Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 28-Feb-12 14:23, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 14:50, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

They were paid, and then they were un-paid. That is different from them
never being paid in the first place.

Considering no one said "never being paid in the first place" until
you just said it here, thanks ever so, Stephen, for clarifying a
point that was never discussed to save face.