posted on May 12, 2007 04:46:05 PM new
Does this destroy the item principle apply to all knockoffs and fakes?
Like a fake Channel handbag,Tiffany watch,Cartier bracelet etc??
What about fake Meissen??
If I paid 3k for a piece of Meissen which turns out to be fake,can I have it back so I can enjoy it,pretending that it is real??
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
posted on May 12, 2007 04:46:44 PM new
"Notice" of destroying the doll!?! Does it require proof, like sending it to them in pieces or, "I destroyed the doll, send me my refund." ???
posted on May 12, 2007 05:37:17 PM new
hwahwa - If you think that was my auction you quoted about the doll, it was not mine. My doll was a Black Googly Eye Kestner marked "JDK 221" on back of head. And I never listed mine as an antique. Don't know if that was what you were thinking, but wanted to clear that up. I hadn't listed mine in any antique doll category either, put it in Bisque Doll category.
posted on May 12, 2007 05:58:29 PM new
I cannot understamd where anyone has the right to instruct someone to destroy the doll & keep the money as well.
I hope the buyer is an honorable person & returns the doll to you.
This whole thing is unbelievable...so unfair to you cta.
posted on May 12, 2007 06:41:28 PM new
I know I'm old and sometimes forgetful, but do I recall a flurry of posts from the OP when the piece was originally sold, as in chargeback risks, PayPal rules, etc. etc? It's been a few months, but why was I not surprised to read the outcome here?
posted on May 12, 2007 07:01:58 PM new
mcjane - I agree that this is so unfair and I just don't see how it can be legal.
What is to stop any buyer from having their friend at "Doll Appraisal Fair" giving them a statement that it's a reproduction when it's not? And does it really matter if it was a repo or not - Cta didn't say it was antique.
If the money is refunded to the buyer, Cta is once again the owner and paypal is telling someone to destroy her property.
I can understand the refund part but not the destroy it part.
posted on May 12, 2007 07:04:58 PM new
I think it is a different item from another seller.
In a flea market,I have heard that if someone is selling knockoff,counterfeits etc,the police can confiscate them and there is no need to reimburse the seller or issue a receipt.
I recalled seeing a documentary on how they destroy piles and piles of counetrfeit handbags,watches,dvd,cd etc.
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
posted on May 12, 2007 07:57:44 PM new
I have come across an article in a magazine,it is one of those Forbes or Business week about a Dutch customs officer ,that he is good at what he does,sniff out which container coming thru have knockoff and counterfeits,intercepted and destroyed them.
Most come from Asia,the port could be Amsterdam and it is so busy they have no time to inspect each one.
Does Paypal have the authority to have counterfeits and knockoffs destroyed>I guess being part of Ebay which is a public venue,it can act on behalf of the manufacturer,I dont know?
This is a question for the lawyer,the part about subpoena intrigues me.
What we dont know is this particular case-the kestner doll,so the company is out of business in 1925,is it legal to reproduce these dolls using an original doll head.
After WWII,germany was divided into east and west and that area THURIGEN has many porcelain manufacturers and ENS,GRAFENTHAL,WAGNER & Apel to name a few became part of East Germany,altho they sell to the West thru agents.
After the reunification,these companies sell direct to the West,some did not make it,such as ENS and its molds were sold to another company and it started making figurines marking them with the ENS windmill mark.
But they were told this is not allowed as they are not ENS,so they have to use their own trademark even though they continue to use the same molds.
So coming back to this Kestner doll,who owns the rights ?and does it apply to overseas?
In China,there are so called art farms where artists or wannabee artists will draw works of Andy Warhol,Picasso,Degas and sell them overseas and it seems acceptable?DO they have to ask permission to do so?
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
posted on May 12, 2007 09:50:23 PM new
cta wrote: ...I suppose I could have just had them return the doll and returned their funds, but I felt that I didn't misrepresent the doll in any way, shape or manner, so I figured I would ride it out to see how it played out. Figured that if I lost the claim, they would just send the doll back and I'd return the money to them after PayPal had made its decision... PayPal today stating the item was a reproduction (I never claimed it wasn't nor did I claim it was antique either) and PayPal told the buyer to DESTROY the doll and they would refund their funds.
By accepting payment through PayPal you effectively make them sole arbiter of fact and lose control of your sales and dispute process. Your best recourse now is to voluntarily refund and pay the buyer to return your item intact. Should they refuse and insist on destroying your doll, you could contact their local Police to file a criminal case against buyer and co-defendant PayPal for "willful destruction of property" after buyer is "made whole" with a full refund (thus returning ownership of said item to you).
I await the day when a reputable museum or antique seller has a recognised masterpiece or rarity destroyed under PayPal's guidance after they've determined it to be a "fake"... I have read PayPal's terms and they aren't covered against "illegal seizure and destuction".
posted on May 13, 2007 07:13:28 AM newYour best recourse now is to voluntarily refund and pay the buyer to return your item intact.
It's too late. The time to do that was six weeks ago. She would have to work with a live PayPal rep to make sure the system was cognizant of the refund, and I don't think PayPal is going to let her have the doll back at all now, under any circumstances.
If she continues with her "I didn't do anything wrong" defense, cta can kiss her eBay account goodbye. The auction was a clear violation of the Authenticity Disclaimer policy.
cta, you are in this pickle NOT because PayPal always sides with the buyer, NOT because the buyer suffered buyer's remorse, but because you sold an item bearing the Kestner name that was not made by Kestner.
As a high school teacher of mine used to say, "It's that simple."
posted on May 13, 2007 07:39:20 AM new
So,it is the same seller and the original thread was posted on March 19 of 2007!almost 2 months ago.
Kozersky,
it sold for 2400 dollars.
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
[ edited by hwahwa on May 13, 2007 08:19 AM ]
posted on May 13, 2007 08:41:26 AM new
Agitprop said-
I await the day when a reputable museum or antique seller has a recognised masterpiece or rarity destroyed under PayPal's guidance after they've determined it to be a "fake"... I have read PayPal's terms and they aren't covered against "illegal seizure and destuction".
////////////////////////////////////////////
One of a kind antiques from museum and antique dealers would be treated differently than say Coach handbag,Cartier watch ,there is no need to instruct the buyer to destroy the item.
The seller would get the item back and he could either go after whoever sold him the item or sell it another time on same venue or elsewhere.(you know how it goes,pass this loser on to the next sucker!)
Some of the famous musuem ruby in history turn out to be Garnet!
Some of the terra cotta pottery from Africa auctioned off as antiques in auction houses are modern day reproduction with antique shards strategically embedded in various locations for TL testing.
Ever wonder why the African and Middle Eastern dealers have broken shards kept in his shop!
