As it's a fair deal, you sign it and send it to the merchant.
Now the merchant is compensated and grants you the 10ct. service.
Now you feel betrayed by the merchant and publish the very first full reimbursement but the merchant has time until the timeout of A expires to publish any lower reimbursement that you signed and that overrules all prior Bs.
Because bitcoin is a non refundable transaction there is still a question of trust. If there is no escrow between you and the merchant then which transaction takes place first. In your case the merchant is paid before he grants you the 10c service. Or should he grant you the service before he is paid the 10c?
It probably won't be an issue in reality because the transactions are small and somebody will be willing to take the first step.
Exactly. For the 10ct. you need trust and always will need trust for things you can't pack into the blockchain.
Imagine you buy some digital good. The merchant could send you the encrypted version and forge a transaction that would only be valid if it contained the key for your copy of the digital good. You sign the transaction, granting the merchant the price. Now the merchant could either sign it, too, granting you access to the blob of data he claimed was the digital good, or not sign. At least in this scenario you are damn close to having proof that the merchant did not deliver. I doubt that it's theoretically possible to get much closer to trust-free than that.
(Well, colored bitcoins would be an example though. If there is a legally binding contract that states that this car belongs to whoever controls this satoshi, you could pass ownership of this satoshi and a payment for it in one transaction both parties sign and publish. Maybe this is still a bit esoteric.)