>>Perfect Flight (PF) doesn't make the Transaction, they contract >>that out to SWREG.>>So? All that means is that when SWREG gets hit with chargebacks from the bank, they withold the amount they are charged back from their next >disbursement to PF. >...>>I assure you that NO procesing company is going to give a vendor a >contract wherein they have to absorb any chargebacks! If I'm the vendor, and we agree on a percentage. The first time I see them take more than the agreed upon percentage, will be thelast time they do it.Cause I'll be taking my products to another transaction processor. The Your Bank is not their customer the vendor is, they will honor their agreement with the vendor, and tell your bank to go jump in the lake.Your Bank will take the hit on the fraudulent transaction, and they will of course pass it back to their customers.>"Oh, and by the way, not "my" bank - it was someone else who said they'd done this." I wouldn't be in this position, because I don't do business >with criminals. Nice backpedalling, kudos to whoever gave you advice to change your tune on that.Regards.Ernie.

>>second edit..>>I said before>>>>"See if that happens to me I would call my bank and tell them I >>didn't get the product and they refund your money".>>>>If you don't get what is advertised then you don't have the >>product! >>You only have the product if it matches the advertisment that you >>paid for and recieved! >>And in my case it did not!Sorry, but "I didn't get the product", and "The product isn't as advertised" are NOT the same thing. If you told the bank that ou wanted the charge reversed because the product wasn't as advertised, then you're fine. If you told the bank you did't get it, that's a whole different story. Richard

Rick:>>"Oh, and by the way, not "my" bank - it was someone else who said >>they'd done this." I wouldn't be in this position, because I don't >>do business with criminals. Ernie:>>Nice backpedalling, kudos to whoever gave you advice to change your >>tune on that.First off, I don't "backpedal".I suggest you put some work into improving your reading skills. The post about tellin his bank he didn't get the product was made by "slapshot", not by me. Ernie:>>If I'm the vendor, and we agree on a percentage. The first time I >>see them take more than the agreed upon percentage, will be the>>last time they do it.>>>>Cause I'll be taking my products to another transaction processor. >>>>The Your Bank is not their customer the vendor is, they will honor >>their agreement with the vendor, and tell your bank to go jump in >>the lake.>>>>Your Bank will take the hit on the fraudulent transaction, and they >>will of course pass it back to their customers.You obviously don't really have a business in which you accept credit cards, because that's simply NOT how the industry works. The batcher passes on to the vendor the moneys that he gets from the banks, less his handling fee. All chargebacks are also passed through to the vendor. The batcher has no option to 'tell the bank to jump in the lake' - the bank withholds chargebacks at their end, they don't ask the processors to send them the money back.Here's how it works in the real world.Lets say I start selling $20 items through a processing company, and I agree to pay him a 5% fee. This month I sell 100 items, so he submits to the bank $2,000 in credit card receipts. The bank sends him a check for, typically, about $1,940 (bank fee is usually 3%). He takes out his 5% of the $2,000 that he processed, and sends me a check for $1,840.Next month, I also sell 100 items, and he again sends in $2,000 of receipts. During the month, however, 10 of my customers got their charges reversed - they claimed they didn't make the transaction, the item was unmerchantable, whatever. The bank will deduct the $200 from the $1,940 and send the batcher a check for $1,740. He will deduct his 5% fee - based, again, on the $2,000 that he processed - and send me a check for $1,540. In reality, if I actually had anything like 10% of chargebacks, he'd also cut me off cold and refuse to process any more of my sales. The ONLY time the bank takes the hit on chargebacks is on stolen cards where the vendor got a physical swipe of the card (or, depending on card issuer, the user gave the vendor the 3-digit code off the back), the signature matches, and an approval code was issued. (and even then it's not really the bank that eats that, because they insure that risk)Richard

Wow, this thread has really gotten out of control.I think that the original question of whether you could resell your software that you would no longer use has gotten lost in the details of credit card laws from several jurisdictions. Even MS has a seperate EULA for different countries in order to comply with different laws. I would go ahead and resell your software. Even if the EULA forbids it, the fact is that you are no longer using the software, and just wish to transfer the rights to someone else. You are a small fish in a big pond, and even if they could come after you, it wouldn't be worth their time.If the person you sell the software to decides to give the registration code away to everyone he knows, then so be it. You can't be responsible for everyone else's actions. Most of the arguments here seem to be quite ridiculous.- Martin

Richard:>First off, I don't "backpedal".>>I suggest you put some work into improving your reading skills. The post about tellin his bank he didn't get the >product was made by "slapshot", not by me. You're right, I apologize to you for that>>The Your Bank is not their customer the vendor is, they will honor >>their agreement with the vendor, and tell your bank to go jump in >>the lake.>>>>Your Bank will take the hit on the fraudulent transaction, and >>they >>will of course pass it back to their customers.>>>You obviously don't really have a business in which you accept >credit cards, because that's simply NOT how the industry works. I suggest you look at my sig, cause I do have 'some' idea how it works.I'm one of those FlightSim developers on the other end. And I do not get charged back when someone convinces their Bank to get them a refund fraudulent or otherwise. Their Bank may credit their account, but I still get my full percentage on every sale as my distributer has a 'no refund policy'.If you manage to get a refund for a sale of my product rest assured myself and my distributer have recieved our full percentages.>Lets say I start selling $20 items through a processing company, >and I agree to pay him a 5% fee. This month I sell 100 items, so he >submits to >the bank $2,000 in credit card receipts. The bank sends >him a check for, typically, about $1,940 (bank fee is usually 3%). >He takes out his 5% >of the $2,000 that he processed, and sends me >a check for $1,840.>Next month, I also sell 100 items, and he again sends in $2,000 of >receipts. During the month, however, 10 of my customers got their >charges >reversed - they claimed they didn't make the transaction, >the item was unmerchantable, whatever. The bank will deduct the >$200 from the $1,940 >and send the batcher a check for $1,740. He >will deduct his 5% fee - based, again, on the $2,000 that he >processed - and send me a check for $1>,540. I think your description is probably not as applicable to online internet transactions since computers mostly keep track of these electronic transactions now and there really is not much need to send the Bank reciepts for electronic transactions their computers already have records of. And more typically most involved in the online internet transaction is paid via money transfer or wire than by check.Since Perfect Flights distributer is very similar to mine(with the same no refund policy for electroncally delivered products), in fact Perfect Flight has some of their transactions go through my distributer. I'd say its unlikely PF was charged back for the refund the bank credited to slapshot. You can of course continue to disagree. Neither one of us can say for sure anyway.Regards.Ernie.

>>Ernie:>>Go to the Avsim store right now, and you'll see the U.S. State >>those Transactions take place in. (appears to be Alabama).>>Doesn't matter. The FCC has claimed overall jurisdiction on on-line >sales. Even if true (which its not) the FCC does not appear to have any specific regulations that deal with refunds or exchanges for online or internet transactions.Due to this apparent lack of Federal Legislation, in he U.S. that means the jusridiction automatically rests with the individual States.>>Computer software qualifies as a merchantable product.>Only if it works. >An item - physical or software - that doesn't >work, or doesn't work as advertised, or isn't of >acceptable >quality, isn't merchantable.Which makes computer software no less merchantable than any other product.>IF you can issue the buyer a patch or revision that brings it to >merchantable condition, then yes, that would work. >However, if a >software product is unmerchantable because it's not of acceptable >quality, or because the website just >overhyped its capabilities, >then a patch won't do it, and you ARE going to be legally liable to >give the buyer a refund. I disagree. Even in such cases the vendor is not required to give a refund per the relevent statutes. Because the statutes state that it is the vendor that can define the Exchange policy. So the vendor will always have a myriad of exchange options to offer instead of a refund if he so chooses.The U.S. laws are clearly designed to give the vendor the choice of either refund or exchange. Not to lock the vendor into having no choice but to give a refund.The latter is what you seem to be shooting for, but the relevent U.S. State statues simply do not support it.Regards.Ernie.

>>I am not responding to you anymore! Your an idiot!<

Hi Joe, can't say that I disagree with you.The original post was regarding sales of "Downloaded" programs.I agree that there should be no problems in selling "Used" boxed software, since you have the physical product, and are relinquinshing the rights to it. But I think I would be leary of selling my downloaded software for 2 reasons:1-the seller has my info which may be part of the protection scheme, such as e-mail, name, address etc....2- If the program appears on the warez sites with my name and or registration ID plastered all over, I would feel really uncomfortable.Nothing to do with whether it's legal or not, mind you. Just my personal opinion.

Rick:>Only if it works. An item - physical or software - that doesn't >work, or doesn't work as advertised, or isn't of acceptable >quality, isn't merchantable.Ernie:>Which makes computer software no less merchantable than any other >product.And no less UNmerchantable if it is NOT of acceptable quality or doesn't work.>IF you can issue the buyer a patch or revision that brings it to >merchantable condition, then yes, that would work. However, if a >software product is unmerchantable because it's not of acceptable >quality, or because the website just overhyped its capabilities, >then a patch won't do it, and you ARE going to be legally liable to >give the buyer a refund.Ernie:>>I disagree.And you're wrong to do so. *IF* you can deliver to the customer, via a patch or upgrade, a merchantable product - ie one that meets the claims that you made for it, and is of acceptable quality - then by doing so you have indeed met your obligations. If you can't - if the product you're selling is simply not of aceptable quality, for example, then your ONLY remaining option is a refund. The relevant laws, remember, are *CONSUMER PROTIECTION* statutes, not *Vendor protection" statutes. The consumer MUST end up with *either* a satisfactory product or his money back. If your product is inherantly unsatisfactory, a refund is the only legal option.Ernie:>>The U.S. laws are clearly designed to give the vendor the choice of >>either refund or exchange. Not to lock the vendor into having no >>choice but to give a refund.Exchange for a satisfactory product. If you don't HAVE an acceptable product to give him, refund is all that's left.Richard(and no apology for your accusation of my 'backpedalling' ? )

>The relevant laws, remember, are *CONSUMER PROTIECTION* statutes, >not *Vendor protection" statutes. Irrelevent, the actual wording of the consumer protection statutes clearly state the vendor is not required to give a refund.>The consumer MUST end >up with *either* a satisfactory product or >his money back. If your product is inherantly >unsatisfactory, a >refund is the only legal option.Not true, exchange a store credit is most certainly a legal option. >(and no apology for your accusation of my 'backpedalling' ? )Look harder, its there.Regards.Ernie.

Rick:>>(and no apology for your accusation of my 'backpedalling' ? )Ernie:>>Look harder, its there.You're right, I hadn't gotten down to that post. Thank you.Richard

I think I'll just keep the software :)I had to skip a few posts, will go back, but when installing much software, a TOS comes up...the final sentence usually has something like " if you don't agree to these terms, hit cancel)" (cancel the install....but if they don't give refunds, you have just thrown your cash to the wind..and many places will not take back open boxed software..it seems like a total cinsumer ripoff deal to me.

Some of these arguments really crack me up guys. Ernie makes much sense in his replys, there is really NO WAY to check if a person who sells his licence copy that it is removed from his hard drive. No one is forced to purchase payware products, but if you do, you are bound by the contract and terms of the seller when you hit *BUY* button. And if I may, in regards to the refund topic, in PMDG's case, the purchase button says NO REFUNDS if that was not clear enough before purchasing! I'll tell you what, I would love to see one of you guys go to court arguing your points as some have done here, it would not get you very far but a deeper hit in your pocket. I have many products that I have purchased which I can longer use because I only run FS9, I got much use out of my 15-30 bucks for each one and life goes on.... [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/betaimg.jpg

I have a solution, that many already adhere to:freeware or bust...no worries...no lost cash.

>>>>>I would love to see one of you guys go to court arguing your points as some have done here, it would not get you very far but a deeper hit in your pocket.<<<<