Visa and MC: No Charge Is Too Small
Lance
No Charge Is Too Small
By DIANA RANSOM
July 8, 2007
The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless you spend more
money, ask to speak to the manager.
Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before they can use a
credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines from both Visa and
MasterCard. Those companies say store owners who accept their credit and
debit cards are obliged to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says some merchants flout
this rule because the transaction fees they pay are a bigger imposition on
smaller purchases.
Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to at least
cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends reminding a
store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a merchant enough to do the
transaction," he says.
You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911, the number
on the back of your card or the financial institution that issued your
card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out a complaint on the
cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a spokeswoman for Bank of America.
Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman. If
violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible fines"
and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by clicking on "Contact
Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations." MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara
Coleman also says "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
Write to Diana Ransom at diana....@wsj.com
Rod Speed
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> No Charge Is Too Small
> By DIANA RANSOM
> July 8, 2007
> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before they can use a
> credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines from both Visa and
> MasterCard. Those companies say store owners who accept their credit
> and debit cards are obliged to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
> Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says
> some merchants flout this rule because the transaction fees
> they pay are a bigger imposition on smaller purchases.
And legally they are welcome to do that.
> Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to at
> least cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends
> reminding a store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a
> merchant enough to do the transaction," he says.
Not a chance, you wont be the first to have chucked a tantrum about it.
> You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911,
> the number on the back of your card or the financial institution that
> issued your card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out a
> complaint on the cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a
> spokeswoman for Bank of America.
And the merchant will file that 'complaint' in the round filing cabinet under their desk where it
belongs.
> Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
> puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman.
Bare faced lie.
> If violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible
> fines" and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
Another bare faced lie.
> To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by
> clicking on "Contact Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations."
> MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also says
> "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
Must be one of those rocket scientist bare faced liars.
And any consumer with a clue realises that operations with those limits are
likely to have better prices than the fools who buy the Visa/Mastercard lies.
> Write to Diana Ransom at diana....@wsj.com
Get fucked.
Kent Wills
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lance <la...@noemailaddy.com> wrote
>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
>> No Charge Is Too Small
>> By DIANA RANSOM
>> July 8, 2007
>
>> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
>> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
>
>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before they can use a
>> credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines from both Visa and
>> MasterCard. Those companies say store owners who accept their credit
>> and debit cards are obliged to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>
>Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
It does in the U.S. Contract law 101.
Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is
nothing illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>
>> Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says
>> some merchants flout this rule because the transaction fees
>> they pay are a bigger imposition on smaller purchases.
>
>And legally they are welcome to do that.
>
>> Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to at
>> least cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends
>> reminding a store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a
>> merchant enough to do the transaction," he says.
>
>Not a chance, you wont be the first to have chucked a tantrum about it.
Further, there are enough people willing to accept the minimum
purchase that the owner/manager won't care a great deal.
>
>> You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911,
>> the number on the back of your card or the financial institution that
>> issued your card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out a
>> complaint on the cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a
>> spokeswoman for Bank of America.
>
>And the merchant will file that 'complaint' in the round filing cabinet under their desk where it
>belongs.
If they get enough, they'll take notice. Of course the number
of complaints vs. the number of people who don't care means it will
take a while to reach the magic number.
>
>> Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
>> puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman.
>
>Bare faced lie.
I question the claim, but if you can produce evidence that
it's a lie, please do. I'd like to examine it.
>
>> If violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible
>> fines" and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
>
>Another bare faced lie.
See above.
>
>> To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by
>> clicking on "Contact Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations."
>> MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also says
>> "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
>
>Must be one of those rocket scientist bare faced liars.
So customers can't choose to take their business elsewhere?
>
>And any consumer with a clue realises that operations with those limits are
>likely to have better prices than the fools who buy the Visa/Mastercard lies.
It's possible they do, however, this doesn't excuse the
violation of contract law.
>
>> Write to Diana Ransom at diana....@wsj.com
>
>Get fucked.
>
--
Kent
Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
Rod Speed
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>> No Charge Is Too Small
>>> By DIANA RANSOM
>>> July 8, 2007
>>> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
>>> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
>>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before
>>> they can use a credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines
>>> from both Visa and MasterCard. Those companies say store
>>> owners who accept their credit and debit cards are obliged
>>> to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>> Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
> It does in the U.S.
Nope.
> Contract law 101.
Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
>>> Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says
>>> some merchants flout this rule because the transaction fees
>>> they pay are a bigger imposition on smaller purchases.
>> And legally they are welcome to do that.
>>> Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to at
>>> least cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends
>>> reminding a store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a
>>> merchant enough to do the transaction," he says.
>> Not a chance, you wont be the first to have chucked a tantrum about it.
> Further, there are enough people willing to accept the minimum
> purchase that the owner/manager won't care a great deal.
So the purported contract condition aint actually binding.
>>> You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911,
>>> the number on the back of your card or the financial institution
>>> that issued your card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out a
>>> complaint on the cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a
>>> spokeswoman for Bank of America.
>> And the merchant will file that 'complaint' in the round
>> filing cabinet under their desk where it belongs.
> If they get enough, they'll take notice.
Nope, they know that some dont like that and do it anyway.
> Of course the number of complaints vs. the number of people who
> don't care means it will take a while to reach the magic number.
There is no magic number.
>>> Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
>>> puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman.
>> Bare faced lie.
> I question the claim, but if you can produce evidence
> that it's a lie, please do. I'd like to examine it.
The obvious evidence is operations that maintain that particular practice.
>>> If violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible
>>> fines" and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
>> Another bare faced lie.
> See above.
See above.
>>> To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by
>>> clicking on "Contact Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations."
>>> MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also says
>>> "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
>> Must be one of those rocket scientist bare faced liars.
> So customers can't choose to take their business elsewhere?
Nope, that its always been obvious that they can do that.
>> And any consumer with a clue realises that operations with those limits are
>> likely to have better prices than the fools who buy the Visa/Mastercard lies.
> It's possible they do, however, this doesn't excuse the violation of contract law.
You aint established that it is a violation of contract law, just claimed that.
bat
??>>> that puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa
??>>> spokeswoman. If
??>> violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible
fines"
??>> and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
??>>
??>> Bare faced lie.
KW> I question the claim, but if you can produce evidence that
KW> it's a lie, please do. I'd like to examine it.
I can. Once I decided to actually test if VISA will move a finger to support
their own rule - only it was not the amount limit but surcharge for using
credit card, which is another violation. The merchant was not some
mega-corporation. It was small local insurance agency, and the "processing
fee" was $2. They even put it in plain English on the receipt - "VISA
processing fee - $2". So, I called VISA911 and spoke to a representative,
naturally, in Calcutta. He hardly even understood my concern, but I
insisted, and he filed it. Several months later, I followed up, and
naturally, there was no trace of my complaint. I called VISA corporate
office, my complaint was actually filed, confirmed that it is a violation,
and promised that something would be done. That took about 6 months (from my
call to the corporate office to the promise). Despite the fact of some
vice-presidents and office of CEO involved (I have some actual names and
emails), in the end (2 more years later) nobody of them could tell if any
action was taken. One and then two years later, the same merchant was still
charging those $2.
Yet one more time I did about the same with Mastercard and Citibank. With
the same result.
So, a bare faced lie it is indeed. I think they do sometimes send a letter
to the merchant bank of the merchant, but it looks like they don't have any
means of pressure, and they don't apply any fines.
regards
aemeijers
"Lance" <la...@noemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:027U70ZA392...@anonymous.poster...
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
> No Charge Is Too Small
> By DIANA RANSOM
> July 8, 2007
>
> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless you spend more
> money, ask to speak to the manager.
>
> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before they can use a
> credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines from both Visa and
> MasterCard. Those companies say store owners who accept their credit and
> debit cards are obliged to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>
The hell with the merchant agreement- the people in line behind the person
charging a pack of gum should discipline the fool for not carrying
walking-around money. The cafeteria at my office takes plastic, but they
also (for some reason) require a signed charge slip and phone number. I hate
when I get stuck behind multiple plastic users. If you can't carry five
bucks for lunch, maybe you shouldn't be out on your own.
aem sends...
Kent Wills
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Lance <la...@noemailaddy.com> wrote
>
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
>>>> No Charge Is Too Small
>>>> By DIANA RANSOM
>>>> July 8, 2007
>
>>>> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
>>>> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
>
>>>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before
>>>> they can use a credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines
>>>> from both Visa and MasterCard. Those companies say store
>>>> owners who accept their credit and debit cards are obliged
>>>> to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>
>>> Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
>
>> It does in the U.S.
>
>Nope.
Yep. That you're too pig ignorant to know this doesn't change
this simple truth.
>
>> Contract law 101.
>
>Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
Most introductory courses are called [insert course name] 101.
You should try learning something rather than displaying your
lack of education.
>
>> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
>> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>
>That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
Oh do tell, great and powerful legal expert.
>
>>>> Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says
>>>> some merchants flout this rule because the transaction fees
>>>> they pay are a bigger imposition on smaller purchases.
>
>>> And legally they are welcome to do that.
>
>>>> Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to at
>>>> least cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends
>>>> reminding a store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a
>>>> merchant enough to do the transaction," he says.
>
>>> Not a chance, you wont be the first to have chucked a tantrum about it.
>
>> Further, there are enough people willing to accept the minimum
>> purchase that the owner/manager won't care a great deal.
>
>So the purported contract condition aint actually binding.
It is. That there are those who chose not to have it enforced
does not mean it can't be. No amount of your ignorance of this will
change that.
>
>>>> You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911,
>>>> the number on the back of your card or the financial institution
>>>> that issued your card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out a
>>>> complaint on the cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a
>>>> spokeswoman for Bank of America.
>
>>> And the merchant will file that 'complaint' in the round
>>> filing cabinet under their desk where it belongs.
>
>> If they get enough, they'll take notice.
>
>Nope, they know that some dont like that and do it anyway.
They can know, but if no one complains it won't matter.
>
>> Of course the number of complaints vs. the number of people who
>> don't care means it will take a while to reach the magic number.
>
>There is no magic number.
You really are dumb, huh? And here I thought it was all an
act.
Each business will have the number of complaints they're
willing to tolerate. Once that number is reached, the magic number,
they'll take notice.
>
>>>> Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
>>>> puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman.
>
>>> Bare faced lie.
>
>> I question the claim, but if you can produce evidence
>> that it's a lie, please do. I'd like to examine it.
>
>The obvious evidence is operations that maintain that particular practice.
So you have no evidence. Got it.
Another unsupported claim by the fool known as Rod Speed.
>
>>>> If violations continue, she says, offending merchants face "possible
>>>> fines" and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
>
>>> Another bare faced lie.
>
>> See above.
>
>See above.
So you have no evidence. Got it.
Another unsupported claim by the fool known as Rod Speed.
>
>>>> To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by
>>>> clicking on "Contact Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations."
>>>> MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also says
>>>> "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
>
>>> Must be one of those rocket scientist bare faced liars.
>
>> So customers can't choose to take their business elsewhere?
>
>Nope, that its always been obvious that they can do that.
You claim Barbara is a clad faced liar, then state you agree
with her. Pick a lane, dullard.
>
>>> And any consumer with a clue realises that operations with those limits are
>>> likely to have better prices than the fools who buy the Visa/Mastercard lies.
>
>> It's possible they do, however, this doesn't excuse the violation of contract law.
>
>You aint established that it is a violation of contract law, just claimed that.
Try educating yourself. Take an introduction to law class.
You'll eliminate some of that massive ignorance you display.
BeaF...@msn.com
> As I understand it, on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>
>
>
>
>
> >Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Lance <l...@noemailaddy.com> wrote
>
> >>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenew...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem with argueing with a crazy person is that onlookers will
have trouble telling which is the nut.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lance <la...@noemailaddy.com> wrote
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>>>> No Charge Is Too Small
>>>>> By DIANA RANSOM
>>>>> July 8, 2007
>>>>> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
>>>>> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
>>>>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before
>>>>> they can use a credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines
>>>>> from both Visa and MasterCard. Those companies say store
>>>>> owners who accept their credit and debit cards are obliged
>>>>> to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>>>> Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
>>> It does in the U.S.
>> Nope.
> Yep.
Nope.
> That you're too pig ignorant to know this doesn't change this simple truth.
Have fun explaining why there have been no legal suits on that matter.
There might just be a reason for that, child.
>>> Contract law 101.
>> Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
> Most introductory courses are called [insert course name] 101.
No news to anyone, child. Pity your pig ignorant shit doesnt even qualify for that.
> You should try learning something rather than displaying your lack of education.
I might have actually presented quite a few thanks, child.
>>> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
>>> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>> That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
> Oh do tell, great and powerful legal expert.
Already did, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child.
>>>>> Justin McHenry of Web site IndexCreditCards.com says
>>>>> some merchants flout this rule because the transaction fees
>>>>> they pay are a bigger imposition on smaller purchases.
>>>> And legally they are welcome to do that.
>>>>> Clearly, the best way to avoid hassles is to carry enough cash to
>>>>> at least cover smaller purchases. But Mr. McHenry also recommends
>>>>> reminding a store's manager of the rules. "That might scare a
>>>>> merchant enough to do the transaction," he says.
>>>> Not a chance, you wont be the first to have chucked a tantrum about it.
>>> Further, there are enough people willing to accept the minimum
>>> purchase that the owner/manager won't care a great deal.
>> So the purported contract condition aint actually binding.
> It is.
It aint.
> That there are those who chose not to have it enforced does not mean it can't be.
It does indicate that the card companys know its not legally enforceable, child.
> No amount of your ignorance of this will change that.
Yours in spades, child.
>>>>> You can also complain. Visa recommends calling 1-800-VISA-911,
>>>>> the number on the back of your card or the financial institution
>>>>> that issued your card. Card issuers "have the ability to fill out
>>>>> a complaint on the cardholder's behalf," says Betty Riess, a
>>>>> spokeswoman for Bank of America.
>>>> And the merchant will file that 'complaint' in the round
>>>> filing cabinet under their desk where it belongs.
>>> If they get enough, they'll take notice.
>> Nope, they know that some dont like that and do it anyway.
> They can know, but if no one complains it won't matter.
And it doesnt matter even when some complain either.
>>> Of course the number of complaints vs. the number of people who
>>> don't care means it will take a while to reach the magic number.
>> There is no magic number.
> You really are dumb, huh? And here I thought it was all an act.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Each business will have the number of complaints they're willing to tolerate.
> Once that number is reached, the magic number, they'll take notice.
There is no magic number, child.
>>>>> Once a complaint is lodged, "it's a matter of education and usually that
>>>>> puts an end to" the practice, says Randa Ghnaim, a Visa spokeswoman.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> I question the claim, but if you can produce evidence
>>> that it's a lie, please do. I'd like to examine it.
>> The obvious evidence is operations that maintain that particular practice.
> So you have no evidence. Got it.
Lying, as always.
> Another unsupported claim by the fool known as Rod Speed.
Lying, as always.
>>>>> If violations continue, she says, offending merchants face
>>>>> "possible fines" and the loss of their ability to accept Visa cards.
>>>> Another bare faced lie.
>>> See above.
>> See above.
> So you have no evidence. Got it.
Lying, as always.
> Another unsupported claim by the fool known as Rod Speed.
Lying, as always.
>>>>> To find the complaint form on MasterCard.com, start by
>>>>> clicking on "Contact Us/FAQs" and then "Merchant Violations."
>>>>> MasterCard spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also says
>>>>> "consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere."
>>>> Must be one of those rocket scientist bare faced liars.
>>> So customers can't choose to take their business elsewhere?
>> Nope, that its always been obvious that they can do that.
> You claim Barbara is a clad faced liar,
Lying, as always.
> then state you agree with her.
Lying, as always.
> Pick a lane, dullard.
Go and fuck yourself, child.
>>>> And any consumer with a clue realises that operations with those limits are
>>>> likely to have better prices than the fools who buy the Visa/Mastercard lies.
>>> It's possible they do, however, this doesn't excuse the violation of contract law.
>> You aint established that it is a violation of contract law, just claimed that.
> Try educating yourself. Take an introduction to law class.
> You'll eliminate some of that massive ignorance you display.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Have fun explaining why you cant actually come up with even a SINGLE example of the
card companys EVER actually enforcing that purported legally binding condition, child.
Kent Wills
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Lance <la...@noemailaddy.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
>>>>>> No Charge Is Too Small
>>>>>> By DIANA RANSOM
>>>>>> July 8, 2007
>
>>>>>> The next time a merchant says you can't use plastic unless
>>>>>> you spend more money, ask to speak to the manager.
>
>>>>>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before
>>>>>> they can use a credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines
>>>>>> from both Visa and MasterCard. Those companies say store
>>>>>> owners who accept their credit and debit cards are obliged
>>>>>> to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>
>>>>> Just because its in the purported mechant agreement doesnt make it legally binding.
>
>>>> It does in the U.S.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope.
Your willful ignorance and the lack of it currently being
enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced.
>
>> That you're too pig ignorant to know this doesn't change this simple truth.
>
>Have fun explaining why there have been no legal suits on that matter.
No one has filed suit. Seems pretty simple to me. Odd that
it passed you by.
>
>There might just be a reason for that, child.
No one has filed. Duh.
>
>>>> Contract law 101.
>
>>> Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
>
>> Most introductory courses are called [insert course name] 101.
>
>No news to anyone, child.
Clearly news to you.
>Pity your pig ignorant shit doesnt even qualify for that.
Yet I know more about the topic than you. Odd that.
>
>> You should try learning something rather than displaying your lack of education.
>
>I might have actually presented quite a few thanks, child.
You *might* have, sure. But you haven't.
>
>>>> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
>>>> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>
>>> That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
>
>> Oh do tell, great and powerful legal expert.
>
>Already did, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child.
Ah... The ad hom. The sign of the truly desperate.
Thanks for letting everyone reading know that you're wrong.
Since you've shown the readers I'm right and you're wrong,
there's no real reason to continue.
--
Kent
"I most stonger than Darth Vapor!"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik
George
I agree and wouldn't think of going out without some nominal amount of
cash in my pocket. I am on the merchants side since it costs them money
(that they have to get back by raising prices) to do the transaction.
VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
Chloe
news:AsCki.4289$bz7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
<snip>
> I can. Once I decided to actually test if VISA will move a finger to
> support their own rule - only it was not the amount limit but surcharge
> for using credit card, which is another violation. The merchant was not
> some mega-corporation. It was small local insurance agency, and the
There must be some kind of loophole allowing these kinds of charges, since
they're very common in the cases where government agencies accept tax and
other payments via credit card. I believe in those cases the charges are
processed through a separate company (separate from the card issuer and the
govt. agency) and are called "convenience fees."
bat
GR> transaction to a third party. So the charge is actually coming from a
GR> third party.
No, it is not allowed. The merchant actually passes the transaction to a
third party in any case - their bank charges them for check verification and
processing, as well as for cash collection. Also, accepting credit cards
makes the merchant more competitive, and if it comes for a cost, then it's
his business expense, like every other expense (the store won't charge you
for their window cleaning, even though quite likely that is also "passed to
a third party"). As I said, VISA and MC themselves did not even try to bring
that argument. Their rule is that if the merchant imposes surcharge for
accepting c.c. that he does not impose for other types of payment, then it's
a violation.
bear...@cruller.invalid
George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
One of Jon Stewart's Daily Show episodes recently skewered those
commercials in a Dmitri Martin "Trendspotting" skit. I was rolling on
the floor laughing helplessly. No kidding, Jon Stewart rules.
bat
C> news:AsCki.4289$bz7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
C> <snip>
??>> I can. Once I decided to actually test if VISA will move a finger to
??>> support their own rule - only it was not the amount limit but
??>> surcharge for using credit card, which is another violation. The
??>> merchant was not some mega-corporation. It was small local insurance
??>> agency, and the "processing fee" was $2. <snip>
C> There must be some kind of loophole allowing these kinds of charges,
C> since they're very common in the cases where government agencies accept
C> tax and other payments via credit card. I believe in those cases the
C> charges are processed through a separate company (separate from the card
C> issuer and the govt. agency) and are called "convenience fees."
One usual loophole is their claim that this is for accepting the charge over
the phone, or via website, rather than for specific type of payment. Often,
they don't even bother. VISA etc. indeed don't move a finger to enforce that
rule. As I said in the original response, if even going to their higher
offices did not bring any result, it's obvious that they merely don't have
any internal policies and procedures in place for that enforcement. The guy
at VISA911 did not even know how to register this kind of complaint, and
actually did not register it.
Maybe it's because not so many people are complaining. This topic is
frequently seen in consumer-related newsgroups and other consumer-orineted
places, same as some other favorite topics like store exit check; in
reality, I don't recall a single case when I saw anyone other than myself
refusing to submit to that exit check. The number of people aware of these
and taking an issue is miniscule.
Mike Berger
signed doesn't obligate me to accept any particular minimum
payment, or for that matter, to accept your card at all.
I gather you flunked your Contract Law 101 course.
Mike Berger
offer discounts for cash payments. It amounts to the same thing
as a surcharge on credit cards.
bat
MB> offer discounts for cash payments. It amounts to the same thing
MB> as a surcharge on credit cards.
Not exactly, because there's also paying by check. If payment by visa
carries surcharge compared to paying by check, it's a violation.
bat
b> frequently seen in consumer-related newsgroups and other
b> consumer-orineted places, same as some other favorite topics like store
b> exit check; in reality, I don't recall a single case when I saw anyone
b> other than myself refusing to submit to that exit check. The number of
b> people aware of these and taking an issue is miniscule.
...same as I didn't see anyone in Vegas taking an issue with absolutely
every merchant there requiring a photo id to accept a card.
Mikko Peltoniemi
> VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
I don't see a problem with that. Quite the opposite. Once you realize
that the card is in fact another form of your money, cash, that's when
you have the means to use it wisely. Whereas if you make the cards to
be something special, or elevate them to a status, that's when the card
starts to rule you and not the other way around.
More so I find the current Amex commercial ridiculous. The one with the
young snowboarder (I assume he's some kind of a celebrity, though I'm
not familiar with that scene) is traveling all around the world with
his Amex chasing the snow. Now I think that advertises more
irresponsible use of the card than commercials of a guy using a card
to pay for his snacks and drinks at the movies.
I use my cards for everything, I try not to use cash at all. And it's
not any slower than cash. I've stood in line behind people who are
counting pennies to pay for things. My breaking point was when I had
to argue over correct change one time. Then I figured that had I used
a card, I would've been done much quicker.
goa...@fractious.net
[re: merchant agreement - between merchant and Visa]
> Your willful ignorance and the lack of it currently being
> enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced.
You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
enforcement.
That's a matter between the merchant and Visa (or MC).
At most, you, the consumer who wants to annoy the crap
out of everyone by charging a stick of gum on your card,
may complain to Visa. They may ignore you and leave the
merchant alone, or they may warn the merchant. But you
will still likely walk out of the store without your
stick of gum.
You, the consumer, may *not* file suit, because you
are not a party to that merchant agreement. At
absolutely most, if a suit were filed (by Visa)
(and it's much more likely they'd just warn the
merchant and then, at worst, terminate the agreement),
at most, you could be a witness - a third party -
not a part of the suit itself. The odds of that
are probably smaller than the odds you'd be hit
by lightning. Twice.
So complain all you like, call the manager, annoy
the crap out of the clerk, the manager, and everyone
standing in line behind you. Then, if you really want
to make a difference, take your chewing-gum-less
fretting self home and complain to Visa. But no,
you have no right to demand squat, so get over it.
--
jo...@phred.org
says...
> GR> Actual it is allowed. See the insurance companies passes the
> GR> transaction to a third party. So the charge is actually coming from a
> GR> third party.
>
> No, it is not allowed. The merchant actually passes the transaction to a
> third party in any case - their bank charges them for check verification and
> processing, as well as for cash collection.
Insurance is often a special case for regulatory reasons. In states
with picky insurance regulations, the insurance company may be
prohibited by law from paying the processing cost itself, since that
would mean different customers were paying different amounts of actual
premium.
In cases like that, the payment processing is not being done by the
insurance company at all -- the payment is processed by a premium
finance company, which charges a convenience fee on all transactions it
processes.
It just happens that if you have cash or check, you don't need to use
the premium finance company to pay, unless you actually want them to
finance your premium, e.g. making monthly payments on a 6-month premium.
The net effect is that you pay a fee only if you're paying with a credit
card, but neither company is actually charging a fee for using a credit
card.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
Mike Berger
Chloe
news:yobvecs...@panix1.panix.com...
My own pet peeve with merchants and bank credit cards are the merchants who
demand additional identification, requiring which is a blatant violation of
their agreement. I always refuse (sometimes giving them word-for-word the
issuer's policy: "you have the right to ask, and I have the right to
refuse") and so far I've not had to leave a store without my purchase.
YMMV.
goa...@fractious.net
> <goa...@fractious.net> wrote in message
> > You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
> > enforcement.
> > That's a matter between the merchant and Visa (or MC).
> My own pet peeve with merchants and bank credit cards are the
> merchants who demand additional identification, requiring which is a
> blatant violation of their agreement. I always refuse (sometimes
> giving them word-for-word the issuer's policy: "you have the right
> to ask, and I have the right to refuse") and so far I've not had to
> leave a store without my purchase.
That falls under the same - it's a matter between the
merchant and Visa. Sometimes you'll end up having to
talk to a manager - and if the manager doesn't have
his head deeply buried somewhere - and you'll be
on your way with your products in no time.
Note that the merchant *may* demand ID if told to do
so by Visa when they try to authorize the charge (IIRC).
Frankly, though, I do think you should be pleased when
they ask for - and at least attempt to verify - your ID.
Sure, you're not on the hook for fraudulent charges,
but at a minimum, it's still a hassle.
I was rather disgusted a while back when one of the
key points in, I think it was the Visa Check Card adverts
was the fact that you *don't* need any ID to use it.
That all said, I'd expect more of a fight from the
merchants and clerks over the minimum charge than over
the demand for ID. You don't give ID, it doesn't cost
them. They put through the charge for a pack of
chewing gum and they almost certainly lose money.
--
Mikko Peltoniemi
> Frankly, though, I do think you should be pleased when
> they ask for - and at least attempt to verify - your ID.
> Sure, you're not on the hook for fraudulent charges,
> but at a minimum, it's still a hassle.
Except that it /always/ happens after swiping the card - ie.
after it's been charged. Yet no-one who is supposedly concerned
about me and my finances actually compares signatures, which they're
supposed to do.
My response to asking ID is just "no thanks, the card is signed".
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118384822474060134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>>> Nope.
>>> Yep.
>> Nope.
Have fun explaining why it never ever has been.
The reason is obvious to anyone with a clue, that purported condition
is just there to bluff fools like you and the card companys realise that
they havent got a hope in hell of legally enforcing that, child.
>>> That you're too pig ignorant to know this doesn't change this simple truth.
>> Have fun explaining why there have been no legal suits on that matter.
> No one has filed suit.
And there might just be a reason why no one ever has, child.
>> There might just be a reason for that, child.
> No one has filed. Duh.
And there might just be a reason why no one ever has, child.
>>>>> Contract law 101.
>>>> Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
>>> Most introductory courses are called [insert course name] 101.
>> No news to anyone, child.
> Clearly news to you.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>> Pity your pig ignorant shit doesnt even qualify for that.
> Yet I know more about the topic than you.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>> You should try learning something rather than displaying your lack of education.
>> I might have actually presented quite a few thanks, child.
> You *might* have, sure. But you haven't.
Guess which pathetic little prat has just get egg all over its pathetic little face, as always ?
>>>>> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
>>>>> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>>>> That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
>>> Oh do tell, great and powerful legal expert.
>> Already did, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child.
> Ah... The ad hom. The sign of the truly desperate.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh child ?
> Thanks for letting everyone reading know that you're wrong.
> Since you've shown the readers I'm right and you're wrong,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
> there's no real reason to continue.
Yep, you've always made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, time after time after time, child.
clams casino
>
>
>My own pet peeve with merchants and bank credit cards are the merchants who
>demand additional identification, requiring which is a blatant violation of
>their agreement. I always refuse (sometimes giving them word-for-word the
>issuer's policy: "you have the right to ask, and I have the right to
>refuse") and so far I've not had to leave a store without my purchase.
>YMMV.
>
>
>
>
>
As someone who recently had two new cards stolen before I received them
(both expired in the same month and both were coincidentally delivered
on the same day - assuming it wasn't an inside PO job), I'm only too
glad to provide additional identification.
In the case of my Mastercard, attempts were foiled to activate both my
and my spouses card. MC called to verify the cards were stolen /
fraudulently being activated within 24 hrs of when they were delivered /
stolen. The Discover didn't go as well. Somehow they were able to
activate that card and use it several times on the following morning
(Bestbuy, gas, a grocer & Staples) before Discover halted the account.
I hadn't used that card but twice in the past year, so apparently their
computer system quickly (again within one day) identified the fraud.
Dennis
I've never understood how anyone could reasonably compare my signature
on the back of my credit card to the scribble that comes out on one of
those electronic stylus/screen devices anyway. Even if I try to be
careful and neat, my signature looks unrecognizable even to me on one
of those. It's like trying to write legibly with an Etch-A-Sketch.
The clerk always approves it, though. I always wonder "Why bother?"
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
goa...@fractious.net
> I've never understood how anyone could reasonably compare my signature
> on the back of my credit card to the scribble that comes out on one of
> those electronic stylus/screen devices anyway. Even if I try to be
They don't. It just doesn't matter.
> The clerk always approves it, though. I always wonder "Why bother?"
I'm sure this has been posted before, but still:
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
and the sequel
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/
NOT AUTHORIZED!
--
George Grapman
the routine is:
Sever bring check.
I place card on table.
Server take card and returns with printout.
I place card in wallet.
I add tip to total, sign printout and keep my copy.
I leave.
A few years ago a tv show tested the credit card with photo. They had
a female staff member with an Asian name lend he cards to an Anglo male
staffer. He went to several places including a high end jewelery store
and restaurant and was never questioned.
Turns out that usually all the merchant cares about is getting the
purchase approved.
bat
j> says...
GR>>> Actual it is allowed. See the insurance companies passes the
GR>>> transaction to a third party. So the charge is actually coming from
??>>
??>> No, it is not allowed. The merchant actually passes the transaction to
??>> a third party in any case - their bank charges them for check
??>> verification and processing, as well as for cash collection.
j> Insurance is often a special case for regulatory reasons. In states
j> with picky insurance regulations, the insurance company may be
j> prohibited by law from paying the processing cost itself, since that
j> would mean different customers were paying different amounts of actual
j> premium.
It's irrelevant. In this case it was insurance agency, but talking about
VISA - they never mentioned any special considerations, they never denied
that the violation of their rules has taken place, they were promising to
act, but from all conversations, it was 100% obvious that all this was quite
an exception, because I called some high offices, and they did not have any
regular procedures for that in place. Everything was handled by executive
assistants of various big shots at VISA. This thread is about VISA rules,
and if they actually enforce them. They don't.
If you contact VISA with complaint on a merchant who is violating the rules,
you will receive standard response instructuing you to contact your own
credit card company, who is supposedly trained to act. Since your credit
card co. does not have any relationship with the offending merchant, and
does not gain one penny from the supposed "enforcement", they are more than
reluctant to do anything.
Jim Prescott
>You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
That isn't quite correct. The merchant agreement is between the
merchant and the merchant's bank. But you the consumer also have a
contract with the bank you got your card from. Ease of use is one of
the big features Visa & MC pitch and it is the reason behind many of
the acceptance rules merchants would like to ignore. You have a right
to complain to your bank about such merchants and to expect them to do
something about it.
There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here since
merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on the door
and in advertising and it's not til you get to the register that you
learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't using the word the same
way that Visa does (and insists that the merchant must). In this
instance you are a party to the violation and would have standing for
prosecution.
I'm not saying either approach will result in a merchant mending their
ways, just that the consumer isn't completely without avenues to
complain about unreasonable treatment. Taking your business elsewhere
is more practical. The merchant has already told you that they don't
mind screwing their financial partners, why see how they will treat
their customers.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group j...@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
Chloe
news:yobhcoc...@panix1.panix.com...
> "Chloe" <just...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> <goa...@fractious.net> wrote in message
>
>> > You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
>> > enforcement.
>> > That's a matter between the merchant and Visa (or MC).
>
>> My own pet peeve with merchants and bank credit cards are the
>> merchants who demand additional identification, requiring which is a
>> blatant violation of their agreement. I always refuse (sometimes
>> giving them word-for-word the issuer's policy: "you have the right
>> to ask, and I have the right to refuse") and so far I've not had to
>> leave a store without my purchase.
>
> That falls under the same - it's a matter between the
> merchant and Visa. Sometimes you'll end up having to
> talk to a manager - and if the manager doesn't have
> his head deeply buried somewhere - and you'll be
> on your way with your products in no time.
It's no longer just between the merchant and VISA when some sales droid's
inspecting my driver's license, and for all I know, surrepitiously
collecting information off it. And yes, I've had to speak to a manager
several times, all the while holding up people behind me in line.
>
> Note that the merchant *may* demand ID if told to do
> so by Visa when they try to authorize the charge (IIRC).
Good point. That's never happened with one of my cards, though, and it's not
the kind of ID request I'm talking about. It's always been places that are
obviously asking *all* their customers, most likely because they have a lot
of chargebacks. They always tell me, as you suggest below "it's for your
protection." Yeah, right. I simply don't give out more information about
myself in public than I have to. Identity theft is a big enough problem as
it is.
>
> Frankly, though, I do think you should be pleased when
> they ask for - and at least attempt to verify - your ID.
> Sure, you're not on the hook for fraudulent charges,
> but at a minimum, it's still a hassle. <snip>
Jim Prescott
bat <b...@bats.com> wrote:
>I can. Once I decided to actually test if VISA will move a finger to support
>their own rule - only it was not the amount limit but surcharge for using
>credit card, which is another violation. The merchant was not some
>mega-corporation. It was small local insurance agency, and the "processing
>fee" was $2. They even put it in plain English on the receipt - "VISA
>processing fee - $2".
Insurance may be a special case as it is heavily regulated. In NY such
a surcharge would not be legal but that is due to NY laws, not the merchant
agreement (which may well be different for insurance companies where aspects
of the normal agreement might violate insurance statutes).
http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ogco2006/rg060710.htm
However the surcharge is also a bigger violation, it used to be prohibited
by federal law and many states also prohibit surcharges. In NY charging a
surcharge on a CC purchase is a misdemeanor punishable by up to $500 and
1 year in jail (General Business Law Article 29-A, Section 518).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c44/a65.html
The surcharge is also unique in that it is directly correctable by the
consumer. After being charged a surcharge just call your bank and
dispute that part of the charge. Again insurance may be special here
but a regular vendor won't have any recourse and the disincentives
associated with chargebacks should be enough to get them to stop the
surcharges.
Rod Speed
> <goa...@fractious.net> wrote
>>>> You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
>>>> enforcement. That's a matter between the merchant and Visa (or MC).
>>> My own pet peeve with merchants and bank credit cards are the
>>> merchants who demand additional identification, requiring which is a
>>> blatant violation of their agreement. I always refuse (sometimes
>>> giving them word-for-word the issuer's policy: "you have the right
>>> to ask, and I have the right to refuse") and so far I've not had to
>>> leave a store without my purchase.
>> That falls under the same - it's a matter between the
>> merchant and Visa. Sometimes you'll end up having to
>> talk to a manager - and if the manager doesn't have
>> his head deeply buried somewhere - and you'll be
>> on your way with your products in no time.
> It's no longer just between the merchant and VISA when some sales droid's inspecting my driver's
> license, and for all I know, surrepitiously collecting information off it.
Even you should be able to work out how to cover the
information you dont want the droid to be able to see.
> And yes, I've had to speak to a manager several times, all the while holding up people behind me
> in line.
So it makes a lot more sense to cover the information
you dont want the droid to be able to see.
>> Note that the merchant *may* demand ID if told to do
>> so by Visa when they try to authorize the charge (IIRC).
> Good point. That's never happened with one of my cards, though, and it's not the kind of ID
> request I'm talking about. It's always been places that are obviously asking *all* their
> customers, most likely because they have a lot of chargebacks. They always tell me, as you suggest
> below "it's for your protection." Yeah, right.
Corse it is.
> I simply don't give out more information about myself in public than I have to.Identity theft is a
> big enough problem as it is.
Completely trivial to avoid any possibility of identity theft.
Rod Speed
Mindlessly silly. They're actually ensuring that
their customers dont get screwed by thieves.
Rod Speed
> j> In article <f%Kki.1605$m%.251@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
> b...@bats.com j> says...
>>>
>>> No, it is not allowed. The merchant actually passes the transaction
>>> verification and processing, as well as for cash collection.
>
> j> Insurance is often a special case for regulatory reasons. In
> states j> with picky insurance regulations, the insurance company may be
> j> prohibited by law from paying the processing cost itself, since
> that j> would mean different customers were paying different amounts of
> actual j> premium.
> It's irrelevant. In this case it was insurance agency, but talking about VISA - they never
> mentioned any special considerations, they never denied that the violation of their rules has
> taken place, they
> were promising to act,
That's just the front monkey spiel to fob you off.
> but from all conversations, it was 100% obvious that all this was quite an exception, because I
> called some high offices, and they did not have any regular procedures for that in place.
Or they have decided it isnt worth bothering with.
> Everything was handled by executive assistants of various big shots at VISA.
Who know how to fob off fools like you.
> This thread is about VISA rules, and if they actually enforce them. They don't.
> If you contact VISA with complaint on a merchant who is violating the
> rules, you will receive standard response instructuing you to contact
> your own credit card company, who is supposedly trained to act.
Thats just the fob off.
> Since your credit card co. does not have any relationship with the
> offending merchant, and does not gain one penny from the supposed
> "enforcement", they are more than reluctant to do anything.
And cant do a damned thing even if they wanted to.
Jim Prescott
Mike Berger <ber...@shout.net> wrote:
>That's not entirely true. In Illinois, for example, you can
>offer discounts for cash payments. It amounts to the same thing
>as a surcharge on credit cards.
Amounts to the same thing maybe, but it isn't the same thing. Per the
Visa merchant agreement, page 10
"No Surcharging - Always treat Visa transactions like any
other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on
a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for
cash transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed
to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from
the standard price charged for all other forms of payment."
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf
I don't think they amount to the same thing either. To me the key
point is that the business must advertise the highest amount they
charge the general public. They can offer any discounts they want but
if the sign says "widgets $10" I don't want to find out at the register
that for me widgets are $12.
For a lengthy article on why the credit card companies fight so hard
against surcharges but are OK with discounts see:
http://www.jstor.org/view/87566222/ap030013/03a00100/0
George
> George wrote:
>
>> VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
>> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
>> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
>
> I don't see a problem with that. Quite the opposite. Once you realize
> that the card is in fact another form of your money, cash, that's when
> you have the means to use it wisely. Whereas if you make the cards to
> be something special, or elevate them to a status, that's when the card
> starts to rule you and not the other way around.
The problem is that it costs money for the merchant to do this becuase
of the fees to the CC company. So then we all pay more so someone can
put a pack of cheese crackers on their credit card.
Jim Prescott
Mike Berger <ber...@shout.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>DIANA RANSOM of the WSJ wrote:
>>>> Requiring consumers to spend $20, $10 or even $5 before they can use a
>>>> credit card is a violation of merchant guidelines from both Visa and
>>>> MasterCard. Those companies say store owners who accept their credit
>>>> and debit cards are obliged to do so regardless of the size of the purchase.
>> nothing illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>signed doesn't obligate me to accept any particular minimum
>payment, or for that matter, to accept your card at all.
Can you elaborate? Both the WSJ article and Visa's publicly available
"Rules for Visa Merchants" indicate that merchants cannot impose a minimum
charge. Quoting from said Rules, pages 9&10:
U.S. merchants must follow basic card acceptance rules for all
Visa transactions.
...
Dollar Minimums and Maximums - Always honor valid Visa cards,
in your acceptance category, regardless of the dollar amount of
the purchase. Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts is
a violation.
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf
What line of business are you in? Did you have to negotiate this particular
point to get special treatment from Visa?
Or is Visa misleading their cardholders when they say merchants are prohibited
from setting minimum charge amounts? Visa has invested considerable time and
money in establishing their brand, one wouldn't expect them to allow merchants
to dilute that brand without a good reason.
Mikko Peltoniemi
> The problem is that it costs money for the merchant to do this becuase
> of the fees to the CC company. So then we all pay more so someone can
> put a pack of cheese crackers on their credit card.
Every CC transaction costs money to the merchant. So does every cash
transaction. The merchant is free not to accept any cards, if he or she
feels it's not worth the added business.
Heating the store costs money. I know how to dress for winter, why
should I have to pay because someone doesn't know how to dress warm?
Jim Prescott
George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Mikko Peltoniemi wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
>>> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
>>> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
>> I don't see a problem with that. Quite the opposite. Once you realize
>> that the card is in fact another form of your money, cash, that's when
>> you have the means to use it wisely.
>of the fees to the CC company. So then we all pay more so someone can
>put a pack of cheese crackers on their credit card.
Or you pay less because the company gets more business and can get
better deals from its suppliers.
All forms of payment cost the merchant money. Merchants spend a lot of
time counting and recounting cash and have to protect it from being
stolen. Some checks will bounce and be uncollectable.
With credit cards the merchant pays fees but they also get more
business (either outright since people who don't carry cash aren't
likely to go to a cash only establishment, or through larger impulse
purchases) and are protected from theft and deadbeats.
The CC companies have put together a package that offers plusses and
minuses to the merchant. The merchant has to decide whether that
package is good or bad for their particular business, and are free
to try and get the CC company to change terms they don't like. But
they cannot agree to the CC package, and then cherry pick the rules
they will follow.
Rod Speed
> Mike Berger <ber...@shout.net> wrote
>> That's not entirely true. In Illinois, for example, you can offer discounts for
>> cash payments. It amounts to the same thing as a surcharge on credit cards.
> Amounts to the same thing maybe, but it isn't the same thing.
Corse it is.
> Per the Visa merchant agreement, page 10
> "No Surcharging - Always treat Visa transactions like any
> other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on
> a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for
> cash transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed
> to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from
> the standard price charged for all other forms of payment."
> http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf
Just mindless wanking with words.
> I don't think they amount to the same thing either.
More fool you.
> To me the key point is that the business must advertise
> the highest amount they charge the general public.
Nope.
> They can offer any discounts they want but if the sign says "widgets $10"
> I don't want to find out at the register that for me widgets are $12.
Pity that happens anyway with the tax.
> For a lengthy article on why the credit card companies fight
> so hard against surcharges but are OK with discounts see:
> http://www.jstor.org/view/87566222/ap030013/03a00100/0
Just another mindless wank.
Rod Speed
They do anyway, regardless of your expectations.
Rod Speed
Corse they can and do.
Kent Wills
goa...@fractious.net wrote:
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>[re: merchant agreement - between merchant and Visa]
>
>> Your willful ignorance and the lack of it currently being
>> enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced.
>
>You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
>enforcement.
Have I claimed I do?
>
>That's a matter between the merchant and Visa (or MC).
>
>At most, you, the consumer who wants to annoy the crap
>out of everyone by charging a stick of gum on your card,
>may complain to Visa. They may ignore you and leave the
>merchant alone, or they may warn the merchant. But you
>will still likely walk out of the store without your
>stick of gum.
>
>You, the consumer, may *not* file suit, because you
>are not a party to that merchant agreement.
Have I claimed I, or any consumer, can?
>At
>absolutely most, if a suit were filed (by Visa)
>(and it's much more likely they'd just warn the
>merchant and then, at worst, terminate the agreement),
Most probably.
>at most, you could be a witness - a third party -
>not a part of the suit itself. The odds of that
>are probably smaller than the odds you'd be hit
>by lightning. Twice.
>
>So complain all you like, call the manager, annoy
>the crap out of the clerk, the manager, and everyone
>standing in line behind you. Then, if you really want
>to make a difference, take your chewing-gum-less
>fretting self home and complain to Visa. But no,
>you have no right to demand squat, so get over it.
I've never claimed I, or any other consumer, has such a right.
--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
Kent Wills
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Your willful ignorance and the lack of it currently
>> being enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced.
>
>Have fun explaining why it never ever has been.
The explanation is simple. I would have thought even you
would be able to figure it out. Clearly I over estimated your
intellect. I apologize for this error on my part.
The reason is that no one has sought to have it enforced.
>
>The reason is obvious to anyone with a clue,
That eliminates you.
>that purported condition
>is just there to bluff fools like you and the card companys realise that
>they havent got a hope in hell of legally enforcing that, child.
You seem to think the law is what YOU want it to be. It's
not. Deal with it.
If Visa were to enforce that part of the agreement, and
others, then merchants wouldn't violate it.
>
>>>> That you're too pig ignorant to know this doesn't change this simple truth.
>
>>> Have fun explaining why there have been no legal suits on that matter.
>
>> No one has filed suit.
>
>And there might just be a reason why no one ever has, child.
>
Do tell. What is that reason?
>>> There might just be a reason for that, child.
>
>> No one has filed. Duh.
>
>And there might just be a reason why no one ever has, child.
>
>>>>>> Contract law 101.
>
>>>>> Thats a kindergarten version of contract law, child.
>
>>>> Most introductory courses are called [insert course name] 101.
>
>>> No news to anyone, child.
>
>> Clearly news to you.
>
>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Projection is a bad thing.
>
>>> Pity your pig ignorant shit doesnt even qualify for that.
>
>> Yet I know more about the topic than you.
>
>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Projection is a bad thing.
>
>>>> You should try learning something rather than displaying your lack of education.
>
>>> I might have actually presented quite a few thanks, child.
>
>> You *might* have, sure. But you haven't.
>
>Guess which pathetic little prat has just get egg all over its pathetic little face, as always ?
>
He's known to us as Rod Speed.
>>>>>> Both parties agreed to the no limit rule. And there is nothing
>>>>>> illegal about requiring no minimum purchase amount.
>
>>>>> That aint the only reason that a particular contract condition aint binding, child.
>
>>>> Oh do tell, great and powerful legal expert.
>
>>> Already did, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child.
>
>> Ah... The ad hom. The sign of the truly desperate.
>
>Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh child ?
Nope.
>
>> Thanks for letting everyone reading know that you're wrong.
>> Since you've shown the readers I'm right and you're wrong,
>
>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Projection is a bad thing.
>
>> there's no real reason to continue.
>
>Yep, you've always made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, time after time after time, child.
Yet I keep supplying the evidence that I'm your superior in
all things that matter, and many that don't.
--
Kent
"I most stonger than Darth Vapor!"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik
Kent Wills
<ber...@shout.net> wrote:
>I'm pretty sure you haven't seen my merchant agreement
Are you a merchant? Do you sell goods and/or services to the
public and accept credit card payments?
That aside, I expect it's fairly standard.
>-- the one I
>signed doesn't obligate me to accept any particular minimum
>payment, or for that matter, to accept your card at all.
No one is required to accept any specific form of payment.
>
>I gather you flunked your Contract Law 101 course.
Nope.
--
Kent
The irony of life is that, by the time
you're old enough to know your way
around, you're not going anywhere.
>
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> It does in the U.S. Contract law 101.
Rod Speed
<all your juvenile shit snipped>
>>> Your willful ignorance and the lack of it currently
>>> being enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced.
>> Have fun explaining why it never ever has been.
> The reason is that no one has sought to have it enforced.
Pathetic.
>> The reason is obvious to anyone with a clue, that purported condition
>> is just there to bluff fools like you and the card companys realise that
>> they havent got a hope in hell of legally enforcing that, child.
> You seem to think the law is what YOU want it to be.
Nope, that its clear that the card companys dont bother to even
attempt to legally enforce that particular purported condition, child.
> If Visa were to enforce that part of the agreement,
> and others, then merchants wouldn't violate it.
Have fun explaining why they dont, child.
The reason is obvious to anyone with a clue, that purported condition
is just there to bluff fools like you and the card companys realise that
they havent got a hope in hell of legally enforcing that, child.
>>>> Have fun explaining why there have been no legal suits on that matter.
>>> No one has filed suit.
>> And there might just be a reason why no one ever has, child.
> Do tell. What is that reason?
The reason is obvious to anyone with a clue, that purported condition
is just there to bluff fools like you and the card companys realise that
they havent got a hope in hell of legally enforcing that, child.
<all your juvenile shit snipped>
Whoops, nothing left.
William Souden
> As I understand it, on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:07 -0500, Mike Berger
> <ber...@shout.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure you haven't seen my merchant agreement
>
> Are you a merchant? Do you sell goods and/or services to the
> public and accept credit card payments?
> That aside, I expect it's fairly standard.
Merchant? Welfare boy is rarely even a cash customer.
SMS
> It is. That there are those who chose not to have it enforced
> does not mean it can't be. No amount of your ignorance of this will
> change that.
That's the bottom line. Visa (and Mastercard) put a legally binding
clause in the merchant agreement, but they choose to not enforce it.
Consumer complaints about the minimum charge level are not investigated.
They managed to get laws passed preventing credit card surcharges on
purchases, which merchants worked around by offering cash discounts
instead. Lately I've noticed a lot of gasoline stations reinstituting
different prices for cash and credit, something that disappeared for a
long time. Gas station owners are especially hard hit by the higher
prices for gasoline, because the mark-up per gallon is on an absolute,
rather than a percentage basis. Selling a gallon at $1 earns them 10¢
profit, and they'd pay about 1.5-2¢ in credit card fees (not including
the transaction fee). Selling a gallon at $3 earns then 10¢ profit, and
they'd pay 4.5-6¢ in credit card fees. Plus, rewards cards process at a
higher rate.
SMS
> That's not entirely true. In Illinois, for example, you can
> offer discounts for cash payments. It amounts to the same thing
> as a surcharge on credit cards.
Same in California.
The difference between a cash discount and a credit card surcharge is
that with a cash discount all prices are marked at the higher,
non-cash-discount level, though I've seen some on-line stores, and some
print ads, that simply state "All Prices Reflect 2% Cash Discount." Many
gas stations post two sets of prices.
Here's the text from the merchant agreement:
"The following requirements apply to all Card transactions: (a) you
cannot establish minimum or maximum amounts as a condition for accepting
a Card; (b) you cannot impose a surcharge or fee for accepting a Card;
(c) you cannot establish any special conditions for accepting a Card;
(d) you cannot establish procedures that discourage, favor or
discriminate against the use of any particular Card; however, you may
choose not to accept either U.S. issued Debit Cards or U.S. issued
credit Cards under the terms described in Section 1.3; (e) you cannot
require the Cardholder to supply any personal information (e.g., home or
business phone number; home or business address; or driver's license
number) unless instructed by us, except for a mail order/telephone order
or delivery required transaction, and ZIP code for a Card-present
key-entered transaction in order to obtain an Address Verification
(AVS); (f) Any tax required to be collected must be included in the
total transaction amount and not collected in cash; (g) you cannot
submit any transaction representing the refinance or transfer of an
existing Cardholder obligation deemed uncollectible; (h) you cannot
submit a transaction or sale that has been previously charged back; (i)
you must deliver at least one copy of the Sales Draft or credit draft to
the Cardholder; (j) you cannot submit a transaction or sale to cover a
dishonored check. Failure to comply with any of the Association Rules
may result in fines or penalties."
The merchant does break the contract if he establishes a minimum or
maximum amount, and the merchant bank could enforce the contract if they
wished to do so, but I doubt if they ever do, at least in terms of
minimum amounts.
I remember buying a car and after the deal was done they said I could
put the down payment on a credit card. I wanted to charge the entire car
on the credit card for the 2% reward, but they wouldn't let me do that,
so I paid the balance with a check.
George
> George wrote:
>
>> The problem is that it costs money for the merchant to do this becuase
>> of the fees to the CC company. So then we all pay more so someone can
>> put a pack of cheese crackers on their credit card.
>
> Every CC transaction costs money to the merchant. So does every cash
> transaction. The merchant is free not to accept any cards, if he or she
> feels it's not worth the added business.
But the CC transaction costs more and it is likely a negative
transaction if people decide to do what the CC add advocates and using a
CC for pocket change purchases.
The banks are 900lb gorillas in this scenario. I applaud their efforts
to reject something that isn't good for them.
SMS
> Mikko Peltoniemi wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that it costs money for the merchant to do this
>>> becuase of the fees to the CC company. So then we all pay more so
>>> someone can put a pack of cheese crackers on their credit card.
>>
>> Every CC transaction costs money to the merchant. So does every cash
>> transaction. The merchant is free not to accept any cards, if he or she
>> feels it's not worth the added business.
>
> But the CC transaction costs more and it is likely a negative
> transaction if people decide to do what the CC add advocates and using a
> CC for pocket change purchases.
Remember that each business and type of business pays different fees,
and the percentage is a closely guarded secret. Supermarkets are
probably under 1%, while restaurants and other retailers are not getting
terms that good.
The CC transactions are usually faster than having the cashier make
change, especially now that low value transactions often don't require a
signature. If the customer would write a check instead of paying with a
credit card there are a lot of costs with that too, including a larger
percentage in bad-check fees than the credit card fees (though the bad
check problem should be going away with instant check processing). So be
sure to factor the cost of being able to have fewer cashiers into the
equation. Many stores no longer take checks, and if they didn't take
credit cards, it'd be very bad for their business.
bat
JP> consumer. After being charged a surcharge just call your bank and
JP> dispute that part of the charge. Again insurance may be special here
JP> but a regular vendor won't have any recourse and the disincentives
JP> associated with chargebacks should be enough to get them to stop the
JP> surcharges.
The vendor most likely won't need any recourse and won't see any
disincentives, since credit card company will merely credit customer's
account with those two bucks "as a courtesy", and won't file anything with
merchant's bank. From the experience with my Chase Bank, they do it if the
amount in question is up to $25.
Mikko Peltoniemi
> Remember that each business and type of business pays different fees,
> and the percentage is a closely guarded secret. Supermarkets are
Right, and for example if a business has a tradition of screwing their
customers, they'll have to pay higher fees due to all the chargebacks.
And these would probably be the kind of businesses that would screw
their credit card customers again.
timeOday
>
> I agree and wouldn't think of going out without some nominal amount of
> cash in my pocket. I am on the merchants side since it costs them money
> (that they have to get back by raising prices) to do the transaction.
>
> VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
>
What's the story with debit cards, do those cost merchants extra? I
simply prefer them over cash because I don't like sitting on coins, and
since my paychecks are direct deposit, converting to cash is extra
effort (and an ATM fee, if I'm in another city).
I wonder if you figured in employee theft, arithmetic errors, etc
whether merchants would still prefer cash. It always seems to be very
small outlets that demand cash.
Rod Speed
> George wrote:
>>
>> I agree and wouldn't think of going out without some nominal amount
>> of cash in my pocket. I am on the merchants side since it costs them
>> money (that they have to get back by raising prices) to do the
>> transaction. VISA/MC/banks make a lot of money from credit card use. Their latest
>> commercial shows a bunch of 20 somethings all happily making trivial
>> purchases (soda, snacks etc) using their credit cards.
> What's the story with debit cards, do those cost merchants extra?
There is a transaction fee.
> I simply prefer them over cash because I don't like sitting on coins, and since my paychecks are
> direct deposit, converting to cash is extra effort (and an ATM fee, if I'm in another city).
Yeah, me too. Havent used an ATM in decades.
> I wonder if you figured in employee theft, arithmetic errors, etc whether merchants would still
> prefer cash.
The problem is that they mostly do have to be able to accept cash
anyway so there is a real sense in which cards are extra to that.
> It always seems to be very small outlets that demand cash.
Yes, essentially because of what it costs them for the hardware to handle cards.
William Souden
>> What's the story with debit cards, do those cost merchants extra?
>
> There is a transaction fee.
>
>> I simply prefer them over cash because I don't like sitting on coins, and since my paychecks are
>> direct deposit, converting to cash is extra effort (and an ATM fee, if I'm in another city).
>
> Yeah, me too. Havent used an ATM in decades.
Of course not, you are on welfare.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
j...@seas.rochester.edu says...
> In article <yobvecs...@panix1.panix.com>, <goa...@fractious.net> wrote:
> >You, the consumer, have no standing and no right to demand
> That isn't quite correct. The merchant agreement is between the
> merchant and the merchant's bank. But you the consumer also have a
> contract with the bank you got your card from. Ease of use is one of
> the big features Visa & MC pitch and it is the reason behind many of
> the acceptance rules merchants would like to ignore. You have a right
> to complain to your bank about such merchants and to expect them to do
> something about it.
Yes, the customer/cardholder has a contract with the bank that
issued the card. However, that is focused on the
customer/cardholder's obligations to use the card in a legal and
legit manner. Especially with regards to paying the bill.
Are you suggesting that the Cardholder Agreement includes
language that obligates customers to refuse to do business with a
merchant who violates the minimum transaction prohibition? Or to
report that merchant?
If so, please provide a reference and quotes for a specific
Cardholder Agreement from a specific bank.
> There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here since
> merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on the door
> and in advertising and it's not til you get to the register that you
> learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't using the word the same
> way that Visa does (and insists that the merchant must). In this
> instance you are a party to the violation and would have standing for
> prosecution.
"A party to the violation"? The customer/cardholder isn't the
one causing the merchant to violate a merchant processing
contract.
The merchant processing contract doesn't say anything about a
customer/cardholder being held responsible for tolerating
violations like minimums, surcharges, etc.
And there is zero chance of "prosecution" of the
customer/cardholder when a merchant violates those particular
contractual points. It is a civil matter between the merchant,
the processor, and the credit card association or company.
I mean, really... What if a restaurant has a minimum ten dollar
limit for MasterCard acceptance... And I eat there, with a
fifteen dollar total bill, and pay with my MasterCard. Why would
I have "standing for prosecution" over a civil contractual matter
between three other parties?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Jim Prescott
Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG <Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>In article <f7155h$h...@harn.ceas.rochester.edu>,
>j...@seas.rochester.edu says...
>> merchant and the merchant's bank. But you the consumer also have a
>> contract with the bank you got your card from. Ease of use is one of
>> the big features Visa & MC pitch and it is the reason behind many of
>> the acceptance rules merchants would like to ignore. You have a right
>> to complain to your bank about such merchants and to expect them to do
>> something about it.
>Are you suggesting that the Cardholder Agreement includes
>language that obligates customers to refuse to do business with a
>merchant who violates the minimum transaction prohibition? Or to
>report that merchant?
No. I'm suggesting that Visa has spent a great deal of time and money
establishing what a "Visa card" is. When I get a Visa card from my bank
I have an expectation of how it can be used based on Visa's advertising
and the rules they publish. If the reality of the card not only differs
from those expectations, but is outright contrary to them, then I have
reason to complain.
Granted there is no recourse here beyond cancelling the card. But the
banks shouldn't be blowing off consumer complaints on this, they should
be passed up the chain. The banks that are trying to sell Visa cards
have a vested interest in having Visa accurately describe their product,
whether it be by enforcing existing rules or by changing those rules.
>> There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here since
>> merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on the door
>> and in advertising and it's not til you get to the register that you
>> learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't using the word the same
>> way that Visa does (and insists that the merchant must). In this
>> instance you are a party to the violation and would have standing for
>> prosecution.
>...
>The merchant processing contract doesn't say anything about a
>customer/cardholder being held responsible for tolerating
>violations like minimums, surcharges, etc.
I wasn't talking about the merchant contract here, but about potentially
criminal false and misleading advertising. The merchant advertises that
they accept Visa and the consumer takes that into account when choosing
the merchant. After spending time, and possibly incurring a bill, the
consumer finds that the merchant does not in fact accept Visa, at least
not in the way generally understood and promoted by Visa.
The consumer has been directly harmed by the merchant. Whether this
harm rises to the criminal level would depend on the specific laws in
place and the specifics of the event. The merchant agreement isn't
directly relevant although the fact that the merchant had signed a
contract that prohibited certain behavior might be a factor in deciding
whether a "reasonable person" should have anticipated such behavior.
Rod Speed
Or they have enough of a clue to realise that its never going to be
feasible to enforce the most stupid rules and that the current approach
does bluff the most stupid merchants, so its better than changing them.
>>> There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here
>>> since merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on
>>> the door and in advertising and it's not til you get to the
>>> register that you learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't
>>> using the word the same way that Visa does (and insists that the
>>> merchant must). In this instance you are a party to the violation
>>> and would have standing for prosecution.
>> ...
>> The merchant processing contract doesn't say anything about a
>> customer/cardholder being held responsible for tolerating
>> violations like minimums, surcharges, etc.
> I wasn't talking about the merchant contract here, but
> about potentially criminal false and misleading advertising.
Its nothing like criminal.
> The merchant advertises that they accept Visa and the consumer
> takes that into account when choosing the merchant.
And anyone with a clue realises that some merchants flout the
silliest rules with impunity and that they get to like that or lump it.
> After spending time, and possibly incurring a bill, the consumer
> finds that the merchant does not in fact accept Visa, at least
> not in the way generally understood and promoted by Visa.
Then they get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.
> The consumer has been directly harmed by the merchant.
They still get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.
> Whether this harm rises to the criminal level would depend
> on the specific laws in place and the specifics of the event.
Nope, its never going to be a criminal offence.
> The merchant agreement isn't directly relevant although the
> fact that the merchant had signed a contract that prohibited
> certain behavior might be a factor in deciding whether a
> "reasonable person" should have anticipated such behavior.
And the reality is that they get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.