I see the references that you give... and thanks for that! But in the end, you're assuming that your interpretations of that information is indeed correct (he is not a company, nor entity, so that it applies is in question), and assuming that your Paypal correspondence is correct, and mine is incorrect. Which I totally get. I'm assuming the same thing on my end.
In the end, after looking at everything, I'm going with what I feel, rather than what someone else told me. My rep got me the shipping UP FRONT. She escalated to her boss, and got me CASH MONEY. No matter what, I'm not footing the shipping. She also saw the dispute, and where it was going to. I even asked to make sure. She said that DHL or Priority Express Mail (my two choices) were enough for shipping. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm right. Time will tell. But if it all goes tits up, I'd rather say it was my choice from what I felt and researched rather than something I did because someone else said something or heard something. I'm providing my experiences so that others can learn from them- not to tell them what to do, nor advise them. In the end, that hold money talk, bull**** walks saying is speaking to me. I'm doing me. And I'll report what happens. And I advise all to do what their conscience, gut, reasoning and research tell them after considering all evidence.
Yes, I forgot to mention that as usual, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It's statements based on personal experience and research.
And that's your choice to assume those risks. That's entirely at your option. But you are taking a risk. And the fact is that the law is the law, and it applies to individuals the same as businesses. See also the parts where they mention it applies just as much to eBay sellers as Amazon.com, not to mention gods only know how much case law and international case law. Literal mountains, in large part thanks to Amazon and eBay. And yes, covering individuals and businesses. It's the responsibility of the shipper to ensure it goes to the right destination, period. If they send it to the wrong destination and it vanishes, that's their responsibility. If the shipper loses it, it's on them to make a good faith effort to resolve the issue.
There's zero gray area there - if someone sells you something on eBay and it never shows up, you get your money back. If they sell you a $500 fixie bike and you get a $50 Huffy, that's fraud and gets handled as such. If they bill you for 3 day shipping and it takes 7, you get your shipping refunded and they claim a refund from UPS. Whether or not they're a business. Does not change the law.
And I've been on both sides of it before - error in handling dropped a $185,000 router at the wrong damn address in another country, and someone's typo resulted in me getting a whole bunch of steaks. When I called the company to see how to fix it, they said to keep them. But the steaks were supposed to go just down the street, so I took 'em there, because that's how I am. Recovering the router only happened because the local fixer paid for some help and picked it up in person. I've also dealt with other legal matters and shipping as individual and business for a number of years, so I'm painfully familiar with more things than I have ever wanted to be in my life. Among them, what constitutes good faith.
If a seller asks you to return an item intended for someone else to get a full refund and doesn't specify it's fate, that's a good faith effort. (Presuming the full refund would also be refunding your shipping fees.) The responsibility then shifts to you as the buyer to justify why you don't want to return the merchandise. You can't hammer someone on a good faith effort. I've had shipping errors before, and I've always extended or accepted good faith cures.
But if they make you aware of their intent to condition your refund on assisting or engaging in unlawful or
unethical conduct, that's
bad faith. Which has extremely significant implications in any legal proceeding in the US. Acting on a bad faith contract or offer, or participating in something you know to be in bad faith can expose you to personal liability. It also has the potential to completely screw you under the
clean hands doctrine, and can allow companies to legally refuse any claims.
If you prefer to read further information from legal professionals,
I can suggest this article from the Virginia Law Review, Vol 54:195 and provided by Cornell Law Faculty Publications. The root of case law can generally be described as being Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al. 263 N.Y. 79; 188 N.E. 163; 1933 N.Y. - but you should contact an attorney admitted to practice law in your state or country with questions about their implementation of the Uniform Commercial Code.
In general, whether between a business and individual or two businesses or two individuals or any combination thereof, purchasing goods in exchange for money or services creates an implicit and implied contract between the parties. The money shot in the definition is: "violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others." Laws will vary by jurisdiction. In Ohio for example, Revised Code Chapter 13, Section 1301.201 clearly defines that victims would be a "Buyer in ordinary course of business" (1301.201(B)9) or "Consumer" (1301.201(B)11) and "Good faith" as "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing" (1301.201(B)20). It further defines "Party" as "a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement..." (1301.201(B)26) and "Person" as "an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity." (1301.201(B)27) Meaning the law applies equally to transactions between individuals as it does between businesses and individuals.
This mirrors UCC Article 1, which many states have adopted and a form of which has been adopted internationally.
The end result here is that because of the seller, victims need to tread unusually carefully to preserve their rights and recourse. It is entirely at the option of a buyer whether to accept or reject any cure offer - but it is the responsibility of the seller to extend one. However, it is the responsibility of the buyer to preserve their rights. Once you accept a conditional cure offer (e.g. refund in exchange for return,) you do not have further recourse. If the item vanishes in the mail or the seller simply claims they didn't receive it? You're not entitled to a refund and you have absolutely no recourse to get either your items or your money.
With the way Gutz has behaved, spoken, and handled things, anyone agreeing to ship anything back should use an extreme level of caution and then some. Especially since we have no way of knowing whether the address he gave Paypal is his old address, his new one, or even his at all - his account is unverified, meaning they do not have a factual record of his address. (Verification of address still involves sending a piece of mail.)
But then again
there's also this doozy of a class action Paypal settled for more than $25M. And this one that saw $15M of refunds for mishandling disputes. Oh and this one, and
this latest one, and so on. So take anything Paypal tells you with a truckload of salt too.
