Is it provider's to offer a full refund when the refund is caused by the provider's fault?

Mainfrezzer

@systemfreaks said:

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:

@ralf said:

@systemfreaks said:

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:

@infplus said:

@systemfreaks said:
When we expect a high volume of orders and stock is limited, we place the transaction amount on hold instead of capturing the charge. If the order cannot be fulfilled within 7 days due to stock unavailability or similar issues, the authorization is released. In this case, the gateway charges no fees and the funds become immediately available to the customer.

Since this approach exists and is widely supported, this appears to be a provider-side limitation rather than a technical one. That said, as long as their Terms of Service clearly state that gateway fees are non-refundable, this is acceptable.

I believe that operational risks should not be transferred to customers without any service being provided. Customers pay based on their trust in the provider, and if the provider is unable to provide the service due to their own fault (incorrect pricing or quantity), then the provider should not pass on the operational risk to the customer.

I agree with you, but it comes down to the ToS and refund policy of each provider in the end

In this case there wasn't a sale nor was there a service, anything apart from a full refund is straight up theft.

The seller tried to sell something they didn't have. (Again with the caveat, there's no mention about it was to be delivered later)

What their refund and ToS policies state about refunds?

it doesnt matter what it states. This case is the return of ill gotten gains if you so will. You tried to sell something you did not have. Simple as that. The charge should have never occured in the first place.

Crazy concept, i know. But im sure youre willing to buy the Eifeltower of me, ToS state 10% are refund fees.

The core issue is legality, not ethics. While we both agree the practice is unethical, my position is that if a user explicitly agrees to the terms and is clearly informed of the risks before placing the order, then they knowingly accept those risks. In that case, a chargeback or claim should have no legal standing, as there is informed consent and an explicit agreement.

That said, this can vary by jurisdiction. Some markets impose mandatory consumer-protection rules that override private agreements. However, from a contractual standpoint, when risks are clearly disclosed and accepted in advance, the buyer cannot later claim ignorance or misrepresentation.

As a provider systemfreaks always grants full refund, there is no point to exclude the gateway fees

If the provider fails to deliver anything at all, it is a simple breach of contract. It doesn't really matter what you agreed to at that point.

Obviously, it's different if you're ordering something that's clearly a pre-order, but not if the provider fails to deliver anything at all. Although I think there has to be some leeway, maybe a week is reasonable to provision something in the absence of any other information.

A “breach of contract” is defined by the contract itself. That’s why I’m saying that while not providing a full refund may be unethical, whether it’s legal or not depends on what the buyer agreed to and on the consumer-protection laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

This still assume that any contract would have been established in the first place. If you "pretend" to sell something and take the money, its just a crime, no real sale has taken place. You just scammed someone.

During order when you click on I agree on ToS etc that still a contract, again i am just debating the legality of the action and not if its unethical or a scam

Its not. I can put a lot of stuff on some random text box while robbing you. Thats not legally binding when the intend behind it was to trick someone under a false pretense. That ToS is only comming into effect when you actually do sale.

Would be quite hilarious if ToS would apply to crimes commited.

if its a crime or not is regulated by jurisdiction laws, you can't just state its a crime because is something we don't like that's the harsh truth. I suggest before anyone purchases something to investigate if the seller is a registered business and always review the ToS etc documentation

Taking peoples money without any intent to sell something is hardly a concept thats accepted anywhere on this planet, im sure.

For Shits and giggles, lets do it the other way around, lets pretend were the poor seller, that tries to sell something which we do not own.
The Eifeltower for example.

So we sell this "Customer" the Eifeltower, the customer checked the ToS on our webplatform. We tell him, well, were sorry, no Eifeltower.

And this rude customer charges back his money.

This customer robbed us, lets sue him.

Now try to explain to the legal system that what you did had any basis to begin with and how there was any valid contract formed.

Good luck of getting any money "back"

systemfreaks

You are still judging the situation subjectively, and again what you are saying might be ethically correct, on the legality of it there are a lot of variables and the buyer is also responsible of doing due diligence.

I would love to have more information on the case the post is referring too so we can discuss on it.

Mainfrezzer

@systemfreaks said:
You are still judging the situation subjectively, and again what you are saying might be ethically correct, on the legality of it there are a lot of variables and the buyer is also responsible of doing due diligence.

I would love to have more information on the case the post is referring too so we can discuss on it.

Then tell me objectively, which country on this planet allows robberies and defrauding people?

systemfreaks

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:
You are still judging the situation subjectively, and again what you are saying might be ethically correct, on the legality of it there are a lot of variables and the buyer is also responsible of doing due diligence.

I would love to have more information on the case the post is referring too so we can discuss on it.

Then tell me objectively, which country on this planet allows robberies and defrauding people?

The point is that it might not be a robbery, and it depends on the agreement in place i am not sure why you are not taking the agreement seriously?

Mainfrezzer

@systemfreaks said:

@Mainfrezzer said:

@systemfreaks said:
You are still judging the situation subjectively, and again what you are saying might be ethically correct, on the legality of it there are a lot of variables and the buyer is also responsible of doing due diligence.

I would love to have more information on the case the post is referring too so we can discuss on it.

Then tell me objectively, which country on this planet allows robberies and defrauding people?

The point is that it might not be a robbery, and it depends on the agreement in place i am not sure why you are not taking the agreement seriously?

It always is. thats the point. If you dont intent to fullfill your part of the deal, which was the premise, anything that follows it, is null and void. Any ToS is attached to the original premise, the sale, if you fail to deliver anything you fucked up big time and not returning anything you got this way, is a crime everywhere. There is no valid agreement made, as its based on falsehoods. Its as simple as it is.