[aunty_helen]

What? How are you going to charge back against someone you didn't actually deal with financially?

Your arguement is that Affirm should be able to clip the ticket and hold no responsibility for their client fufilling their duties?

The charge back goes to who you paid for a service, if they need to pass it on, it's for them to do.

[411111111111111]

I cannot say anything wrt this specific case but it definitely depends. Where I'm from you'd basically make 2 contracts: one purchase agreement and then another one for the money, which is basically just a credit you've gotta pay back.

So here you'd have to contact the seller, as the other party merely gave you a credit with hopefully good terms

[syedkarim]

Where are you from?

[tionis]

What OP describes sounds like the German systems with the abstraction system I think it's called.

[0des]

Asking that is a precursor to violence where some of us are from as it's an understood "what colors do you fly" type of question.

[jallen_dot_dev]

Author never disputed the transaction with Affirm, he just went straight to chargeback after getting nowhere with the merchant.

[aunty_helen]

> and they were unresponsive to my requests for a shipping date

There wasn’t an issue with Affirm not paying the money onward, why go to them.

Once again, Affirm have agreed to give credit to this company, that relationship is theirs. If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.

Credit cards work like this, you pay your 2-4% fee and you’re guaranteed what you expected to receive.

Hence why airlines changing peoples tickets out for credit during the pandemic was easily routed around via a cc charge back.

I literally had the Turkish government change the law on my ticket to say the airline didn’t have to fly me but could swap my ticket for credit and I still made it away with my money in the end.

[jallen_dot_dev]

> If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.

Again, they didn't even know there was a problem because the author never brought it to their attention before the chargeback.

The author borrowed money from Affirm and agreed to pay it back. He's in breach of his contract with Affirm, over a dispute with the merchant (a different party).

[michaelmrose]

They make their money by acting as an integrated intermediary. They didn't borrow money separately and then use that money to buy an item. They borrowed as an integrated step in the purchase interface.

By acting as the intermediary they are the only party that received the posters money and ergo the only and appropriate party to claw the money back from. This is no different from buying a widget on amazon. Failing to receive the widget. Initiating a chargeback for the money.

Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.

Indeed its not really any different from a direct retail purchase where you buy a box and if you open the box and instead of nice new widget you find one that looks like it was mauled by a bear. Can you imagine going to the returns counter and being told despite paying us your money at our point of sale you need to fly to china and sue them if you want your money back. It's just not how the universe works.

They most likely actually CAN'T take money and deliver nothing and make it someone else's problem if they both want to do business in the US and keep doing business with credit card issuers here.

[jallen_dot_dev]

This isn't a good analogy. A retailer is responsible for giving you what you ordered (a nice new widget) because you are literally buying it from them. In this case, Affirm isn't fulfilling the purchase at all.

I think a better analogy would be you bought a house, but you find out later the seller lied about something (maybe they didn't install a new roof like they claimed), so you think the best course of action is to stop making mortgage payments to your bank.

> Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.

Yeah, after you request a refund from them. Try issuing a chargeback to Amazon next time you buy something from a 3rd party seller, I think you will have a bad time.

[pxx]

> airlines changing peoples tickets out for credit during the pandemic was easily routed around via a cc charge back

You still owe them the money. The airline can stop you from boarding a future flight. Chargebacks are not magic debt elimination tools.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/12/ryanair-ban...

[aunty_helen]

If that was the case, Turkish airlines had 4 more days to wait until we went to mediation with MasterCard. They could’ve proved their point and taken the money.

They didn’t, they backed out and handed the money back. 1600usd.

The concept that I still owe them money after they were unable to fulfill their duties is laughable, so much so, they wouldn’t even back themselves.

Edit, just to make it clear cc chargebacks aren’t some hit and run scheme

To get to the point I did. I had to

1 convince my bank I was right before they opened any dispute

2 defend myself against evidence the airline put forward saying they were right

3 wait 164 days for my money

And 1600usd vs never using Turkish airlines again… I’ll take the money.

[DangitBobby]

Sounds to me like Ryanair is on rocky footing with the law here. They refuse service, they issue a refund. Simple as that. They owe those people money. Unfortunate the courts didn't resolve it.

[treis]

OP used a card to pay a loan and the amount was correctly credited to their account. They're getting what they used the credit card to pay for.

I think the loophole here is Affirm not being regulated like a CC. Then they'd be required to arbitrate the dispute between OP and the merchant.