Product: Credit card or prepaid card

On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed a charge of {$3600.00} from a merchant named XXXX XXXX, based on false representations and non-conformity of goods. I should have disputed the full amount, which was {$5600.00}, but I was much too nice, and only disputed the price of one mattress. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed a charge of {$660.00} from same Merchant for same reasons. 
Initially, Discover found in my favor and credited the charges to my account. But then the XXXX, XXXX XXXX, challenged the decision and provided false information to Discover. Discover failed to apply the law to this dispute process and changed its decision and found in favor of Merchant, and told me I needed to return the products for store credit " per merchant 's policy '', even though Merchant had made a series of gross misrepresentations to me to induce me to make a purchase and had provided me with non-conforming goods. I even tried to return the product to Merchant, who refused to take them back for the full price paid, and made up a list of new terms and conditions which were not included in the original sales form, such as he would have to deduct the " value '' of the " gifts '' he had thrown into the sale, etc. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I reinstated my disputes and asked Discover to reconsider. I listed all the legal reasons why Discover should have granted my dispute and submitted additional documents. On XX/XX/XXXX2, Discover wrote back stating they had already considered the dispute and they were denying it again. Discover failed to state the basis on which they denied my dispute. 

The legal bases for my dispute were : 1. The products that were he subject of the above 2 charges were never delivered to me, as both transactions were voided by me the day after the transaction. Under Federal Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) 1666e, once the order that were the subjects of the first two transactions were cancelled, merchant was required to refund those charges to me promptly, but didn't.

2. Discover 's reasoning appeared to be that there was a third transaction many days later, pursuant to which certain products were delivered. However, this third transaction had nothing to do with Discover, and was paid with a different credit card.

4. Even if the third transaction concerned Discover, the third transaction was induced by a series of gross misrepresentations made by merchant to me. The products delivered pursuant to third transaction were non-conforming to what was guaranteed by Merchant in writing. For example, after I had inquired about a mattress model named " Impeccable '' which was 12 inches high, the mattress salesperson came back to me and said the company had just changed their model names to make them more " consumer friendly '' and they had renamed the " Impeccable '' mattress to " Clear ''. He put on the invoice that the " Clear '' mattresses he was selling me were equivalent to " Impeccable. '' After the mattresses were delivered, and proved to have zero support, I found out that he had lied about the mattress names being changed, and that the " Clear '' mattress he had foisted on me was 2 inches shorter, and therefore far less supportive, than the " Impeccable '' mattress. There is an email from the company stating they never changed their mattress model names, and the invoice states in writing that the " Clear '' mattress is " equivalent to the Impeccable. '' This constitutes clear fraud by the Merchant. yet, Discover chose to ignore this fact.

5. Another legal basis for my dispute to have been granted is that in California, retailers that wont give a full refund or credit, or allow an equal exchange, must clearly display their policy at each cash register and sales counter, or at each public entrance, or on tags attached to each item sold under the policy, or on the retail sellers order forms. California Civil Code section 1723. If a store violates this law by not clearly displaying their limited or no return policy, retailer must take the item back for a full refund. On the final invoice for the third transaction, I was promised an equal value exchange, but there was no mention of deducting the value of Merchant-branded gifts that Merchant had thrown in. The deduction of value of gifts was not listed anywhere in the store or on the invoice. Therefore, Merchant was in violation of CA Civil Code section 1723, and was obligated to give me a full cash refund. I was not bound by Merchants return policy. 

I have submitted the legal bases, and documents substantiating my account, to Discover twice. Any other credit card company would have granted my dispute under these egregious circumstances, where an unscrupulous mattress salesperson told me multiple lies before and after the sale and ended up delivering products that were non-conforming and non-functional.