Horrible Experience with Norwood Autocraft! Beware of Bob Norwood

OK, then **** the apology but understand this, if PayPal does decide to retract the OP's credit, then that would speak volumes to any impartial reader of this thread. That's right, PayPal may not be the law but they do have standards and again, have likely settled disputes way more convoluted than this one. If they've based such a decision on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties in the favor of Norwood AND willing stake their reputation on it, then many future readers will give Norwood some credit for that and may ask why no apology?

 

Paypal really has nothing to do with who is right here. There are good business decisions and bad business decisions. If I make a claim that is false and entice a buyer, what gives me the right to keep his deposit. I apologize for my error and wasting the buyers time, publish a correct ad and move on. To me, that is what a stand up guy does. I once sold a 70 Cuda to a kid and he paid me in full. He went home and told his dad and his dad freaked out. His dad comes to me and says his kid can't have the car. I tell him no worries these things happen, I go get the cash and when I give it to him he changes his mind right there and says to his kid that he can have the car after all. Everyone's happy. I know damn well that how I handled the situation fixed the problem. I wanted to sell a car to a happy buyer not scam someone or make anyone upset. I should be charging for giving business advice here.

 

Very commendable of you but that's not the point. PayPal has everything to do with who's right as much as a Credit Card company has the right to decide who gets refunded. That's part of the service you pay for. They don't just refund because someone says so. No, that would be bad business on their behalf. I believe their decision either way would be made with utmost care to adhere to their rules of conduct, rules that should be known before entering into a agreement with them as a conduit.

BTW, I did not say I agreed with Norwood. We have already established that their reputation would inevitably take a hit for this but it still does not answer the question of whether they MUST return the deposit. If anyone has a legal argument as to why they must under all the circumstances, then please present it so that this issue can be settled once and for all, otherwise IMO, it still remains a two sided debate where PayPal evidently holds the cards.

 

Sam, do a bit of digging on paypal and their resolution process... it's interesting.

 

If someone wants to settle a dispute and have blame assigned they go to court. Paypal or credit card companies try to give customers a form of dispute resolution before things get that far. It makes people feel safer about using their services. Their decisions do not matter in a court of law.

 

WOW, miraculously, another train just crashed into the previous train wreck causing a mess of epic proportions!


I'm now very confused but I do know this: PayPal itself is not going to be out $2000 to pay to help clean up this train wreck...

 

Let's pretend for a moment that PayPal did give the OP back his deposit and even $2000 to the Seller just as good business practice to keep both users happy and trusting to do future business with PayPal. Not saying PayPal did it this time, or that they will next time. I'm sure they keep score if they did.

One may not even have to pretend that is what happened.

The seller could learn something from PayPal in this example.

 

To think the locked thread was fading away and now right back on top, front and center. $2000 couldn't buy this kind advertising for any company. Sheer marketing genius!

 

You have any links ?

I run millions through Paypal every year and have Platinum Plus status. I have won judgements and then seen the other party also claim to have got thaier money back as well.

Always been curious if Paypal took a loss or if the other guy is lying

 

Paypal is a business and they have to price in some insurance to pay for cluster **** transactions and scams much like credit card companies do. They know the percentages of problems encountered and they price it in. Sure they probably pay the wrong people at times but it is what they do to retain confidence in their product. If people lose trust in them they are done. And yes like credit card companies they do keep score for the next time. Their decisions cannot be used to truly assign fault because in the end they have to keep their real customers happy and confident in using them in the future. It's more of an economic decision to stay alive than anything.

 

I reckon they take losses all the time for things like this, but they always make up for it on the next transaction.

They must be doing alright if they can still be in business for so long.

+1

 

From PayPal's dispute resolution site:
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/security/resolve-disputes

I think we can safely assume it's already been escalated to a "claim"

The seller may have provided PayPal proof that the goods were held as agreed. That may have been enough for Paypal to return the funds to the Seller but it does not mean the seller gets to keep them. Buyer of cause can dispute which explains why the funds remain in both accounts......for now.

Here's the important part

So it appears to me that PayPal (their team of "experts") act as an intermediary within the law. i.e. affidavits and Police reports are legal documents, no? It is still unclear to me how exactly they will resolve a case like this where:

1. The goods were held by the Seller through the Buyers deposit (contract)
2. The goods were not represented according to the advertisement (breach of contract??).

IDK, but I will stick to saying that this issue is not as clean cut as "the Seller has an obligation to refund the deposit". Who ultimately decides still resides with PayPal for now. How they resolve it, let's wait and see.

 

Aw, c'mon, Sam. The internet has already rendered its judgement, based on short posts from both parties. Why investigate now? What more do we need to know?

I don't feel much sympathy for either side, but this whole thread reminds me of the lynch mobs in old westerns.

 

I don't know what you mean by "within the law". Seems more like "lets get them to jump through some hoops to gage how serious they are". I bet this step alone ends 99% of claims. If a guy gets scammed on a $50 dollar item, is he really going to file a police report? No, he's just a little wiser next time and will write the other party off as a scammer. None of what Paypal does or requires has any impact in deciding who is right or wrong, that is what law courts are for.

 

Like I said, it would be a major trophy to mount and use against your opponent when PayPal decides in your favor. May be totally disregarded around here if Norwood wins but if anyone was to ever ask, or search and find this thread, I'm sure Norwood will bring up PayPal's decision as a win in their favor. On the other hand if they lose, they have all the more work to restore what they have lost.

But it looks like it has already gotten this far. Now the law is involved. Don't know about Police reports but do you think anyone is going to falsify an affidavit to try and sway PayPal's decision?

 

Am I missing something here or did the guy from Norwood not say that the ad was mistyped regarding the wheels? If he did, then didn't they take the buyers deposit while misrepresenting the car? What would they say in an affidavit? That they made an honest mistake and that's why they want to keep the deposit? This is basic stuff.

 

This may have been said before, but I am pretty sure Mr. Norwood has no idea what the "inter-webs" is, and probably doesn't even go near a computer.

I have worked with older folks like this in positions of ownership and they really have no clue what is out there and how the info can be spread to so many people all over the world in the blink of an eye.

As far as the underling bragging that they got the OP's deposit back, I think that shows how little they know about the depth and breadth of how fast this thread will hasten the demise of their business.

They say, "I don't care what those internet nuts think about my business."

I have heard it before and they really believe the info will not get further than the corner bar.
Alden

 

See post #41

 

No direct links per-say. Just did a bit of google searching and there are complaints across both sides of the aisle that paypal is more or less vested in themselves, shocker I know I'm not stating that paypal has bad practices are anything like that but their internal decision tree is not based on the legality of who's right or what's fair but what action would serve their best interest.

This thread has become a zombie thread....

 

Of course not. I would have expected them to say exactly what they've been saying here all along, that is, the Buyer made no effort to see the car for themselves. That was part of the agreement all along if the deposit needed to be refunded.

I doubt Norwood is screwing with the law. Having their reputation trashed on a car forum (justifiable or not) is one thing but lying on an affidavit is something completely different. I also think they've been receiving adequate legal representation/advice all along despite coming across to some as unprofessional. This could very well be why PalPay agreed to not retract the funds from their account. I am not sure if that decision is final though.

 

This would clearly redefine "adequate" as "nonexistent."

What lawyer, if asked, in his right mind would suggest/allow the posts that have been made here on behalf of Norwood? None that I've ever met, ever.

They're not helpful to their case, and they're all subject to discovery.

D

 

Even if it was decided in court that the seller gets to keep the deposit, so what? Legally "right" and morally "right" often are very different things. Most of us know how we would have handled the situation and refunded the deposit so it never got to the post on the internet point. The seller has committed professional suicide here by his arguments and then coming back to "spike the ball". Bigred can tell Bob how right they were as they turn off the lights and board up the doors.

 

Why spend more time and money to go see a car that you find out is already not as described just to get your deposit back?

 

Bigred95 (Robert Hale) made about 20 comments and remained consistent throughout especially regarding:

-The wheels
-How they tried to negotiate with the OP and
-How they would only return the deposit if the OP came to see the car in person.

Apparently the original contract clearly stipulates that last point but I don't think anyone here beside the Buyer and Seller have seen or can confirm that.

Bob Norwood made one comment claim that the OP doubted the validity of the car being what it was claimed to be. Not the wheels, the car.

I'm not sure what is left for discovery or what can incriminate Norwood. If the agreement was for the OP to see the car in person before having the right to forfeit the deal, misrepresented wheels or not, then that is what was agreed. I'm only speculating here but I think that is their case. If the OP can deny ever signing such an agreement, than I'm not sure what leg Norwood has to stand on.

I hear ya bud. That's what we have lawyers for.

I'm starting to agree with smg2. This has truly become a zombie thread only propped up by further speculation, especially on my behalf. I'll come back once we get final resolution.

 

I had a similar yet different thing happen with Stubhub a few years ago. I bought some tickets, realized immediately I both the wrong ones. Stub hub immediately canceled the order. Problem was the seller mailed the tickets (event was next day)before getting the cancelation. Both of us received our money and stub hub ate the tickets