From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Don't bank with the COOP because they are either incompetant or crooked
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:53:08 +0100
Bytes: 3073

>>>>> s_pickle2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> >What if the customer in the original could not get his money from the
>>>>> >Co-op bank in a reasonable time frame, and sued the retailer and won?
>>>>>
>>>>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>> The customer wouldn't win. The retailer wouldn't
>>>>> be held responsible for the failings of the bank.
>>>>
>>> s_pickle2001@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>I think he would, especially if the failure of the bank was already
>>>>known, and the customer spefically told the merchant not to refund it
>>>>to that card. The purpose of a refund is to put the customer back in
>>>>the original position, not to satisfy the credit card company's rules.
>>>
>>"Mark Goodge" wrote
>>> The original position is the money is in the customer's bank account.
>>
> "Tim" wrote
>>You forgot something :  The original position is the
>>money is in the customer's *solvent* bank account.
>
"Mark Goodge" wrote
> Yes - but it's the *bank'* fault that the
> account is no longer solvent. Not the retailer's.

So what?  It doesn't matter *whose*  "fault" it is!
You said "The purpose of a refund is to put the customer back
in the original position", but your proposed action does not
do that - whoevers fault that may be, does not change the
fact that the customer would *not* be in the same position.

So - which is it to be?  "Same position", or "same a/c"?