There seems to be a lot of complaints though with this sort of arrangement.
Only by dills that dont have a clue. You qualify.
Since it was not the provider of goods or services that
> actually accepted your card, you have no recourse
Wrong. They still have to show that you authorised the transaction, stupid.
because the third party who accepted your
> card did provide the service you requested
Irrelevant on them having to show that you authorised the transaction.
- that is they accepted your card and passed a
> payment onto the actual goods or service provider.
Irrelevant on them having to show that you authorised the transaction.
rowan194 wrote:
>
>> Looks like a standard third party biller to me.
>>
>> Instead of the content web site having a merchant account (and secure
>> e-commerce facilities) they pass over to a third party. The big
>> advantage with third party billing is that the webmaster of the site
>> you're buying access to cannot see your card details.
>>
>> If for some reason they do bill you in error (or deliberately) then
>> your bank can reverse the charge on your card. Without a signature on a
>> sales receipt or contract for recurring billing the merchant cannot
>> prove that you authorised the transaction.
>