Dwolla: Oh no, the user did a chargeback because 1) he claims he never received the product he paid for or 2) he claims he meant to send it to someone else
That's not what happens. Someone other than the user does a chargeback because they claim that they, the owner of the funds, never authorized the transfer. TradeHill never had any contact with the person who does the chargeback.
Dwolla: We aren't the ones selling the product, Tradehill is. Remove the funds from where they were sent (TH) and give it back to user. Not our fault.
Tradehill: What? We're not taking the loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it, even though it's not their fault.
I think you're missing the point that Dwolla is the product. The original ACH transfer was a deposit of funds into a person's Dwolla account. It has nothing whatsoever to do with with the subsequent transfer of those funds to TradeHilll. The user claiming they should reverse the transaction to Dwolla because TradeHill fell through is equivalent to them reversing the funds to Dwolla because they felt like it. And, again, it's between Dwolla and that user. If Dwolla wants to take money back from TradeHill, they
need to make a similar claim, which they cannot do.
Dwolla: Looks like he meant to sent the money to someone else, but that same money has already been sent to TH. Chargeback.
Tradehill: Oh no, we don't want to take the $37k loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it.
The problem is that Dwolla is charging back the transaction to TradeHill in this case for no reason. Dwolla did
intend to transfer that money to TradeHill. And they have no evidence or even allegation of fraud on TradeHill's part. So again, it's a problem between Dwolla and their user.
In this case, because Dwolla's customer made a mistake, Dwolla sent money to the wrong person. Dwolla can't pass on the blame -- they're responsible for their actions regardless of who tells them to take them. So Dwolla would be responsible for any losses the mistake causes.
See what I mean.
No, I don't at all.
Dwolla is using the non-performance of a third party as an excuse to modify its agreement with TradeHill. That's simply absurd and if it were possible in general, no contracts could work.
In these cases, Dwolla would not necessarily be liable for the full amount of the transfer, but they are responsible for any unrecoverable losses. These third-party failures explain Dwolla's failure but they don't excuse it. Dwolla still has to make TradeHill whole.