Every story has two sides. It seems like threads like this change a lot once we hear the other side, in this case we many never know since the buyer is never identified and they are likely not on pinside but this is from the OP's side of the story:

- The buyer paid the OP $7500 for a TZ that didn't work or has serious issues - "Against my recommendations that a newer machine may be more reliable and less problematic." Kind of sounds like the seller knew this game had issues.

- Payment was made by credit card through PayPal F&F. The PayPal user agreement explicitly states F&F is not meant to be used to pay for goods and services. Not really surprising PayPal doesn't want to get involved or eat the loss on this.

- The OP told them "the next time I was near him I would stop by for free to fix the machine." Sounds like that never happened.

- When the buyer tried to talk to the OP about it, he hung up on them and blocked them.

I'm sorry to hear things didn't go the OP's way, but it isn't that surprising.

I never said the seller was trying to dump a turd. In my experience well maintained BW games are more reliable than modern Sterns and I would expect one at that price not to have any issues. Sure, anything can happen but it really stuck out as odd to me to claim the seller bought a game he was selling at his retail location "against my recommendations".

He goes on about the no warranty part but then he tells the seller "the next time I was near him I would stop by for free to fix the machine." At that point the expectations have appropriately changed, and I think if he had done that the buyer wouldn't have reversed the credit card charges or at the very least he could have taken the game back at that time and refunded their money. This is a game that was sold in April and this is now getting posted so it sounds like OP really took is him in going out there to get it fixed and eventually chose to cut off all communication with the buyer. I'm reading between the lines here but it sounds like the buyer waited about 90 days to dispute the transaction with their credit card which is usually the outer time limit for this stuff. To me it sounds like they gave the OP a reasonable time to resolve it with them which he wouldn't do. Perhaps the buyer was a pain the butt but at that point he basically forced them to take it up with the credit card if they wanted any resolution.

I also agree you can't expect a retail location to only take cash, but as a regular credit card transaction the OP would have been on much better footing.