Violin smashing

[Gershwin]

I don't have any special appreciation for the violin. But, I've been around long enough know that wood instrument making is one of the highest forms of wood craftsmanship and can take a gifted person many years to master.

I read this today:

regretsy link

...and it really made my heart sink.

[Cochese]

Wow. Just cancelled my Paypal account and eBay is next.

[LCHIEN]

there seems to be some misapplication of the counterfeit goods rules at eBay and Paypal.
Obviously this rule was intended to prevent sales of Gucci bags and ROlex watches e.g. mass produced name label goods on ebay by allowing the buyer who unwittingly got a counterfeit item advertised as real (altho a Rolex selling for $39 ought to arouse some suspicion). AND to prevent the seller from just taking it back and reselling it to someone else (hence requiring the buyer to destroy it. There should be some proof beyond the buyer's claim that it is a counterfeit to justify the buyer destroying it without somehow compensating the seller. That just seems wrong.

I suppose it could be said that it should not apply to art objects and craft objects but I could see its hard to draw the line.

The real point should be that someone selling art objects like a antique musical instrument should probably not be selling it on eBay unless there's some ground rules. As the seller noted, most violins in the period were copies and often copied down to the labels so some fine instruments might have been copies with copied labels but would still have great value as instruments and antiques.

Perhaps the proper venue would be a proper and reputable musical instrument dealer rather than selling on eBay.

I feel very sorry for the seller who basically lost his instrument and got no compensation - it might be said that he read and agreed to the rules.

I suppose if he might have a case for a lawsuit with an appraisal from a dealer and if he did not claim it was a violin by the maker whos label was in it. The listing would have to be very specific: something like this is an old violin with a (lets say Guarnari) Label. I have an appraisal confirming the age but there were many copies in that period. It cannot be conclusively proved to be by Guarnari. If you bid on my Violin you agree to return it within xx days if you are not satisfied or think i misrepresented it. blah, blah, blah

[eccentrictinkerer]

This story sounds remarkably like a post on a UK site:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7155400AAPKqkW

Wonder how long it will take Snopes to check it out?

[Cochese]

For me, even if this turns out to be entirely fake, there's enough similar examples of Paypal acting like d-bags for me to warrant not doing business with them again. This is just a reminder to do what I've been meaning to for awhile.

[paultnl]

This can't be legal

The violin does not belong to Paypal as they have not given the money to the seller so they have no right to tell the buyer to destroy it. Also if they believe it to be an attempt at fraud by the seller, why are they destroying the evidence?

It does not matter what they write in their T&C's they must still obey the law.

[woodturner]

The violin does not belong to Paypal as they have not given the money to the seller so they have no right to tell the buyer to destroy it. Also if they believe it to be an attempt at fraud by the seller, why are they destroying the evidence?

It does not matter what they write in their T&C's they must still obey the law.

The seller agree to their T&C at signup. Their T&C states that counterfeits will be destroyed, and they have sole authority to determine counterfeits.

We can debate whether their T&C are prudent, wise, good business practice, or whatever, but Paypal has not broken any laws by acting in the way they told the seller they would and in the way the seller agreed.

The current reality seems to be that Paypal and ebay are great for the buyer, not so good for the seller. It seems that any buyer complaint is upheld, no matter how unreasonable.

[paultnl]

The seller agree to their T&C at signup. Their T&C states that counterfeits will be destroyed, and they have sole authority to determine counterfeits.

We can debate whether their T&C are prudent, wise, good business practice, or whatever, but Paypal has not broken any laws by acting in the way they told the seller they would and in the way the seller agreed.

If that is true, it makes me glad I don't live in the States anymore, at least in England we have the ability to exclude unfair clauses from contracts. It explains why Microsoft etc. will do anything not to get their EULAs examined by the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_...Terms_Act_1977

[woodturner]

If that is true, it makes me glad I don't live in the States anymore, at least in England we have the ability to exclude unfair clauses from contracts.

Those laws do seem to be broader reaching than what we have in the states, though most states do uphold implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for purpose.

It's not clear to me from the wiki article which law might restrict the terms and conditions in this case. The requirement to destroy fakes stems from both treaties and international law that all Western countries uphold, so it's not clear to me that those laws would apply in this case.

[Wood_workur]

The seller agree to their T&C at signup. Their T&C states that counterfeits will be destroyed, and they have sole authority to determine counterfeits.

We can debate whether their T&C are prudent, wise, good business practice, or whatever, but Paypal has not broken any laws by acting in the way they told the seller they would and in the way the seller agreed.

The current reality seems to be that Paypal and ebay are great for the buyer, not so good for the seller. It seems that any buyer complaint is upheld, no matter how unreasonable.

I'm far from an expert, but I believe the T&C and EULAs that you agree too often contain parts that cannot be upheld in court in because you are not given the option to negotiate these contracts with the companies, only the option to accept and use the software/service, or decline and not use it. I'm not sure what is valid and isn't valid, however I do believe that most of these contracts have portions that fall in both jurisdictions.

[BigguyZ]

That's a real shame. But I'm also irked that I lost out on a about $60 or so myself when I bought some memory cards that were shipped from China that turned out to be fakes.

I was told to ship them back via a tracked service, and I couldn't find anything that tracked shipment to China that wasn't $100's... So I lost the money.

[woodturner]

but I believe the T&C and EULAs that you agree too often contain parts that cannot be upheld in court in because you are not given the option to negotiate these contracts with the companies, only the option to accept and use the software/service, or decline and not use it.

I agree that your options are to either accept the agreement or not use the software or service - and in the US, that is perfectly fine and enforceable, given that the service or software is not critical or essential. Some states do make exceptions for critical sole source items, but software and most services don't fall under that category.

In the US, one does not have to be able to "negotiate" a contract for the contract to be binding. Think about opening a bank account, a common contractual act. If you don't like the terms or fees the bank offers, you go to a different bank - but usually you can't make the bank change their terms. Same thing with software and services, and those contracts like bank contracts are usually upheld.

BTW, for a lot of software sold today you are buying a license to use the software, not buying ownership of the software itself. That change was made to prevent resale of software, among other reasons, and is why it is often illegal to resell Word or Windows.

People complain about the EULA, but in most cases they hold up in court, in the US.

[woodturner]

I couldn't find anything that tracked shipment to China that wasn't $100's

If you run into that situation again, try the USPS. Express mail to China is $29.95, flat rate priority mail is $13.95, and both are tracked.
https://www.usps.com/ship/priority-m...onal-flat.htm?