The vendor would have had the opportunity to provide proof of delivery in the resolution center. I find it odd that they decided to mark the order as 'not received' instead of allowing it to be taken to resolution, proving that the order was indeed delivered by providing the DCN to the administrator, and receiving their money. Instead they did not allow it to go to resolution, marking it as 'not received', and did themselves out of $120. But hey, what do I know - I'm just a humble ol' forum moderator, right InfiniteSource? Does the above strike anybody else as being a little odd? Actually, no, I'm not wrong. You asked a buyer to finalise when they had not received their order, as stated in the original post in this thread. The point in having a tracking number is in order for you to be able to provide it to an administrator in resolution as proof to support your claim that the item was sent and delivered. Support did not **"stammer around saying "you asked him to finalize? Oh no, he never got the package. You have tracking? Well he never got the package. You said tracking? He never got the package."**, as it never had the opportunity to be taken to Support in the first place. Am I turning this into something it's not? You asked a buyer to finalise, they said they didn't get the order. To resolve the situation you should then wait until day 10, let them take it to resolution, provide evidence of sending and receipt and receive your money. You're causing the entire issue here by attempting to go around the system that is in place to protect both buyer AND vendor. And no, 'finalise' is not in itself a "dirty word", however asking a buyer to finalise before they have received their product does give it dirty connotations. Libertas