In message , at 11:04:37 on Tue, 28 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
On 28-Feb-12 01:37, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:38:33 on Mon, 27 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
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.

It's not always a fraud. Chargebacks can arise because an item is "lost
in the mail".

If the goods are "lost in the mail", that is not fraud (since fraud
requires intent), but it is the merchant's responsibility* to cure that
defect. If they do not, it becomes fraud.

Or many people would class it as either negligence, or an unwillingness
to believe the customer (many of them are fraudsters too) that it really
is lost.

And when I say "merchant doesn't get paid", that's obviously a
reflection on the situation after the chargeback has been received, not
a comment on the short term flow of what are only semi-cleared funds.

At a high level, yes, but this discussion is at a level of detail where
such simplification is IMHO not appropriate.

We both apparently know what the process is, so no need to press the
point.
--
Roland Perry