Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
Stephen Sprunk remarked:

Note that failure of the consumer to pay their credit card bill does
_not_ result in a chargeback, contrary to Adam's ridiculous claims.

Indeed, as long as the failure to pay was "because I have no money",
rather than "because I dispute the charge".

When a customer disputes a credit card or charge card transaction, it is
removed from their bill until the matter is resolved, so it doesn't fit
the usual definition of "unpaid".

Nor is it "paid".

No. From the perspective of the customer's (credit) account, the
transaction simply ceases to exist until the dispute is resolved.

If the card company finds in favour of the consumer, I'm sure the
merchant doesn't get paid,

The merchant was _already_ paid, so if the dispute is resolved in favor
of the consumer _and_ the merchant is liable for the fraud, the
merchant's account is charged back.

whether the transaction was originally authorised or not.

Authorization is almost completely irrelevant to disputes of posted
transactions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Authorization is what's required so the merchant
is paid even though a third party used the cardholder's credit fraudulently.

At most, it'd be more difficult for the merchant to win a dispute if
they _didn't_ get authorization, but it's still entirely possible.

It's not relevant if the dispute is between the two parties, and third
party fraud isn't alleged.

(Authorizations themselves cannot be disputed, since no money actually
changes hands at that point and they expire within a few days anyway.)

They should expire upon the transaction being posted to the cardholder's
account, either overnight or possibly the second night. No, they don't
always.