le. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their

An interesting ruling was made in the British Court of Appeals recently ...

The justices determined that British customers who use a credit card abroad or on the internet will be given the same protection as those who shop in Britain.

This decision allows purchasers to reclaim funds from their card company if the product they buy is faulty or does not arrive. As is the case in many countries, such a law already exists if goods are bought in Britain.

The plaintiff in the case was the government itself, on behalf of its consumers. The Office of Fair Trading targeted three representative credit card companies --- Lloyds TSB, Tesco Personal Finance and American Express --- in the court action for the purpose of expanding those rights to include purchased goods outside the United Kingdom or in cyberspace.

This decision can make issuers liable for credit card purchases over the internet from fraudulent foreign suppliers who failed to deliver. From their perspective, the original ruling had been expected to add ??1billion in profits. However, now they're more accountable, not only to the cardholder, but to the transaction itself.

With this ruling, whether they like it or not, credit card companies operating in the United Kingdom cannot stake a claim to territory already occupied by cybercurrencies such as e-gold and e-Bullion. Payments via those methods are equivalent to tendering cash, ie- there is no way of having transactions reversed, even in case of a legitimate error or an unauthorized spend. Thus, a merchant can't be surprised by a chargeback at some distant point in time after a sale. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their

uch a law already exists if goods are bought in Britain.

The plaintiff in the case was the government itself, on behalf of its consumers. The Office of Fair Trading targeted three representative credit card companies --- Lloyds TSB, Tesco Personal Finance and American Express --- in the court action for the purpose of expanding those rights to include purchased goods outside the United Kingdom or in cyberspace.

This decision can make issuers liable for credit card purchases over the internet from fraudulent foreign suppliers who failed to deliver. From their perspective, the original ruling had been expected to add ??1billion in profits. However, now they're more accountable, not only to the cardholder, but to the transaction itself.

With this ruling, whether they like it or not, credit card companies operating in the United Kingdom cannot stake a claim to territory already occupied by cybercurrencies such as e-gold and e-Bullion. Payments via those methods are equivalent to tendering cash, ie- there is no way of having transactions reversed, even in case of a legitimate error or an unauthorized spend. Thus, a merchant can't be surprised by a chargeback at some distant point in time after a sale. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their

yberspace.

This decision can make issuers liable for credit card purchases over the internet from fraudulent foreign suppliers who failed to deliver. From their perspective, the original ruling had been expected to add ??1billion in profits. However, now they're more accountable, not only to the cardholder, but to the transaction itself.

With this ruling, whether they like it or not, credit card companies operating in the United Kingdom cannot stake a claim to territory already occupied by cybercurrencies such as e-gold and e-Bullion. Payments via those methods are equivalent to tendering cash, ie- there is no way of having transactions reversed, even in case of a legitimate error or an unauthorized spend. Thus, a merchant can't be surprised by a chargeback at some distant point in time after a sale. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their

companies operating in the United Kingdom cannot stake a claim to territory already occupied by cybercurrencies such as e-gold and e-Bullion. Payments via those methods are equivalent to tendering cash, ie- there is no way of having transactions reversed, even in case of a legitimate error or an unauthorized spend. Thus, a merchant can't be surprised by a chargeback at some distant point in time after a sale. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their

le. If a refund or exchange is going to occur, it will be due to mutual agreement between vendor and customer.

The cybercurrencies contend that their services simplify transactions, and they're correct. This point, though, is one reason why anyone making purchases in cyberspace should only do so if they have a satisfactory history with the vendor or if the vendor's contact details are listed on their website.

American credit card companies are already liable for excessive phone service charges, such as those incurred by chat-line operators. They also assume a degree of liability for gambling debts accrued in cyberspace. Thus, many card issuers refuse to even accept such charges.

Obviously, to the informed cyber-consumer, a variety of options is becoming available for online commerce. It's clear that keeping a portfolio of e-currency services and credit cards allows one to be better prepared for the range of purchasing formats currently being offered online.

For merchants, though, the same variety can cost them lost revenues unless they are capable of accommodating every option. Here, again, is where the DXinOne system is presenting a solution. They're offering a program --- with the unwieldy name of DXGlobal Payment Console and the just as unwieldy acronym of DXGPC --- which combines all forms of payments into one processing system. The principle is to allow a vendor the ability to choose his currency of choice and know all payments will be received in that manner, which coincides nicely with DXiO's avowed objective of simplifying cyberspace transactions.

In a world where more efficiency is required to maximize the use of our time and resources, e-commerce simply has to become more reliable and consumer-friendly. The recent British court ruling is a step in the right direction, as is the development of universal payment consoles such as that being deployed by DXinOne.