Originally Posted by Ken Maltby
It appears to me, that Paypal is the only one who is disadvantaged in this case.
Ectaco was paid for the device, and, as far as we know, still has that.
"Valentinka" is the one who really made out well, she got her money back and still
has the, relatively expensive device. That it is apparently a device she should not
have purchased in the first place, makes the outcome all the more ironic.
How do you know Ectaco was paid for the device? It could be that paypal refunded the money, and Ectaco never received it.