Arrest Warrant for Chargeback

[LdiJ]

You reversed charges on the credit card after accepting the product.

Yes, he did that, however first he tried to get the seller to do the right thing. Also, there is a contract between the seller and the credit card company as well, which is why the credit card company did the chargeback in the first place. The credit card company deemed the seller to have breached that particular contract by selling a defective product and not making good on it.

While I absolutely agree that a seller can go after a customer civilly for a chargeback, it is really not a very wise thing for a seller to do. The credit card company will not rule against the seller if the seller's actions were fully legit. They will only rule against the seller if they determine that the seller's actions were not fully legit. The seller risks his/her ability to continue to accept credit cards if they do not honor their contract with the credit card company.

 

[STEPHAN]

I have seen hundreds of thousands of chargebacks, and an arrest warrant was never involved.

 

[Zigner]

While I absolutely agree that a seller can go after a customer civilly for a chargeback, it is really not a very wise thing for a seller to do. The credit card company will not rule against the seller if the seller's actions were fully legit. They will only rule against the seller if they determine that the seller's actions were not fully legit. The seller risks his/her ability to continue to accept credit cards if they do not honor their contract with the credit card company.

I disagree - insofar as it depends on the credit card and the issuing company. It's entirely possible that the credit card issued a chargeback after having taken hardly a look at the matter. I don't think there is any risk to a small claims case by the seller against the buyer (well, except that the seller may lose). The credit card company is not the legal arbiter of the matter.

 

[Jomo1]

You reversed charges on the credit card after accepting the product.

That is correct...and the store owner kept all the money (or at least tried to) knowing that the equipment was defective.

 

[Jomo1]

I wouldn't be so quick to vilify the OP. The seller still has $1500 of the OP's money.

Though it would be a good idea for the OP to take the item back to the seller and try to work it out face to face.

I disagree with you on this. Whether I work things out with the seller or not I still did what I did with the chargeback. If it is a criminal act, working things out with the seller doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes me look guilty.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree with you on this. Whether I work things out with the seller or not I still did what I did with the chargeback. If it is a criminal act, working things out with the seller doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes me look guilty.

Nobody here believes what you did rises to the level of a criminal act.

 

[quincy]

What does your sales agreement with the store say about returns and refunds? When you took the stereo equipment in to be fixed, did you ask for a replacement or a refund?

This is a breach of contract matter, not a criminal matter. I would not worry about any arrest warrant - unless, of course, you or your wife are arrested. In that case, get an attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

I disagree - insofar as it depends on the credit card and the issuing company. It's entirely possible that the credit card issued a chargeback after having taken hardly a look at the matter. I don't think there is any risk to a small claims case by the seller against the buyer (well, except that the seller may lose). The credit card company is not the legal arbiter of the matter.

Zig, I have been a business owner accepting charge cards, a business manager accepting charge cards, and been an employee working for a company accepting charge cards (as an accountant). I can assure you that the credit card companies do NOT issue chargebacks without some basis to do so. Now yes, it is possible that the customer could lie convincingly enough to cause them to feel that they had a basis to issue the chargeback, but if that is the case, the seller can very easily dispute that and get the chargeback reversed. I have gotten many a charge back reversed when it was valid to do so. A good example of a lie that would work at first would be "product never received". An easy rebuttal of that it is simply proof of delivery. It is not a difficult process.

To some extent you are wrong that the credit card company is not a legal arbitor of the matter. The contract that the sellers sign with the credit card companies and the contracts that the consumers sign with the credit card companies give them the right to make those sorts of decisions, contractually. A consumer or seller who breaches the contract could find themselves either without a credit card or without the ability to accept credit cards.

Therefore yes, a seller could sue in small claims over a chargeback, but also yes, the seller takes a risk in doing so. As a seller, I would not have done so unless it was a seriously important situation.

In this particular scenario I tend to side with the consumer. The seller was given multiple opportunities to repair the item in question and failed to do so. Unfortunately for the consumer, the chargeback only netted him 1/3 of the purchase price, but that might possibly provide the funds to have the item fixed by someone actually competent to do so.

 

[Zigner]

In this particular scenario I tend to side with the consumer. The seller was given multiple opportunities to repair the item in question and failed to do so. Unfortunately for the consumer, the chargeback only netted him 1/3 of the purchase price, but that might possibly provide the funds to have the item fixed by someone actually competent to do so.

Based on the one side of the story we have, I'd agree, but I really don't believe we have enough information to do anything other than make a guess at this point.

 

[quincy]

... The seller was given multiple opportunities to repair the item in question and failed to do so. Unfortunately for the consumer, the chargeback only netted him 1/3 of the purchase price, but that might possibly provide the funds to have the item fixed by someone actually competent to do so.

Two opportunities. A store technician “repaired” the stereo equipment a few days after purchase. The same problem occurred a few days after the initial repair. The equipment was returned to the store, where it stayed for two weeks - and when returned it still had problems.

At that point, the equipment should have been returned to the seller for a replacement or a refund (depending on the terms of sale).

There are legitimate legal avenues you can take when you are sold a defective product. With some luck, the seller and Jomo1 can find an avenue that avoids court.

 

[adjusterjack]

At that point, the equipment should have been returned to the seller for a replacement or a refund (depending on the terms of sale).

In theory, maybe. But at that point it seems like Jomo1 was being ghosted by the shop owner and the only way to wake him (the shop owner) up was to hit him in the wallet. A chargeback is often appropriate (and successful) against a recalcitrant vendor.

 

[quincy]

In theory, maybe. But at that point it seems like Jomo1 was being ghosted by the shop owner and the only way to wake him (the shop owner) up was to hit him in the wallet. A chargeback is often appropriate (and successful) against a recalcitrant vendor.

Possibly.

Or the move could have served to inflame the store owner, who had attempted to repair the equipment and satisfy his customer more than once.

Right now, the stereo equipment is in the possession of Jomo1 and Jomo1 has not fully paid for it. If the store owner and Jomo1 can’t come to an agreement, a lawsuit seems likely.

What isn’t likely is an arrest.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

.

What isn’t likely is an arrest.

OP appears to be only concerned with the threatened arrest warrant. Last I knew judges issue arrest warrants and not police agencies, even in Hicksville, PA. I would like to see the affidavit justifying this warrant. Cops can and do lie all the time.

 

[quincy]

OP appears to be only concerned with the threatened arrest warrant. Last I knew judges issue arrest warrants and not police agencies, even in Hicksville, PA. I would like to see the affidavit justifying this warrant. Cops can and do lie all the time.

There won’t be an arrest warrant issued over a contract dispute - unless the store owner lies and says the stereo equipment was stolen.

 

[Jomo1]

The main reason why I asked for a chargeback is because of the distance between where I live and the location of the store.
My wife and I was going on vacation in Lancaster, PA and I noticed that a local store in Manheim (close to Lancaster) had the exact tape deck that I wanted. I purchased the unit while I was vacationing in Lancaster.
I live just south of Albany, NY and traveling just over 4 hours each way to keep bringing the equipment back was getting tiring, but I did it twice to allow the store owner to do the right thing.
The only reason I did not go back a third time was because I was not sure if the store owner was even willing to try to repair the unit a third time. Financially speaking, it was better for me to bring the unit to a local repair shop as each time I went to Manheim, PA it cost me about $100 and a whole day. Since the store owner was not even willing to call me back, I just thought, the heck with him and got back part of my money.
The unit cost me about $300 to repair so why did I get back $750 from the bank? For some ridiculous reason one can only chargeback the entire amount that was put on the card..