Wedding contract - getting deposit back

[BigMouthWino]

try reading the merchant agreement. There are rules to what the card company can do.

Beyond that, the charge is not in dispute so there would be no justification for a charge back. There is no contention the charge was not and is not valid. Additionally, we have not heard from any authorized person from "the venue". OP claims they spoke to the head person. Was it? Apparently somebody overrode that decision so I suspect not or there was some reason they changed their mind.

As stated by the poster above you really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're "specialty" is other than being wrong about anything that has to do with business and commerce, but allow me to correct you again.

The Merchant Agreement is between the merchant's processor and the merchant. It does not give the merchant any specific rights. As long as the merchant wants to be able to accept credit cards they are forced to return a cardholder's money any time the issuing bank demands it. They can then pursue their customer civilly either in court or via debt collection, but if you want to continue to accept credit cards (a necessity for most businesses) you have no choice but to abide by whatever arbitrary decision the card issuer makes in dispute cases.

The reason for the dispute in this case is that the cardholder was promised a refund, but the refund was never credited to the cardholder's account. The cardholder has this promise in writing. That is enough to prevail in a credit card dispute from the end of the card holder. If the merchant wants to pursue the contract that you claim was not breached, but the merchant agreed to make a refund that is their option, but the OP will almost certainly prevail in a credit card dispute where there is a written promise of a refund and the refund hasn't been provided.

 

[LdiJ]

As stated by the poster above you really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're "specialty" is other than being wrong about anything that has to do with business and commerce, but allow me to correct you again.

The Merchant Agreement is between the merchant's processor and the merchant. It does not give the merchant any specific rights. As long as the merchant wants to be able to accept credit cards they are forced to return a cardholder's money any time the issuing bank demands it. They can then pursue their customer civilly either in court or via debt collection, but if you want to continue to accept credit cards (a necessity for most businesses) you have no choice but to abide by whatever arbitrary decision the card issuer makes in dispute cases.

The reason for the dispute in this case is that the cardholder was promised a refund, but the refund was never credited to the cardholder's account. The cardholder has this promise in writing. That is enough to prevail in a credit card dispute from the end of the card holder. If the merchant wants to pursue the contract that you claim was not breached, but the merchant agreed to make a refund that is their option, but the OP will almost certainly prevail in a credit card dispute where there is a written promise of a refund and the refund hasn't been provided.

And yes...even if that written promise was an email.

The worst one that ever happened to me was a rehearsal dinner when I had my restaurant. The groom's parents were from Italy and paid with a credit card. They raved about the food and thanked us tremendously and even gave a generous tip to the servers, which is unusual for Italians (tipping is minimal in Italy and servers make solid wages). A few months later I got a charge back on the whole thing, and the credit card company wouldn't budge even when I provided the charge slip with the signature. I couldn't even sue, because the cost would have been enormous.

 

[justalayman]

After seeing valid refunds being refuted and won by the merchant, I wouldn't hold any hope out for this situation. Cry all you want that the card issuer can do whatever they want. I've seen it go the other way just as well.

 

[BigMouthWino]

After seeing valid refunds being refuted and won by the merchant, I wouldn't hold any hope out for this situation. Cry all you want that the card issuer can do whatever they want. I've seen it go the other way just as well.

I don't know what "valid refunds" you've seen refuted by the merchant where the merchant prevailed. I've prevailed on the merchant side of credit card disputes. But I've definitely lost more times than I've won.

The problem is your advice to the OP not to file a dispute with her card company is akin to advising someone who lost their job not to file for unemployment insurance. You have no idea what the bank will do. This is the OP's best course of action, costs nothing and in this case it is highly likely OP will prevail. If OP doesn't, just as in unemployment, it didn't cost them anything. You make the best case you can and accept the decision that comes back from the bank.

 

[justalayman]

The problem is your advice to the OP not to file a dispute with her card company is akin to advising someone who lost their job not to file for unemployment insurance.

show me where I said to not attempt to do whatever action it requires to get their money back.

 

[justalayman]

=BigMouthWino;3071035]I don't know what "valid refunds" you've seen refuted by the merchant where the merchant prevailed

.of course you don't know. How would you?

I've prevailed on the merchant side of credit card disputes. But I've definitely lost more times than I've one.

One what? Is that to imply you have only won one disputed charge back? I'm missing your point.

 

[BigMouthWino]

No problem, here you go spouting off that the charge is not in dispute. The charge SHOULD be in dispute and the justification for the chargeback is the merchant's written promise to provide a refund to the cardholder. Now you can't even remember what YOU post. Do you think it might be time to give up on reading and watch TV or something?

Beyond that, the charge is not in dispute so there would be no justification for a charge back. There is no contention the charge was not and is not valid.

 

[BigMouthWino]

.of course you don't know. How would you?



One what? Is that to imply you have only won one disputed charge back? I'm missing your point.

No you're grasping at straws because I mis-typed something and you know that you are dead wrong AGAIN as has been made pointedly obvious by myself and another poster to this thread. Take your bad advice elsewhere.

 

[justalayman]

No problem, here you go spouting off that the charge is not in dispute. The charge SHOULD be in dispute and the justification for the chargeback is the merchant's written promise to provide a refund to the cardholder. Now you can't even remember what YOU post. Do you think it might be time to give up on reading and watch TV or something?

No, the charge should not be in dispute. It is a valid charge...period.

A request for a refund is not a dispute. It has nothing to do with a disputed charge and it not a request for a charge back. It is an attempted claim to process a refund.

 

[justalayman]

No you're grasping at straws because I mis-typed something and you know that you are dead wrong AGAIN as has been made pointedly obvious by myself and another poster to this thread. Take your bad advice elsewhere.

I'm waiting. Where did I say to not attempt the actions you suggested? I simply said it is not a valid dispute and I do not believe it will be granted.

 

[LdiJ]

.of course you don't know. How would you?



One what? Is that to imply you have only won one disputed charge back? I'm missing your point.

I have some knowledge of you, and some knowledge of your professional standing. Why are you insisting on your point of view on this thread? It does not make sense. You don't have the experience to be so adamant on your point of view.

Please do not take this personally, but this is a phenomena that I have noticed lately amongst the senior members...an insistance on a point of view that has marginal legal validity at best...and is off the wall at its worst. I suggest alternatives in areas where I do not have expertise, but I never try to insist on my point of view if I am shot down by others who have experience that I do not have.

 

[justalayman]

I have some knowledge of you, and some knowledge of your professional standing. Why are you insisting on your point of view on this thread? It does not make sense. You don't have the experience to be so adamant on your point of view.

Please do not take this personally, but this is a phenomena that I have noticed lately amongst the senior members...an insistance on a point of view that has marginal legal validity at best...and is off the wall at its worst. I suggest alternatives in areas where I do not have expertise, but I never try to insist on my point of view if I am shot down by others who have experience that I do not have.

I didn't say for the OP to not attempt to do anything. I said the charge is not a disputed charge and it isn't. OP is attempting to enforce a claimed promise of a refund. That is a very different action.

are you of the mind this is a disputed charge? If so, please explain the basis for the dispute. Make it so it is not a denial of a refund. There is a difference.

 

[BigMouthWino]

I didn't say for the OP to not attempt to do anything. I said the charge is not a disputed charge and it isn't. OP is attempting to enforce a claimed promise of a refund. That is a very different action.

are you of the mind this is a disputed charge? If so, please explain the basis for the dispute. Make it so it is not a denial of a refund. There is a difference.

Again, the basis for the dispute is that this was paid for with a credit card. The merchant promised the cardholder a refund in writing and the refund was never provided. The cardholder may now dispute the charge with their bank claiming the promised refund was never received. Banks insist that merchants keep their promises to the BANK'S customers.

The whole point is that the easiest course of action to enforce the promise of refund is to have her bank charge back the original transaction to the merchant. Chances are when the dispute department at the bank does a conference call with the cardholder and the merchant the merchant will agree to do the refund to the card then and there to avoid the fees associated with the chargeback and their standing with their processor.

 

[justalayman]

BigMouthWino;3071077]Again, the basis for the dispute is that this was paid for with a credit card.

so, based on your educated statement, any credit card charge is disputable because a credit card was used. No other reason. Just that a credit card was used because that's what you just said here. Is that what you are actually saying?

 

[BigMouthWino]

so, based on your educated statement, any credit card charge is disputable because a credit card was used. No other reason. Just that a credit card was used because that's what you just said here. Is that what you are actually saying?

No a dispute here is appropriate because the merchant promised the cardholder a refund in writing and the refund hasn't been credited back to the card. So the original transaction should be disputed.

A dispute can arise out of a number of scenarios including fraud, dissatisfaction with the goods and services received, non receipt of goods and services charged for, etc. The list goes on and on. You simply are not familiar with how the acceptance and processing of credit cards works.