Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113)

I posted https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/111#issuecomment-207179053 which is also relevant to this discussion, and as I've had personal experience trying to help someone escape a continuous payment authority, obligations do need to be clear.  The following are clear, and demonstrate that obligations for recurring payments are not all the same:

* **Create a new standing order for £30 per month to the Financial Times** (Your bank will initiate each payment, and you can cancel the arrangement at any time.  Payments already made may not be recoverable in the case of a dispute)
* **Create a new direct debit to Amazon Web Services** (Amazon Web Services will be authorised to debit your account for any amount at any time.  You are guaranteed a refund of any disputed payments under the direct debit guarantee)
* **Create a new recurring payment for £75 per week to XYZ Loans** (XYZ loans will be authorised to debit your account for any amount at any time. *You may not be able to recover money in the case of a dispute*)

I appreciate that these obligations are hugely jurisdiction dependent, and obligations embedded in the payment method do not affect the obligation to make the payment legally - eg if I dispute a direct debit, I am guaranteed to get a refund, but I might still end up in trouble if I legally owe the merchant the money and refuse to pay them via another means.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/113#issuecomment-207182465