View Single Post
  #628   Report Post  
Old February 28th 12, 07:18 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london,misc.transport.rail.americas
Adam H. Kerman Adam H. Kerman is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2012
Posts: 167
Default cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 28-Feb-12 01:37, Roland Perry wrote:
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. . . .


Uh, given that the merchant shipped the goods, there's no fraud here if
the merchant questions his responsibility to fulfill the order again.
That's a contract dispute.