1) Michisurei Emuna – Ability to retract and no Mi Shepara but is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna]:[1]
From a legal standpoint, words alone do not suffice for legally acquiring an item and finalizing a business transaction [even if there are witnesses who testify to the agreement[2]].[3] Accordingly, both the buyer and the seller, or giver and receiver, retains the legal ability to retract from the transaction, following the letter of the law, so long as no legal acquisition was made.[4] Furthermore, even the curse of Mi Shepara is not given to one who backs out from the agreement so long as the buyer has yet to pay for the item.[5] Nonetheless, such an individual who backs out from a finalized[6] agreement [whether the buyer or seller[7]] is considered a dishonest person [i.e. Michisurei Emuna][8], and the Sages were not happy with such an individual [i.e. Ein Ruach Chachamim Noach Heymenu][9], as it is proper for a person to keep to his word.[10] [Accordingly, it is forbidden for one to retract from the transaction in any scenario which would be defined as Michsurei Emuna, and one who does so is called a Rasha.[11] However, some Poskim[12] rule that this is not a prohibition, but a mere matter of properness, and hence one who does so is not called a Rasha or transgressor. On the other hand, one who does keep his word, merits to sit in the sector of God, and the spirit of the sages are happy with him and according to some, he merits wealth.[13]]
Thoughts of the heart: The consideration of Michsurei Emuna only applies to an individual who retracts from a verbal agreement that was made with the other party. However, resolutions of the heart do not consider one Michsurei Emunah if he retracts from them, even though it is proper for a G-d fearing Jew to fulfill them, as will be explained in Case 5.
Going back from an agreed upon price:[14] If a buyer and seller agreed on a certain sum for an item, then neither party should go back on their word and ask to pay more or less than the agreed upon sum. [If one does so, then he is considered Michsurei Emuna, and the sages are not happy with such an individual, and is therefore forbidden to do so, as explained above. This applies even if one discovered that other stores sell the item for cheaper.[15]]
If the market value of the product has changed, or other unexpected changes occurred:[16] Some Poskim[17] rule that it is forbidden [due to Michsurei Emuna] for either party to retract from the sale price even if the market value has changed. Hence, if the value of the product went up in price, the seller may not demand a higher price, and if the value of the product went down in price, the buyer may not demand it to be given to him for the lower price, and if either party does so then they are considered untrustworthy. Other Poskim[18], however rule that if one of the parties retracts from the sale due to an increase or decrease in the market value of the item, then he is not considered untrustworthy, and hence even initially one may choose to do so. [The same applies regarding any other unexpected change on the ground that may make the person now retract from the sale.[19]] Practically, the main ruling follows the former opinion[20], [although some conclude that it is a mere Midas Chassidus to be stringent[21], and some write that the custom today is to be lenient in this matter[22], and by a large unexpected change, then one may be lenient according to all[23]].
Agreement due to error:[24] If the agreement was done out of error, then one who retracts from his position is not considered Michsurei Emuna.
Going back from a proposed favor:[25] If one told his friend that he will do for him a certain favor, and he has the ability to do so, then he should not go back on his word [and if one does so, then he is considered Michsurei Emuna, and the sages are not happy with such an individual[26]]. [Thus, if one offered to give someone a ride, or let them stay as a guest in one’s house, or go shopping for them for certain item, then one may not go back on his proposal and if he does so he is considered Michsurei Emuna. All the more so, seemingly a guest who has closed with a host to eat or stay by them, it is considered Michsurei Emuna for him to cancel on them without due notice.]
Going back from a proposed small gift:[27] One who tells his friend that he will give him a small gift, [then although he retains the legal right to retract from his pledge if the recipient is wealthy, nevertheless,] if he does not end up giving it to him, then such a person is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[28] [However, by a large gift, a person is not considered Michsurei Emuna if he retracts from the pledge, as will be explained in case 5. However, if the recipient is a pauper, then it is illegal to retract from his pledge, as was explained in Case 2.] [A small gift is defined as any gift in which the recipient believed in the pledge that he was given, based on the wealth of the person making the pledge.[29]] See Halacha F for the full details of this matter.
Mekach Taus – Defects and wrong charge:[30] In the event of a Halachically defined Mekach Taus, it is permitted for the party who was wronged to retract from the sale, and he is not considered untrustworthy. This applies even after a Kinyan has taken place, as explained in case 1, and certainly if it was a mere verbal agreement.
The law if there exists a refund policy:[31] The above consideration of Michsurei Emuna on retracting from a sale seemingly only applies in an area that does not contain any consumer laws regarding the issue of returns. If, however, the State in which the purchase took place, contains consumer laws and policies which are accepted upon that area, then there is no Michsurei Emuna for retracting from the sale agreement, as one may do so even after the Kinyan takes place. The same applies if the store policy is to permit returns until a certain time, in which case there is no Michsurei Emuna for retracting from the sale agreement, as if one may ask for a refund even after a purchase, certainly one may go back on an agreement to purchase it. However, seemingly, this only applies if the business provides cash refunds, however, if they only give store credit, then seemingly it would be considered Michsurei Emunah to retract from the sale, as the owner loses business.[32]
Gentile:[33] A Jew is not considered Michsurei Emuna if he retracts from a transaction that he did with a Gentile, if he has yet to perform a valid acquisition, as gentiles themselves reserve the right to back out of a verbal agreement.
|
Chargeback – Canceling a purchase via one’s credit card company:[34] Canceling a purchase via one’s credit card company illegally or unjustifiably, breaches not only a prohibition of Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and the laws of Kinyanim, but furthermore makes the person considered a Mazik, as the credit card company often charges an administrative fee to the business. It likewise has the chance of potentially ruining the reputation of the business with the credit card issuer, and hence he also transgresses Motzi Sheim Ra on the business. This is aside for being potentially illegal according to civil law.[35] Hence, a chargeback may only be done in the event of a true Mekach Taus[36], and only after the business is notified and still refuses to issue a refund.[37] One who prematurely cancels a purchase via his credit card company, may be guilty of all the above, and be liable to pay for the loss caused to the business.
|
__________________________________________________
[1] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 204:7-8; Rama C.M. 204:11 [See Smeh C.M. 204:13 and 18]; Rambam Mechira 7:8; Rav Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 281-316; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717
[2] Michaber C.M. 189; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 1:1; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:2 Shaar Hatziyon 19
[3] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 189:1; Tur 189; Bava Metzia 48a and 49a even in opinion of Rebbe Yochanon “Yachol Peshita” and Rashi there
[4] If will cause a loss to the seller: Even if the buyers backing out from the purchase will cause a loss to the seller, such as if he lost the ability to sell it to a different client, nonetheless, the buyer has the legal right to back out from the sale and he is not liable for reimbursing the seller on his lost income. [See Nesivos Hamishpat 333:3; Pischeiy Choshen Nezikin 3:4; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:3 Mekoros 14]
[5] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 204:7; Rama 204:11; Bava Metzia ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 84 footnotes 27-28
[6] See Tzemach Tzedek Y.D. 345:15, brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 293 footnotes 108-110, that so long as they are still talking about the agreement, then it is not considered final, and either party may retract from previous statements without regulation; See also Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 298-299
The type of agreement: One is considered Michisurei Emuna whether he backs out from a fully closed agreement between the buyer and seller to the point that they even agreed on a price and closed the sale with witnesses, or if the buyer simply agreed to buy it from the seller and the seller simply agreed to sell it to the buyer, in either case, one who backtracks from the deal is considered untrustworthy. [Implication of Admur ibid regarding Machshava; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer”]
If the buyer said he is leaving to get money, may the seller sell to another client: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer” in length
[7] Rama 204:11; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:3 Shaar Hatziyon 20
[8] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michisurei Emuna” Vol. 44 p. 281
The reason: As the verse [Tzefanya 3:13] states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav.” [Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76]; Alternatively, this is learned from the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] which states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73] This means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to something, then one must try to fulfill his word and justify them. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Rashi ibid] Regarding the apparent contradiction in Admur O.C. ibid versus Admur C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement, see: Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38
Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2 interprets this verse of Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach to refer to the concept that there is a Biblical prohibition against one making a promise without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it. In his words: To speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden as the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Rambam Deios 2:6; Abayey in Bava Metzia 49a in his interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66]
Biblical, Rabbinical, or Midas Chasisdus: Biblical: Some Poskim rule that the above obligation is Biblical as it is based on an explicit verse in Scripture. [Possible understanding of Admur 156:2 who brings Pasuk of Hin Tzedek as source; Braisa Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Smeh ibid, Rashi Kesubos 86a, Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah] Rabbinical: Other Poskim, however, rule that it is merely Rabbinical. [Implication of Admur Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1 who brings Pasuk of Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yasu; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Eino Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Rif, Rosh, Ramban in Milchamos, Admur ibid, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; See Hamaor Hagdol on Rif ibid; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36 and Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”] Whatever the case, there is a prohibition to change one’s word. [See Rama “Assur Lachzor”; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25] Midas Chassidus: However, from other sources it is evident that this is a mere act of properness or of piety and not an obligation at all. [Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 who use the term “Rauiy”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He obligates himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it.” However, see Kesef Mishneh ibid for a second version in which it states that he does not obligate himself, which simply means that he does not give his word to agreements in order to prevent a situation that he must go back on it.] See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136; See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”
Other opinions in Talmud: Some are of the opinion that one always retain the right to retract from a promise of giving a gift or business agreement, whether the agreement and gift to small or large, and doing so does not consider one as not trustworthy, as so is the way of business for people to change their mind due to a variety of factors. [Rav Bava Metzai 49a, brought in Admur ibid Kuntrus Achron 1]
[9] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Rambam Mechira 7:8; Bava Metzia 48a; Mishneh Shevi’is 10 [See Mefarshim on Mishneh on Rash]; See Tzemach Tzedek C.M. 82:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 286-287 and Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717
The meaning of this statement: This means that the sages of Israel do not receive satisfaction from the actions of this individual and they are not pleased with him. [Smeh C.M. 204:13; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:5 Shaareiy Tziyon 26]
The scriptural source for this statement: The above statement of that the sages are not happy with one who changes his mind is based on the previous statement of the Talmud, which is based on the verse of Hin Tzedek. [Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10]
[10] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Poskim brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 44
The law if one sold it and received money from someone else after the agreement: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid regarding Mi Shepara versus Michsurei Emuna
[11] Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; Rama “Assur Lachzor”; See Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25
[12] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 “Rauiy Lamod”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136
[13] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 p. 296 footnote 54 and 79-80
[14] See the following Poskim regarding resolve in heart, and certainly this would apply even more so if it was actually expressed and agreed upon between the two parties, and doing so would be included in the category of Michsurei Emuna, and Ein Ruach Chachamim Nocha Heymena: Admur C.M. ibid; Rabbeinu Gershom and Rashbam Bava Basra ibid; Rashi Makos 24a in name of Sheilasos Parshas Vayechi 36; Hagahos Ashri Bava Basra 5:21
[15] Alon Hamishpat Vol. 51:6
[16] See Rama C.M. 204:11; Smeh C.M. 204:12; Shach 204:8 in name of Bach 204:11 leaves this matter in question; Aruch Hashulchan 204:8; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 312-314; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 51 for article by Rav Yosef Fleishman; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:5 Shaareiy Tziyon 27-29
[17] 2nd opinion of Rama ibid; Darkei Moshe 204:11; Smeh C.M. 204:12 in opinion of Rambam Mechira 7:8 and Setimas Michaber [and so would likewise follow to be Setimas Admur]; Nimukei Yosef on Rif Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad and Rashba; Magiid Mishneh Mechira 7:8; Ramban in Milchamos on Baal Hamaor ibid; Beis Yosef 204 in name of Tosafus; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 9:4; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 255-265; Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 2 and 6-7 and that so rule majority of Rishonim
[18] 1st opinion of Rama ibid; Smeh C.M. 204:12 in opinion of Rosh Bava Metzia 4:14 and Tur 204:11 in name of Razah in Baal Hamaor Bava Metzia 29; Talmidei Harashba in name of Ittur; Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:3; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 248-254; Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 1 and 8-9
[19] See Chasam Sofer C.M. 102; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 314 footnotes 266-269; Alon Hamishpat ibid6-10 footnotes 12-15; ; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 1-2
[20] Rama ibid “Vichein Nireh Ikkur” [like 2nd opinion in Rama, which is our 1st opinion brought above]
[21] See Aruch Hashulchan ibid who concludes that it is only Midas Chasidus to be stringent, and not a requirement; Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 10
[22] Shevet Halevi 4:206 based on Chasam Sofer ibid; Rav M.M. Shpern in Hayashar Vehatov 9:38 and Rav Sariel Rosenberg in Hayashar Vehatov 8:52; Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 11
[23] See Alon Hamishpat ibid
[24] See Admur ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 298 footnotes 145-148
[25] Admur C.M. ibid in parentheses regarding resolve in heart, and certainly this would apply even more so if it was actually expressed and agreed upon between the two parties, and doing so would be included in the category of Michsurei Emuna, and Ein Ruach Chachamim Nocha Heymena; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 309 footnote 226
[26] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid
[27] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Rama 204:11; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 45
Wrote check as wedding gift and did not go to wedding: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Lasos Eizeh Tova”
[28] The reason: As the recipient had truly believe the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid in explanation of opinion of Rebbe Yochanon and Rashi ibid]
[29] Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 2; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 192; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:10 Shaar Hatziyon 39
[30] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 121 footnotes 354-356
[31] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 115 footnotes 293-295 regarding that there is no Mi Shepara if the Mekach will not take place until 30 days later; A refund policy in essence makes the purchase of the product defined as “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro” by which we rule that one may return it without penalty of any level of mistrust. See Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95
[32] Credit card purchases: Now, although regarding a credit card purchase, businesses who accept credit cards do so under the implicit stipulation that the buyer holds the right to dispute the charge, nevertheless, this may only be done in a case of true Mekach Taus. Accordingly, going back on a credit card purchase outside of the refund policy, would be Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and illegal, unless due to a true Mekach Taus.
[33] See Maharam Mintz 35; Mishpat Shalom 204:7; Maharsham 4:66; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 293-294 footnotes 111-112
[34] Although businesses who accept credit cards do so under the implicit stipulation that the buyer holds the right to dispute the charge, nevertheless, this may only be done in a case of true Mekach Taus and only after first consulting with the business and asking them for a refund. Accordingly, going back on a credit card purchase outside of the refund policy, would be Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and illegal, unless due to a true Mekach Taus. See https://stripe.com/resources/more/three-types-of-chargebacks-and-how-to-prevent-them ; https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/chargeback-fraud-what-small-businesses-need-to-know ; https://www.bartkasperolaw.com/chargeback-law-your-rights-as-a-consumer/
Explanation: A credit card payment should be viewed no different than a messenger, or lender, who has agreed to pay on behalf of the consumer, and the credit cards stipulation with the business is no different than a messenger who stipulated his payment with the seller. However, this does not relinquish the buyer from his obligation to pay for the product once a Kinyan has been made, and hence irrelevant of whatever policy the credit card company has, the buyer still has to follow his business obligations that are implicit in his purchase. To give an example: If the buyer and seller agree to for the payment to be given by another individual, and that individual stipulates with the seller that he will take his payment back in any scenario that the buyer asks for the payment back, then although certainly that stipulation stands, nonetheless, in the event that the buyer asked for the payment back, he the buyer would still remain personally obligated to pay the seller for the goods. Accordingly, chargebacks can cause the buyer to transgress several of the matters brought above, as the issue between him and the seller remain unresolved, and it only resolves the issue between the seller and his credit card company, which is his Shliach or lender. To say it in other words, the credit card company does not transgress anything for issuing a chargeback, as this was explicitly stipulated in the agreement of accepting their payment, however, the buyer remains liable for transgression. The stipulations of the credit card company regarding chargebacks for merchants is a private agreement between them and the merchant and not between the merchant and the buyer. This holds true even in civil law, and hence notwithstanding the chargeback decision of the bank, the merchant always retains the civil right to sue the consumer for payment in court.
[35] https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2022/04/are-there-consequences-for-filing-false-chargebacks/
[36] Such as: https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#3
- Your order didn’t arrive or the service was not provided
- Your order is faulty or doesn’t match the description
- The seller has gone out of business
[37] “Your first step should always be to contact the seller, but if you’re unable to resolve the situation to your satisfaction, your card provider may still be able to help you.” “With a refund, however, the seller accepts responsibility for refunding you directly, without the need to claim through your bank. You should always request a refund from the seller first before making a chargeback claim.” See https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#2
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.