Wedding contract - getting deposit back

[justalayman]

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.

but that isn't what you said. You said the basis of the dispute was that a credit card was used. Remember?

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

 

[BigMouthWino]

but that isn't what you said. You said the basis of the dispute was that a credit card was used. Remember?

You failed to quote my entire reply, we can go back and forth about this all night if you like, but two people are telling you you're flat wrong and now you're splitting hairs about what was said in prior posts.

The entirety of my reply was:

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.

Taking one sentence out of the context of my reply does not make you look smart; it makes you look desperate. There is no way for you to rehabilitate your ignorance of this topic and make yourself look good in this thread. Give up.

 

[justalayman]

You failed to quote my entire reply, we can go back and forth about this all night if you like, but two people are telling you you're flat wrong and now you're splitting hairs about what was said in prior posts.

The entirety of my reply was:



Taking one sentence out of the context of my reply does not make you look smart; it makes you look desperate. There is no way for you to rehabilitate your ignorance of this topic and make yourself look good in this thread. Give up.

It doesn't matter if it was taken separately or not. It was a clear statement that you made that the basis of the dispute was that a credit card was used. It is unambiguous. In fact, it was very clear and concise.

 

[BigMouthWino]

It doesn't matter if it was taken separately or not. It was a clear statement that you made that the basis of the dispute was that a credit card was used. It is unambiguous. In fact, it was very clear and concise.

Try reading the whole reply. I know there are a lot of big words in it. I was very clear that the reason for a dispute is that a credit card was used for the purchase and a refund was promised but never credited. Because the two weren't in the same sentence and this is what you want to base an argument on is pure nonsense.

 

[justalayman]

Try reading the whole reply. I know there are a lot of big words in it. I was very clear that the reason for a dispute is that a credit card was used for the purchase and a refund was promised but never credited. Because the two weren't in the same sentence and this is what you want to base an argument on is pure nonsense.

I did read the entire reply. It clearly stated:

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

maybe you should consult a dictionary so you understand what the words you used mean. The fact a credit card was used has nothing to do with why there may be a dispute. The fact a credit card was used merely means there is a means to act on the claimed dispute via the credit card companies policies.

 

[BigMouthWino]

I did read the entire reply. It clearly stated:




maybe you should consult a dictionary so you understand what the words you used mean. The fact a credit card was used has nothing to do with why there may be a dispute. The fact a credit card was used merely means there is a means to act on the claimed dispute via the credit card companies policies.

Again you are quoting one sentence out of my reply, not the entire reply which fully explains WHY the cardholder has a right to initiate a dispute. Again, here is the entirety of that reply:

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]

Again you are quoting one sentence out of my reply, not the entire reply which fully explains WHY the cardholder has a right to initiate a dispute. Again, here is the entirety of that reply:

and the first sentence clearly states you believe the basis for the dispute is the fact a credit card was used. That's it. I don't know how you believe the basis for the dispute would be the fact a credit card was used. I have no problem accepting that because a credit card was used, the OP has a means to attempt to make a claim for what they feel they are due but it the fact a credit card was used is surely not the basis of the dispute.

 

[BigMouthWino]

and the first sentence clearly states you believe the basis for the dispute is the fact a credit card was used. That's it. I don't know how you believe the basis for the dispute would be the fact a credit card was used. I have no problem accepting that because a credit card was used, the OP has a means to attempt to make a claim for what they feel they are due but it the fact a credit card was used is surely not the basis of the dispute.

My reply was not one sentence. It consisted of many sentences which laid out the basis for the dispute:

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.