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)"
"Most practices I've gone to use a triplicate paper form called a ""medical encounter form""with the specialty's most common procedure codes and laboratory codes preprinted. (And rarer ones hand added).  The doctor fills this out and the office manager transcribes it. This also has a billing section where in my case the office manager initials ""cc"" for credit card.  You probably refused or threw away your copy, but can ask to review their copy.   Maybe there is a mis transcribed entry indicating payment at time of service." Both Wells Fargo and Chase are participants in clearXchange, which enables the various QuickPay type services to work with each other.  They may be using this system rather than an ACH wire transfer to transfer your money (and to verify the account). "I find it really hard to feel sorry for them. For many years now the local Post Office has been a farce. Many local businesses quit using them because they'd just flat-out lose mail so consistently.   The small company I worked for (local ISP) was constantly fighting this battle since we would have customers calling up pissed off because their service got cut off when we didn't receive their payment. Now sure, you have the classic ""check's in the mail"" bit, but this happened too frequently to such a random selection of customers that it was quite obvious there was an issue. More than once I took it up personally with the local Postmaster (functioning Manager-type person) and would always get told ""Oh, it's not us, it's the Columbia branch"" and when I called to straighten it out there I was told ""Sorry, you'll have to take this up with your local office"". Funny, they never seemed to lose all that fucking junk mail that crammed up our PO or mailbox.   Hate that it got that bad, but once again sounds like a bad business model - Provide services at a loss, pay into pensions you know you can't afford, and refuse to modernize effectively and in-time." "&gt; Ms is not one of them  CO is, which is where the gay bakery incident that's going to the SCOTUS happened...  &gt;providing a service based on their bias is ok for some and not for others.   No, I think that it's okay to not provide service for any reason *except based on status in a protected class."" This really isn't a difficult concept. And yes, I think that orientation should be a protected class anywhere that it isn't yet.   Dude, this is the same as employment law and other discrimination areas like apartment rental. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, but not for a reason of membership in a protected class. You can refuse to rent to someone for any reason except membership in a protected class.   Do you see the pattern yet?  &gt;How can you not see the similar aspects of the two  Because there are no similar aspects between non-choice biological factors and by-choice rhetoric.   &gt;You are agreeing with a company choosing to do business with whom they want to, but then you are doubling down on having another business doing the same thing   Rephrased, this says, ""You're saying that sometimes X but then trying to say that sometimes Y!"" Yes. Exactly. There are different circumstances. ""You're agreeing that a company can do business with whomever they want except but another company can't because they're refusing based on protected classes.""  Libertarian fantasy land logic doesn't work in the real world." This is not allowed, and there is a name for it: IBAN discrimination. Searching for that term will give you some pointers what to do about it. The EU regulation that prohibits this is 260/2012, article 9, paragraph 2: A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3. You can report this at the relevant national authorities. In the Netherlands, this is De Nederlandsche Bank, which has a special e-mail address for this: meldpuntIBANdiscriminatie@dnb.nl I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis. "This isn't negotiations anymore. They are trying to change the deal after the fact. Stop negotiating and tell them they are bound to the agreement they signed. They are leaning on you because they know you are small and likely can't fight them. Document every conversation. Do not allow them to keep pushing after they've signed the agreement.  They accepted your bid (after giving your pricing to a competitor, which is shitty and should have been your first red flag). Then they started working on you. At that point your answer should have been ""we have a verbal agreement of x services for y price. A different scope of work is not scalable and would require a new quote.""  At this point you can either accept that they will continue to beat you up, or you can jam the contract down their throats until they agree or walk away.   I've been in a situation like this before. A major multinational asked for bid pricing that was agreed to be estimated only based on very loose requirements. Then they handed us a contract with that pricing included as ""not to exceed"".  We ended up walking away. It sounds like you may want to do the same if you can. Big companies often will have legal and payables departments that basically exist to fight any obligation to pay out money. In our case shortly after we ran into someone in our industry who'd worked with that company, and they said to assume that company would reject 30% of all invoices we sent. If nothing else, to delay payment just a bit longer so they could keep earning interest on the money.  Also, in the future I wouldn't turn away work until you are under a signed contract for a big project like this. You can't rely on such a contract to come through. If they drag feet and your schedule is full that's on them, or you bring in additional help or subcontract the work to deliver." It may seem very simple on its face but you don't know the merchant's agreement.  You don't know who is providing the processing equipment.  You don't know a lot of things.  You know that Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex and others have network requirements and agreements.  You know that laws have been changed to allow merchant surcharges (previously it was contracts that prohibited surcharges, not laws).   That gas station, or that pizza parlor, or any other merchant doesn't have a direct relationship with Visa or Mastercard; it has an agreement with a bank or other processing entity.  The issue here, is whom do you even call?  And what would you gain?  Find out what bank is contracted for that particular equipment and file a complaint that the merchant charged you $0.35?  Maybe the merchant agreement allows surcharges up to state and local maximums?  You don't know the terms of their agreement.  Calling around to figure out what parties are involved to understand the terms of their agreement is a waste of time, like you said you can just go across the street if it's so offensive to you.  Or just carry a little cash.   If that's not the answer you're looking for, here's one for you: There is no practical recourse.