Oh dear. You have overlooked two things here. Firstly I gave the answer to the question which you posed & seconly, we were discussing the siuation the OP was in prior to receiving the goods (& where the DSR's applied) - so the response was relevant on both counts.
See the above & my previous response to the OP!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
I understand that PayPal also acts on behalf of the merchant (not the customer), in the same way as any acquiring bank.
It is the merchant who decides to accept payments through PayPal; the customer does not have that choice (except in that the merchant might offer other alternatives as well as PayPal).
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
I imagine they'd also be liable if the merchant is "dodgy" and does a 'disappearing act' with the ill-gotten gains.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
If it comes to the stage of the CCC considering a chargeback against the merchant, doesn't that already suggest that the merchant is "dodgy" (not having actioned a valid refund itself)? I wonder what proportion of attempted chargebacks against *dodgy* merchants actually succeed?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Isn't that just the risk that the CCC has to take, in the same way as taking the risk of any dodgy merchant being paid through any acquiring bank?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
I'm suggesting that the "received wisdom" could be wrong, awaiting someone to show us why it might actually be true.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Unfortunately, no-one else seems to be able to come up with any reasonable arguments backing the "received wisdom"!
"Joe Lee" wrote
No you didn't! [I didn't ask why the seller has 30 days to pay...] The seller having 30 days to pay is not inconsistent with the buyer being able to immediately ask the CC provider for a chargeback; if there was true "joint liability" then the buyer could ask
*either* the seller *or* the CC provider to make the refund, and whoever they chose would then have 30 days to pay."Joe Lee" wrote
*All* of the DSR, SoGA & CCA apply, don't they? Just because the DSR apply as well, doesn't stop the SoGA & CCA applying **at the same time**.CCA S75 gives joint liability to the CC provider...
"Joe Lee" wrote
Only if you can show that "joint liability" is put on hold for those 30 days. Is it?
This is becoming extremely boring as you have already asked the very same question! My response was
"Joe Lee" wrote
OK, let's try again; I'll try to make it easy for you to understand! ...
As you state, "The question of liability only arises when the seller fails to conform to the Contract & the legislation governing it." This can happen in any number of ways, eg it might be a failure under DSR or a failure under SoGA etc. We're assuming that there *is* a failure under the SoGA (eg failure to provide goods, or providing defective goods) -- that is all that the OP is worried about.
Now, we have a failure under SoGA *already* (so no need to wait 30 days to discover if there will be a failure under DSR). Why do you think that the joint liability provisions don't kick-in immediately, bearing in mind there is already a failure to conform ... ?
stomer does not have that choice (except in that
For some arguments backing and contradicting the 'received wisdom', look back to the posts at
And be careful about cancelling under the DSR -- if you do, then the obligation to refund is not an obligation which arises as a result of a breach of contract, it is a statutory duty instead. The effect being that s.75 then wouldn't apply (s.75 applies only to misrepresentation or breach of contract). Better to claim a breach of contract by way of non-performance (which, incidentally, is a matter of common law, and not specifically covered by the Sale of Goods Act).
"bcc97" wrote
There really is no material difference...
Sigh - is it really too complicated for you? Ok then, i`ll agree with you to stop you whinging. Don`t forget to let us all know when you get your chargeback via paypal for a bad trade won`t you?
But everyone else understands the difference - perhaps you`re the one with the problem?
Yes, there are better ways of getting 0% money off your credit card. And since most cheques don`t offer a 0% interest rate, your point covers a very small section of the situations people are sent these cheques in.
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
No; but it appears to be too complicated for you, as you don't even separate the effects on two different entities in the process!
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
There's really no need; and no, I'm not whinging. I'm just trying to see if anyone can give any valid reasons for this "received wisdom".
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
I don't use PayPal. What makes you think I ever have?
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
Obviously you don't understand the difference, as you've either been considering the two together, or ignoring VISA completely.
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
"Simon Finnigan" wrote
IME, almost all of the cheques they send me have promo rates. Do I take it that they don't send you any? I wonder why....
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.