Watching "Horrible Bosses" with family. This is like some weird twenty-three year old's fantasy of what having a real job is like. Every scene has something that would result in a huge lawsuit if this was the real world.
I'm actually getting offended by this.
edit: okay, now that it's into the actual funny it's funnier. That first bit was really tough, though.
Which reminds me that one of my friends was born with a yeast infection in his mouth that he caught from his mom on the way out apparently. Also she is mos def peeing at the same time in that video, it likes forms a puddle and then streams off under the suv in front of her. All in all a very classy lady.
Here. It's probably been posted a long time ago but it's something I do from time to time, like right now actually. Take your mind off shit, in this case literally.
Not to be the mean spirited pessimistic person I am but to be me, why are you dealing with large amounts of money and irreplaceable antiques with random strangers not in person because that seems like there is a lot of potential for some bad shit to go down. I would also like to know whether or not other institutions of online commerce have similar rules for dealing with "bad" merchandise.
There is a relatively small market for antiques at any one physical location, and the inconvenience and cost of travel would render most antiques sold on the internet worthless without it. The internet is probably the best thing that happened to the "old shit" market for both buyers (number of available items, competition driving down prices, ease of pricing items) and sellers (amount of potential customers, ease of pricing items).
Cases such as above are actually quite rare when you take into account how many transactions PayPal makes. Overall, they're batting well over .900. The problem is that they tend to fuck up monstrously when they make a mistake. Now, it's entirely possible PayPal is run by sociopaths, but I am inclined to believe that such a large company would, of course, include some grossly incompetent staff. It's much more likely that PayPal's bad press comes from bumbling idiots and power-tripping staffers than a concerted effort by PayPal as a whole to ruin people's day. It wouldn't be a huge deal if they had a halfway decent PR team/firm, but they don't understand, for some reason, damage control.
I'm willing to accept that. However, the lack of context on the seller's part makes me somewhat skeptical on the buyer, who is to say that he is not a sociopath who knew how to exploit PayPal and would go out of his way to pay nothing to destroy an antique.
Actually, this has been PayPal's policy for a while now. The User Agreement says "If you (the seller) lose a Significantly Not As Described 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)." So, well, there it is.
And--to some extent--I can understand the thought process. If the thing is a fake, then of course you don't want the scammer to be scamming other people with it. So "send it back" really shouldn't be an option because then they'll just try to sell it again.
Not saying it was properly applied in this instance, but I can see how someone would get to a place where "smash the violin" was a moral imperative. I guess the question now becomes whether or not the seller advertised the violin in such a way that a declaration of counterfeit would be sustainable. Seems to me that this is something a lawsuit ought to decide.
Technically, the seller has a case they can bring, but I'm not sure if it's against PayPal or the buyer. PayPal's policy dictates specifically to counterfeits. There's no such thing as a counterfeit violin (according to the article; probably just overvalued ones), but the violin had also been authenticated. The seller is now out of both his money and violin. Because the policy was improperly applied, he's entitled to compensation of at least the $2500 he sold it for.
As before, probably incompetent staff at PayPal improperly applied a policy. Further, the likelihood that the buyer was a specific type of mentally ill where you like to destroy people's property in such an elaborate way while also scamming them out of money is obscenely unlikely. The buyer was probably genuinely concerned it was a fake, and some idiot at PayPal told him to break it. Huge companies have this shit happen all the time. PayPal needs to work on dealing with this stuff.