5 ms·

"Tellingly, nothing Milam’s Market could have done—short of making the business-crippling decision to stop accepting Visa cards—could have prevented this outcom

"Tellingly, nothing Milam’s Market could have done—short of making the business-crippling decision to stop accepting Visa cards—could have prevented this outcome,” the complaint added Is that really true? You can't ask for photo ID, a second signature, a pre-verification of the charge against credit limits?

supercanuck 11y ago
>All the networks allow a merchant to ask for identification. MasterCard and Visa, however, explicitly prohibit retailers from requiring an ID to accept a properly signed card. Source: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/can-retailers-ask-id-with-credit_card-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/can-retailers-as...
- joezydeco 11y ago
  That seems like a huge loophole that the merchant can use in their lawsuit. On the other hand, "properly signed" still means that the merchant can compare signatures on the card and receipt, right?
  - eru 11y ago
    Forging signatures is trivial.
    - justin66 11y ago
      Not to mention, the signature space on the back of a card is so tiny that we just expect a person's real signature to look rather different.
iofj 11y ago
Chargebacks have nothing to do with credit limits. If you send a transaction online (which any fixed terminal would always do), it will be checked against credit limits. Chargebacks are different. Chargebacks are when the customer alleges that the bought item doesn't satisfy it's intended function. Say you buy a chinese 2T harddrive and it turns out to have a 2GB SD card inside with firmware that fakes the free space. Chargebacks really suck for merchants, because 1) recovering the item is the responsibility of the merchant. The bank won't help with that. In most cases, neither will the police. That leaves private sector "loan collectors" and "repo men" but they're not free, meaning a supermarket wouldn't do it for almost any item. 2) there's a cost associated with a chargeback, to be carried by the merchant. In other words, you sell $10 to customer, he complains, you get to pay $15 back to the bank (the 5$ is a ballpark amount, it varies) The costs for this were initially carried by the banks in order to get the mail-order economy going. But now banks have the ability to impose terms on their merchant customers, so they're forcing merchants to accept onerous demands. I think that this supermarket store is trying to get a judgement based on a basic legal principle, which doesn't often work. But the basic principle is that contracts should not be "one-sided". If one side is able to impose any terms on the other side, those clauses aren't enforceable. I wish them good luck, because this is really hard to get a judgement for. And frankly, I hope they win just because they're a small merchant taking on a large bank. Those guys really could use some serious judgments against them. That said, their chances seem slim.

supercanuck 11y ago

>All the networks allow a merchant to ask for identification. MasterCard and Visa, however, explicitly prohibit retailers from requiring an ID to accept a properly signed card. Source: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/can-retailers-ask-id-with-credit_card-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/can-retailers-as...

joezydeco 11y ago
That seems like a huge loophole that the merchant can use in their lawsuit. On the other hand, "properly signed" still means that the merchant can compare signatures on the card and receipt, right?
- eru 11y ago
  Forging signatures is trivial.
  - justin66 11y ago
    Not to mention, the signature space on the back of a card is so tiny that we just expect a person's real signature to look rather different.

iofj 11y ago

Chargebacks have nothing to do with credit limits. If you send a transaction online (which any fixed terminal would always do), it will be checked against credit limits. Chargebacks are different. Chargebacks are when the customer alleges that the bought item doesn't satisfy it's intended function. Say you buy a chinese 2T harddrive and it turns out to have a 2GB SD card inside with firmware that fakes the free space. Chargebacks really suck for merchants, because 1) recovering the item is the responsibility of the merchant. The bank won't help with that. In most cases, neither will the police. That leaves private sector "loan collectors" and "repo men" but they're not free, meaning a supermarket wouldn't do it for almost any item. 2) there's a cost associated with a chargeback, to be carried by the merchant. In other words, you sell $10 to customer, he complains, you get to pay $15 back to the bank (the 5$ is a ballpark amount, it varies) The costs for this were initially carried by the banks in order to get the mail-order economy going. But now banks have the ability to impose terms on their merchant customers, so they're forcing merchants to accept onerous demands. I think that this supermarket store is trying to get a judgement based on a basic legal principle, which doesn't often work. But the basic principle is that contracts should not be "one-sided". If one side is able to impose any terms on the other side, those clauses aren't enforceable. I wish them good luck, because this is really hard to get a judgement for. And frankly, I hope they win just because they're a small merchant taking on a large bank. Those guys really could use some serious judgments against them. That said, their chances seem slim.