A Facebook friend of mine posted a link to this story, which is both sad and deeply annoying.

However, I was wondering about the legality of this (I really must join a legal forum one day). Shirley if Paypal issue a refund from a seller's account then ownership of the item reverts to the seller and deliberate damage to it is a criminal matter.

Paypal can't make something legal just by putting in their T&Cs "We might do this", can they?

"We may require you to hunt down and murder the seller", etc.

Under UK law, generally parties are free to contract, subject to certain limitations.

The contract does not have to make commercial sense or be consistent with "common sense", so we could agree that if I pay you a quid you would hop on one foot for an hour.

Illegal contracts (such as hiring a hit man) are unenforceable.

I suspect Paypal's T&Cs are subject to a different country's jurisdiction.

Let's agree that if you pay me a quid I'll *tell* you've hopped for an hour



Which was my point - in this scenario the seller has had property removed without due process of law, which sounds pretty illegal to me, making this a criminal matter.



Paypalania?

No paypal refund until proof of destruction. At the time of destruction I guess it was the purchaser's property. If this was UK law, I don't see it being criminal damage, and it's the criminal law you can't contract out of.

But every time I look at this at the end of every argument I can see another hydra's head! Don't suppose you'd feel like paying me for my time in coming up with an opinion?

Tell you what, you go ahead and do all of the legal spade-work and we'll call it quits for the hopping.

Hang on, though, if the buyer exercises the rights of their ownership in the form of destroying the item then doesn't that mean they've accepted the item?

I can't say, buy your car off you, spray it neon pink and then say that I don't like it very much and want my money back.

Exactly.

Whoever dreamt up such a 'clause' in paypal's small print really didn't think that one through.

And you are intelligent enough to know I didn't say you could - I did query where the criminal offence was (as opposed to a breach of contract or lack of good taste).

You'd better still be hopping, bud!

No, sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you did say that. I'm just trying to understand how a situation where a seller can end up deprived of property without any legal recourse can be legitimate under either contract or criminal law.

Comment from paypal on theregister is that in the US you cannot send counterfeit goods via post, hence the destruction clause.

The problem there lies in who decides that a good is in fact counterfeit. I would suggest that Paypal is not a competent authority to judge.

There are lots of problems, aside from anything else PayPal seems to be making an assumption of guilt on the part of the seller.

How is the seller expected to prove that the goods they sent were not counterfeit? How do they even prove that the goods they sent are the ones the buyer claimed to have received?

I dont mind adults smashing up Violins its the Kiddie Fiddlers that I cant stand!!!!

Thank you kind sir!