Never has the phrase, 'What an Amhole" been more appropriate.

Then again, I've never, ever been hosed by Amazon like this and I order from them several times a month. I guess it just depends on "who" you order from on Amazon.

I believe the pipe firmly lodged up your rectum should suffice.


:iono:

Exactly, hence my post.

Mostly correcting the wrong stuff in your assumptions about Amazon and other Tier 1 retail/etail outlets.

-alex

Unfortunately, that pipe is resonated, not catted. AutoX has rules, man.

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to make a thread called, "I don't like ATaraxias at all and he is a very bad man for the following reasons." Then, you can put all your comments like this in that thread instead of this one. Everybody wins.

How are chargeback fees unethical and petty ? Those are pretty slanderous terms coming from a moderator.

Can you please clarify this ?

Charging the customer for them is. They are a cost of doing business. My company gets hit with them all the time but we eat them.

Also pointing out a negative opinion of something they said is not slander. I'm not making something up to hurt their business, their stated policy is doing that and I'm writing an opinion on their stated policy. Mike understood that and has handled this maturely.

It would be unethical if he charged a fee if he didn't state that on his website. It would be petty if he handled it any other way than he did.

Which means that you calling him unethical and petty is slanderous.
If it is an opinion it would be a slanderous opinion.

To say things are otherwise would be false and a misrepresentation of Mikes efforts.

If you are going to try and lawyer people regarding something you know nothing about such as the laws related to defamation, you would do well to learn that slander is spoken while libel is written.


Truth is also a complete defense to both causes of action...

The unfortunate reality is that many businesses pass on fees to the customer. For example, it's actually illegal for businesses to designate a "minimum credit/debit card charge" for a purchase. However, it is not illegal for them to charge a "convenience fee" for rendered services which is what most conceal the credit card fees as. It's all about semantics and educating yourself as a consumer. While I do not agree with the practices of passing on chargeback fees to the customer, I do appreciate the fact that it is disclosed to the customer prior to any incident. Whether or not you still choose to conduct business with CZP in the first place is ultimately your decision.

So what's going to happen here? Are you just going to wait till Mid October for the parts to come in?

No, if he did that it would simply make any court case related to it be an easy victory against him.

This is literally the *only* business I've seen actually pass along chargebacks. Chargebacks exist as a last resort for a consumer to get money back out of a business that has failed them. Passing it along is basically penalizing the customer again for poor service, lack of product delivery, etc.

By a reasonable person standard you'd have a hard time with this argument. Hell I searched google for "passing chargeback fee to customer" and the first link was this: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-ca...omers-1585.php

They also refer to the practice as unethical. Not that I'm surprised.

He is the one with the policy. Good luck proving that my view of his policy is damaging in any way compared to the stated policy that he admits to. Especially when you consider the statement is being made about a factual statement. If I had said he passes along chargebacks when he does not, this would be a different story.

I can only assume that you know him and are sticking up for him, which is commendable, but he's a big boy and can address it with me himself if he wishes.

If you wish to continue, get ready to create another account. I don't have the time or patience for you.

I agree that is good that it's disclosed. Hell if it wasn't he would get in trouble trying to do so (as that fee would be chargedback and he wouldn't win that case).


Some states still block the convenience fee but allow a "cash discount" instead.


Paypal prevents people from charging the fee so the seller can avoid fees, but that still happens all the time because people are willing to eat the fees.

I'm not going to try to "lawyer people", but you and Mike have made this situation very transparent.

The way Mike handled this situation was very appropriate. To say he or his company is petty is uncalled for. And to say how he handled the situation or his company unethical is just wrong.

Actually I called the PRACTICE of passing along chargebacks unethical and petty. I also stated some fault for this situation on the OP being a little bit unreasonable and commended Mike for trying to get to a solution.