Court threat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MalMonroe said:

I see two problems :  a return was not opened within 30 days after receipt and there is no proof of when the crack actually occurred. It could have occurred during storage. Wasn't it inspected on arrival?

Now the piece of wood has been returned but the buyer could conceivably say that the crack was not there when he sent it out in the first place.  Heat-treated wood is susceptible to cracking when it is exposed outdoors - what was the temperature in the garage where it was stored? How do you know that the wood would have cracked in situ had they fitted it in November? 

PayPal appear to have decided that the buyer was in the wrong though and have refunded your daughter from his bank account so it's obvious that his argument is now with PayPal and not her. 

That being the case, I think your daughter should block the buyer's phone number and not engage with him at all. This is definitely a case of least said, soonest mended and his bullying tactics are childish and deplorable. The ball's in PayPal's court, especially as she did as they advised.

Paypal have a buyer protection policy and pretty much side with the buyer if they say the goods were not as described (exception being the program is not a warranty so something falling apart through use wouldn't be covered as an example, even though it may be under consumer rights). 

Paypal will have acted within their terms and the seller has a business to business contract with Paypal so there is likely little if no recourse for the seller with Paypal. 

If the seller felt that the goods were as described they may have a claim against the OP, whether a court would consider Paypal's adjudication on the matter is something I've never seen come up on the boards.

It is worth noting as this was a distance sale the seller should have provided certain information regarding the right to cancel, if this wasn't provided then the period is extended, the right to reduce the refund for diminished value is also lost so the OP might have another angle to defend. 

If the goods couldn't be returned by normal post and the trader failed to provide the consumer with a cost for their return as part of the information there may be the option to counter claim for the return costs. 

Far too many unknowns for anyone to say but until the OP receives a letter before action or court papers in the post they likely don't have anything to worry about. Should that happen hopefully the will come back with lots of details so they can get solid advice either way.