The e-retailers are not immune to the current economic crisis. Behind the facades of attractions, adjustments and liquidations suppliers multiply. So what are the possibilities to challenge the commitment to pay given by a credit card?
This question is still most frequently asked of banks. But oddly enough, the answers vary according to the party. Some customers even complain of having been refunded by their bank as a first step before being charged again the amount paid by card.
In defense of banks, it should be recognized that the monetary and financial code does not shine by its clarity. Under Article L.132-2, it can be opposed to payment in reorganization or liquidation proceedings of the recipient.
In the case of a payment made before the court ruling that declares bankruptcy, this opposition Can be made after this ruling?
negative response arranges the affairs of banks, which thus limit the event of opposition. In doing so, they largely empty protective scope of Article L.132-2. Indeed, very few brave remaining customers of a company that went bankrupt. The shopping possibilities are also unlikely.
For their part, buyers of bankruptcy victims call for the rescue of Article L.132-6 of the Code monétaire et financier. This indicates that the holder of a payment card has the opportunity to file a claim for a statutory period of seventy days after the disputed transaction. For example, even if the purchase occurred forty days before the trial opening, they intend to contest it another thirty days.
Based on the combination of these two articles, a popular consumer advocacy organization offered them a form letter in opposition to card payments for their purchases CAMIF.
The successful government intervention for customers CAMIF made such a letter moot. The many victims of less well-known retailers (including Show Room 2001), however, have pinned high hopes on such a combined interpretation of two articles of the Code monétaire et financier.
It now seems that banks do not share this interpretation. They will argue that the only case of opposition under Article L.132-2 are loss, theft, misuse or failure, but only where the disputed transaction comes after ruling that declares it.
In practice, victims can only be disappointed by the insufficient precision of the Code monétaire et financier.
This would benefit both clarity and scope stated that if the opposition can be done from the date of payment of a merchant, often very pretrial opening declaring bankruptcy. The buyer would gain security and so the banks would be empowered. They can afford it because they are deemed to know the financial health of their customers.
Also to improve security transactions, it seems appropriate to add fraud to theft, as provided by Article L.132-2. In this case, the bank would act against the offender, with more efficiency than its own customers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment