4 ms·

Chargebacks are the only recourse consumers have a lot of times. Doesn't that mean the legal system - which should be the civilised way to resolve disputes - n

Chargebacks are the only recourse consumers have a lot of times. Doesn't that mean the legal system - which should be the civilised way to resolve disputes - needs fixing? It's strange that some cultures delegate the power to make serious decisions about other people's property and finances to unaccountable, unregulated commercial entities. Companies, especially online ones, have a way of offering no real customer support and a lot of these app based ones take a few dollars even if they offer a “refund.” That generalisation is completely unfounded. There are millions of businesses in the world. Some of them are run by charlatans who would sell their first born child for a dollar more profit. Others are run by normal people who also have bills to pay. So I’m sorry you hate them but allowing the companies to always be taken as right is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. No, because the exact opposite of that is allowing the customers to always be taken as right and that is a free pass for fraudsters. There are customers who would sell their first born child to save a dollar too.

RHSeeger 4y ago
> Doesn't that mean the legal system - which should be the civilised way to resolve disputes - needs fixing? Is there a legal system resolution that wouldn't wind up costing the participants, especially the payer, more than it's worth to handle it that way. For many people, just taking a day off work to attend court is more than they can afford.
- chrischen 4y ago
  There are some legal procedures that can be done online, by email. Something like this could totally be setup to take place digitally.
- Silhouette 4y ago
  Small claims procedures exist in many places for exactly this reason. Ideally the parties submit their own version of events and if the facts are not in dispute then a judge or similar official can rule on the case without anyone ever needing to appear in person. The fees can be minimal but enough to deter frivolous actions. There can be a policy where the loser pays those fees by default so if one party will clearly win then there is an incentive for the other to settle immediately without going through the whole process. If the facts are in dispute then you can move to providing evidence and if necessary to each side making a full case at some kind of trial. By the time you're appearing in person that will probably incur a higher cost even if the system is designed to minimise overheads. That means it's only worth going that far if there is enough on the line to justify the effort. But isn't that reasonable for something that will take a significant amount of both parties' time and the court's resources to decide and if the facts are in dispute and neither party has clear evidence that immediately resolves the matter? Again you can keep the fees low but not completely negligible and have a presumption that the loser will pay to incentivise settling early in most cases.

RHSeeger 4y ago

> Doesn't that mean the legal system - which should be the civilised way to resolve disputes - needs fixing? Is there a legal system resolution that wouldn't wind up costing the participants, especially the payer, more than it's worth to handle it that way. For many people, just taking a day off work to attend court is more than they can afford.

chrischen 4y ago
There are some legal procedures that can be done online, by email. Something like this could totally be setup to take place digitally.
Silhouette 4y ago
Small claims procedures exist in many places for exactly this reason. Ideally the parties submit their own version of events and if the facts are not in dispute then a judge or similar official can rule on the case without anyone ever needing to appear in person. The fees can be minimal but enough to deter frivolous actions. There can be a policy where the loser pays those fees by default so if one party will clearly win then there is an incentive for the other to settle immediately without going through the whole process. If the facts are in dispute then you can move to providing evidence and if necessary to each side making a full case at some kind of trial. By the time you're appearing in person that will probably incur a higher cost even if the system is designed to minimise overheads. That means it's only worth going that far if there is enough on the line to justify the effort. But isn't that reasonable for something that will take a significant amount of both parties' time and the court's resources to decide and if the facts are in dispute and neither party has clear evidence that immediately resolves the matter? Again you can keep the fees low but not completely negligible and have a presumption that the loser will pay to incentivise settling early in most cases.