If Erica is to be believed, she had in her possession a rare violin that had survived World War II but was unable to weather the storm that is PayPal. The violin was sold on eBay and the payment for it was made via PayPal.
When the buyer had doubts over the authenticity of the violin, they contacted PayPal and brought up their concerns. PayPal, according to their protocols and agreement demanded that the allegedly counterfeit item be destroyed and photographic proof be provided before any refund could be made. As you can tell by the pictures above, the deed has been done most thoroughly.
The sequence of events leaves Erica without US$2500 and short a violin as well. According to her, authentication of violins is difficult at best for the professionals. PayPal definitely did not have the violin appraised before judging it to be a counterfeit. Which begs the question, should PayPal have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner in such circumstances? If yes, do they have the expertise on hand to deliver fair verdicts?
From our meager understanding of the law, PayPal seems to be in the clear where legality is concerned. However, there is no doubting the fact that Erica finds herself worse off now, in quantifiable monetary terms, than before the transaction took place. Which makes recompensing Erica and her claim an issue to be debatable from an ethical and philosophical angle.
If you ask us, the whole matter could have been avoided if Erica had been made part of the discourse between PayPal and the buyer. And perhaps everyone should be a bit more careful before clicking "I Agree" to terms and conditions for online services.