how they can simply go based on the word of the buyer alone??
• Lan wrote on 2012-01-05 00:30

  Quote from Cynic;722599:

  Upon re-reading this, I noticed that once the dude had smashed the girl's violin, they ALSO took back the money for said violin. Meaning he basically cost her all that cash + her violin. Leaving the poor girl with nothing.
  
  How is that even legal.

  
  
  They agreed to Paypal's messed up terms of use.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-05 00:32

  Quote from Yoorah;722606:

  I'm.. guessing that PayPal wanted it destroyed because the buyer claimed it was a bootleg. That would make the seller illegitimate, along with their merchandise. But how they can simply go based on the word of the buyer alone??

  
  
  Plus, couldn't they have just sent it back and returned his money if he was displeased? I still see no reason why they had to destroy it and then not compensate her.
• Hiccup wrote on 2012-01-05 05:19
  The hell is wrong with people!?