Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 14:50, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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". 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 you are so well beloved on Usenet, Stephen.

Chargeback=payment reversal. If the payment is reversed, the merchant
was not paid.

The rest has been cut with that large scissors they use in movies to
demonstrate comically that the buyer has no credit.