New to the community? Welcome! Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines
You are completely wrong and do not accept the facts to your attention or purposely skew them. The item was listed as new without return or disclaimer of defects, delivered as new, as double-boxed as a tank, and accepted as new. That was never in contention. The buyer filed a case of a defect with eBay 34 days after receiving the item and eBay rejected his claim for return. Only PayPal awarded him return God knows why. That is the issue. Only the PayPal's action and not eBay's. eBay was fair and stuck to the terms of transaction of no return. PLEASE, DO NOT TRY TO MANIPULATE THIS DISCUSSION. Both eBay and PayPal are excellent companies doing a lot of good for people. PayPal just needs to improve in this particular instance, as eBay did several months ago on my insistence. That is all.
CONCLUSION: By granting returns of new, factory sealed items without return to buyers who did not pay for return (received discount for taking the risk of no return) PayPal undermines and thus reduces that category of transactions on eBay resulting in a reduction of PayPal proceeds stemming from servicing those transactions. In other words, by false consideration of manufacturer defects in factory sealed items without return and disclaimer of defects, as meeting the requirement that "the item is significantly different from how it was described", PayPal is killing its own business.
This basically ended discussion has been intended mainly to the attention of the PayPal's legal dept.
FINAL VERSION OF THE ARGUMENT:
I. The PayPal's dispute/claim clause, which stipulates that "the item is significantly different from how it was described (e.g. you described an item as “new,” but sent a used one)" on www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/security/seller-protection, is NOT satisfied by manufacturer's defects discovered by the buyer in new, factory sealed item, which description lacks a disclaimer of mfr 's defects (hence, they might be present). A possibility of mfr's defects is implied when not excluded by a disclaimer and thus they are consistent with descriptions without such a disclaimer.
II. Mfr 's defects are random and unknown in factory sealed items. They cannot be predicted and thus nobody excludes them by default (store return and mfr warranty, if present, deal with them). When "no defects" disclaimer is absent, any mfr 's defect is within the description and a dispute/claim as to mfr's defects not being consistent with the description is groundless. Absence of exclusion (no disclaimer) makes the description unspecified preluding any claim of a difference with the description. When something is not described, it cannot be claimed as different. See the claim PP-007-392-338-794.
III. Also, PayPal considered such a claim erroneously for the 2nd reason, namely by falsely allowing for return of the item, which description explicitly excluded its returnability by the provision of the eBay transaction stating that "buyer does not accept return" resulting in a prior and known to PayPal dismissal of the claim by eBay. The "no return" provision in eBay transactions means that the items are sold "as is" (even new ones in factory sealed packaging) and places the responsibility for dealing with unknown mfr's defects on the buyer and away from the seller, as the buyer receives a considerable discount from the seller to cover his risk of unknown mfr's defects and thus is compensated by the seller for taking that responsibility. Hence, a return is not warranted due to unknown mfr's defects in new, factory sealed items with the "no return" clause, as such items are sold "as is".
IV. PayPal allowed buyer file the claim 34 days after receiving the printer while the longest return period for technology items is 30 days and typical - 14 days also at Staples incl. online (www.staples.com/sbd/cre/help-center/returns-policy/), so even, if the item had been sold with a return option (it was not), the buyer would not have been eligible to return the item after 14/30 days. So, eBay could not have granted his claim even under a hypothetical sale term of returnability, but - obviously - also not without it.