How to refuse a Clearxchange payment?
"Your bank uses ClearXchange, not you. It is not a website where you open an account, like many others, but an inter-bank transfer system based on email addresses, kind of like free wire transfers between everyone. You don't have to set anything up, just accept the payment, and the money appears in your account (assuming the client used the email address your bank has on file for you). However, if you still don't want it, you can just ignore it. There is a timeout when his transaction gets auto-cancelled, and he gets his money back. Here is an example text from the 'fine print' (my highlighting): ""[...]We will continue our attempts by sending a second notice of a transfer to the recipient, and providing the recipient a period of nine (9) succeeding Business Days to register in the Service, or the person-to-person payment service of clearXchange, Zelle or a Network Bank. At the end of this period, if the recipient still has not registered, the transfer request will be Cancelled. The sender may cancel the transfer at any time during this ten (10) day period if the recipient is not registered at the time of cancellation.[...]"" (https://chaseonline.chase.com/Public/Misc/LAContent.aspx?agreementKey=chasenet_la)"
I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates. I think the question relates to the discussion here: http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/10/05/19449/ It was always the case that merchants could discount purchases made with cash.  What wasn't allowed is allowing the merchant to charge extra for credit card transactions (presumably to cover the fees the merchants pay).  These fees usually carry a flat fee per transaction, plus around 2% of the purchase price.  What also wasn't allowed was them to refuse any credit transactions.  People could charge a pack of gum, even if the fees put that transaction in the red. What's allowed according to this new development is different levels of discounting for different credit cards. Somewhat related to this discussion is another development that happened this summer: merchants now have the ability to refuse credit card transactions of less than $10. Here's my feeling on all of this.  I think we'll see merchants imposing minimum credit transaction amounts before we see them monkeying at the 1-2% level on pricing for different types of credit cards.  My feeling is that they'd be wise not to change anything, even though they can.  Refusing transactions (or charging more for others) is going to come as a unpleasant shock to enough people that they may take their business elsewhere. There are thousands of processors. But I explicitly mentioned the customer experience, which is completely different and no matter how much you want your industry experience to matter for that, it doesn't affect it.  This you did not read and comprehend.  Could you clarify for me how VISA/MasterCard managed to block a merchant, who presumably wasn't a direct customer (but instead a payment processor customer), but cannot block a card holder? (yes, this is an honest question)  &gt; Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing?  The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political.  &gt; No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal.  In this case, yes. So who is morally and/or legally responsible when everyone does the same thing? "MD-Tech answered: The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract.  If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can ""net off"" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the ""hard"" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0." I did just what you suggest. The card company honored the charge, they told me the temporary number was solely for the purpose of assigning a number to one vendor/business. So even though I set a low limit, the number was still active and the card company paid the request. Small price to pay, but it didn't go as I wished.    For this purpose, I've used Visa/Mastercard gift cards. They are often on sale for face value and no additional fees. "A business can refuse cash (paper currency) payment pretty much in all cases provided it's a reasonable policy and/or notified during/in advance of contracting. Details in this link. ""all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."" Even if the payment is being made to settle a debt or other obligation, the creditor may refuse payment if their rationale is reasonable (as determined by the courts)." Have you signed anything? If not - then tell them  you don't know who they are and have not agreed to pay. If you did sign that piece of paper at the airport, then you have probably agreed to pay. Either way, it won't go away. As you've already discovered, ignoring things doesn't make them go away. You should make an effort, as hard as it may be, and call them. Notify them that you have never asked for this card, never activated it, and in fact never had it in your possession. You should stress out that it was issued without your authorization, which is probably illegal. And you wish the account to be closed and the charge reversed. Otherwise it will just grow and make your life miserable. Whether or not you have money in your account will not necessarily stop them withdrawing the money, and it certainly won't stop them attempting to withdraw the money. There are two possible scenarios when they attempt to withdraw the money (as they surely will): I think you are just lucky they haven't attempted the withdrawal yet. Put the necessary money into your account now if you possibly can, and consider this a slightly expensive lesson learned about following the Ts and Cs when cancelling services. No, they cannot refuse to provide you with the current balance or a balance history. The other answers point you to resources that are available to help you put pressure on the dealership. The bottom line is that you now know that you have the right to the details and to audit their recording of the transactions. You should now use that information and demand a better response in writing. If they have to give you a response in writing, they can't deny the answer they gave in a court of law later on. They understand this, and they will take you more seriously if you send a letter. Make sure to keep copies of the letter and send it with certified delivery. "There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions.  The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them.   I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them.  The article below does state that Mastercard does have a ""stop recurring payment"" flag.  Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice.   Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers" I don't see a way that this would make matters worse than just giving them the credit card info... Except that it would make abusing the card easier at some other site (or the bank) if they have a similar (unreasonably weak) security-by-photo test. Still, I'd strongly recommend you use a separate card for this so you can cancel it without disrupting your other credit card uses.  (Actually I'd strongly recommend not doing business with folks who have already demonstrated questionable ethics, but you seem to have made that decision.) "I made this mistake and tried calling Paypal...the first time I have ever been unhappy with their service.  The girl gave me some number but didn't make it clear whether it was an order reference number or a reference phone number for the company I ordered from.  I called within 10 minutes of placing my order and they were unable to cancel or change the payment method.  I did find however, that even though you can't pay paypal with your credit card, some banks will let you.  I went into my account and ""paid"" my account the amount needed using my credit card from the same bank that I had intended to use in the first place...hopefully it went through quickly enough to not get a service fee from Paypal" "It's been a short while since I sold on eBay, but I had a feedback rating of about 4,500 so I've done a lot of transactions. The trump card is, and always will be, the buyer's ability to contact their credit card company and reverse the charges.  PayPal has no policy to stop this even though they claim to ""vigorously defend Sellers from chargebacks"" on their website.  You will lose this case 100% of the time.  I don't see how that will change if you have your own terminal.  The Buyer can still reverse the charges.  Since you know the card number maybe you can contact his credit card company but it's probably not going to do much. I've found PayPal is more Seller friendly in terms of PayPal claims.  For example, the customer has a duty to pay postage to return the product and that's a cost for him.  You also have things like online tracking which shows delivery and PayPal has an IP log to see where the payments are coming from.  That helped me when a buyer claimed that someone else made the payment.  Because people often break into someone's house and make PayPal payments for them....heh. You really just need to use PayPal.  You'll get more customers and better prices and it will offset the losses from scammers.  Also, about 99% of buyers are honest people.  Consider the scammers a cost of doing business and keep making money off of the good Buyers.  If you're just pissed off that people actually scammed you, get over it.  Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.  It's just part of doing business on eBay." There is no law requiring someone to return a refused check. You need to clarify whether this payment is to establish a retainer, or to pay for services rendered. Either way you should stop payment on the check and send them a certified letter explaining that you are stopping payment on the check because they refused it. If the payment is to establish a retainer, then the issue is simple: the lawyer requires $10,000 as a retainer before you can engage them and until then you have no relationship with them. If that is the amount they want, then less than that is not accepted. If the payment is for services rendered already and you owe them money, then it is a completely different situation. Refusing partial payment means they are getting ready to sue you. In a collection suit, the larger the amount is, the better. Normally, someone owed money will only refuse a partial payment if they anticipate having to sue the debtor and they want to maximize their leverage in case of a court judgement in their favor. A creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment. What I should have done in the first place was just ask them.  From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.