On 27-Feb-12 14:50, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
at 10:07:03 on Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 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". If the card company finds in favour of the consumer,
I'm sure the merchant doesn't get paid, whether the transaction was
originally authorised or not.

If authorized, the merchant is paid if the dispute is due to third party
fraud.

The merchant always gets paid. However, if there is a dispute, the
merchant may or may not (depending on various factors) be charged back.

This is why they go through the authorization step, and don't just
submit credit slips for unauthorized transactions that don't require
purchase of very expensive cash register terminals.

"Very expensive cash register terminals" are not required for
authorization; they can use cheap separate terminals, and if desired
they can authorize by a call to the processor's 1-800 automated number
from a standard telephone.

Their merchant fees or fraud liability may be lower for certain types of
authorization, but that's it.

If the merchant is at fault, say for services not rendered, he's not
paid.

Wrong. The merchant is paid as soon as the transaction is posted,
before the customer ever has a chance to dispute the transaction.
However, in some cases a dispute _may_ result in a chargeback--different
from not getting paid in the first place.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking