Why would the dealer surrender the car before payment?
But then there’s the third way: Offer the extra convenience to customers when you can afford to do (i.e. large transactions). For smaller transactions, offer the same level of convenience that you were doing so before.
Reasons unknown.
Of course, if the dealer is free to decide whether to accept cash purchases based on their convenience, I suspect that (s)he can do the same with Visa. What they probably can’t do in the US is have a general policy about it.
Fine. Decide each sale on its merits - then those whinging about micro management can see the true meaning of the word!
I agree with the point you are making but not the details. I’ve always been a big fan of being upfront about store policies and trying to avoid problems rather than deal with them after the fact. It’s always been interesting to me to discern where the lines are drawn between the customers responsibility to ask questions in their own interest and the stores responsibility to provide the information they need to make the right choices.
The ole bait and switch laws came from Sears using dishonest practices generations ago. I used to work for Circuit City and they got in trouble for offering 6 to 12 months no interest without revealing that the interest after 12 months was retroactive.
So, I think any store should have a “No CC purchases under $10” clearly posted where people can see it. I’m not sure on the door will help. Do you realistically stop to read whats on the door before you go in?
In our case it might be that the person buying a set of guitar strings today might need a new strat next year so you’re right about that point as well, except the shear volume of small sales being processed will directly affect the profit on the strat sale so merchants do have to make a decision about how they maintain acceptable profitability while pissing off as few customers as possible.
ftr we’ve discussed establishing a CC limit at my store but haven’t done it yet. I think it’s an issue thats only come up in the last decade or so. I’d be interested in knowing when the trend of under $10 CC purchases began to rise and people stopped carrying cash. Years ago Credit was used mainly for major purchases and it was unusual to have someone whip out a CC for a $5 purchase. Good marketing by the CC companies I guess.
I don’t see any reason to be excessively outraged over a reasonable minimum purchase for CCs I understand what you’re saying but I think people should easily be aware that some stores do have a minimum and be prepared to carry cash or check before you spend your time in the store. What disturbs me in this thread is all the righteous indignation over such a petty issue and a complete lack of consideration for the merchant and his reasons.
IOW I wouldn’t begrudge the store such a policy or get all upset over such a slight inconvenience. I’d take it upon myself to be aware of how much cash I had on me and what my purchase might total.
In thinking about this thread and my sore though I believe I have an acceptable compromise.
How about a sign by the cash register and a polite reminder from the clerk that said something like.
A friendly request
In order to keep our prices low and competitive
Please! No CC purchases under $10 
It's a request rather than a policy that causes an argument. If CC is all you have today np, We still appreciate the business. If more small businesses did this it might encourage more customers to carry a bit of cash or use their debit card.Not in the USA. Minimum purchases are prohibited by the merchant contract. There is no corresponding obligation that covers the merchant’s decision on what forms of payment he will accept. If the merchant signed the contract, he is bound by it. If it is not in the contract, the merchant is free to make up his own policies as he sees fit. What he is not permitted to do is ignore some parts of the contract he finds inconvenient or unprofitable.
But surely the merchant can look at each transaction and decide whether to make it or not.
That isn’t the same as having a minimum purchase policy.
The sticker in the window indicates that the merchant will accept a Visa card for transactions, according to Visa’s policies. If a minimum charge was part of the policy, I couldn’t really fault the merchant for going along with it. The impetus would be on me to find a different credit card company with policies I liked better. I would still rightly expect that any business advertising that they conform to Visa’s policy, actually does conform to the policy.
Fair enough but isn’t this thread an acknowledgment that we are all aware that some businesses do set minimums and the CC companies allow it. Knowing that, shouldn’t you adjust your expectations accordingly using a little understanding for others?
And that my friend is the point we’ve been trying to make. A transaction isn’t only about you and your experience.
Except that we know merchants do set * reasonable* limits with good reasons and CC companies allow them to do so with impunity.
Where does that leave you? What’s the most productive course of action and the best use of your time and energy?
I understand that, and I don’t even disagree with you and SBSO’s perspective. The thing is, you have to be honest about it. The sticker says that you accept all Visa purchases, no minimum. If that’s not the case, then take the sticker down. Then I’ll be able to make an informed decision about whether I want to patronize your store. Everybody wins.
They won’t do that because they like to make money of the irresponsible, uneducated, and weak willed among us. It seems their compromise is to have no minimum in the agreement but to not enforce it. Then,they pass the aggravation on to the merchant and customer. Can’t we all just get along? 
Yes, and (another dubious analogy for you!) an avertisement as an escort service means that you give people escorts.
The written description of the Visa logo is irrelevant. What is relevant is what one can reasonably expect to find inside. I think minimum purchase polcies come under this reasonable expectation.
But this is silly. If they didn’t care about the provision at all, it wouldn’t be in the agreement. It’s a bit like the speed limit. Since just about everyone chooses to ignore the posted limit, the authorities can’t enforce it in every single case, or it would swamp their resources. That doesn’t mean they don’t care about the limit. It also doesn’t mean that I have any business bitching about it if they do decide to pull me over for breaking the rule. Same thing here: the CC company can’t pursue every complaint of this sort. But they certainly care about the rule. The reason for the rule, the only reason for the rule, is customer convenience. Granted, they only care about my convenience because if it is convenient for me to use their card, I will, meaning more money for them - but regardless of motivation they still care about my convenience.
I would never and have never complained about being asked for ID when using a credit card. My driver’s license is about four millimeters from my credit card. I’ve also never complained about being carded when buying alcohol.
Yeah, I said that. Did you just decide to ignore it? Everyone cheats. The key difference is that most people acknowledge cheating as cheating when they do it, rather than try to convince everyone that it’s not really cheating, I have a good reason, double super swear. If I blow five minutes of company time talking to a co-worker about the Mets game last night, and my supervisor happens by and reprimands me, I don’t complain about it - he has every right to complain. He’s right and I’m wrong.
Nobody made the literal analogy, no. But the overwhelming sentiment from the small business folk in this thread is that they are taking a stand for the little guy by failing to honor their contract. They’re not taking a stand for the little guy; they’re taking a stand for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it’s tremendously hypocritical to condemn consumers and credit card companies for being concerned about their own welfare while instituting a policy that is specifically prohibited by your agreement with one of them and which inconveniences both.
Well, obviously, that’s the crux of the argument. I disagree. The provision we’re discussing isn’t some arcane technical issue that matters to no one. It matters. It affects how the credit card companies advertise their services. It affects how (and in some cases, whether) a consumer can make a purchase.
Or it means that they can’t expend the resources to pursue every single cheater, so they accept a certain amount of cheating in the hopes that there will be enough honest merchants to make the whole thing work out in the end.
As to “compromise,” the funny part of it all is that you suggest a perfectly good compromise on the very next page of this thread. Post a sign requesting that customers make every effort to limit CC transactions to $10 (or whatever) and up. You post that sign next to your register, and I will oblige every damn time, happily so. And in exchange, if I show up one night sick as a dog and want to buy a $6.00 box of Tylenol Cold, but happen to have no cash at hand, you recognize my situation and swipe my card. Under this arrangement, you’ll have me as a customer for life; you’re respecting my convenience, I’m respecting yours. Who is losing out here? With such an obvious and mutually convenient solution, why should I respect those merchants who instead choose a solution that is: (1) dishonest; and (2) creates an adversarial relationship with me from the start?
Actually, quite a few people in this thread have defended the bar’s action.
Because there are better solutions, that cause even less inconvenience to the customers. As above.
Really? Shit, I never knew that before.
Look, you’re just going to have to take my word for this (or not, which is your right), but in real life, in most situations, I’m about as much of a help-others person as you can possibly imagine. But there’s a line. And “my neighbors” will get as much consideration from me as they give (actually, at first, they’ll get lots of consideration - once they show that they’re not interested in reciprocating, though, I’ll respond in kind).
I don’t pay with credit cards on small purchases (unless I am at a very large store), in part because the transactions takes longer but in part because I know it makes for a profitless sale for the merchant. All I’m saying is that the merchant who offers me the option to use a CC in a situation where it’s needed - and honors their agreement with the credit card company in the process - is going to get a lot more of my business than the merchant who points to his little sign and sends me away. See how it works? I start by showing I care about your convenience (I pay cash on small purchases). Then you show you care about mine (you don’t act like Police Inspector Javert when I have a specific need to use a card). Then the circle continues. Everyone wins.
All I’m suggesting is that this goes both ways.
Well, this is just basically saying what I said in reverse. But why establish the policy in the first place, then? Why force the person who’s “in a spot” to have to explain it? Why not offer the convenience that you’ve contracted to offer, and then rely on the goodwill of your customers not to abuse the convenience?
I agree with and respect every word of this paragraph. Mutual respect on both sides of a business transaction, however large or small, is a good thing. I just think that your suggestion on the next page - a request, not a demand - is a much better way to both satisfy your contractual obligations and foster an environment of mutual respect.
Since concealed carry passed, yes. 
I guess I just can’t understand this attitude. When you post that logo, you’re making a promise to Visa to honor their policy. That part is between you and Visa, and if they don’t choose to enforce it, that’s their business. But you are also making that same promise to me, the consumer who enters your store after seeing the logo. How can you be so cavalier about breaking that? Don’t you care about establishing trust with your customers?
No everybody doesn’t. Once more, this is a nit picky argument hung on the specific detail of an agreement that the issuers don’t enforce.
I think you already know that some merchants have a minimum amount so if you enter an establishment assuming there is none because of that sticker, that’s a bit disingenuous on your part. If you want to vilify them as being dishonest crooks over this detail be my guest. I’m more in favor of a little understanding.
I do agree that any merchant who creates a minimum policy should post it clearly so a customer doesn’t walk in spend time looking for an item only to find out they can’t get it with a CC. I also think it’s unwise to strictly enforce a policy like that. Having a successful business is also about good PR in your community.
In fact I’d say, after thinking it over in this thread that my friendly request sign is a fairly good option.
ftr I’ve found the majority of customers to be real gems when dealt with in an honest up front respectful manner which is how I do business. I do expect the same consideration and respect I show them. The fact that’s it’s a business transaction doesn’t make it impersonal to me.
I think it’s a great idea too, and I meant to say so earlier. As storyteller0910 said, show some respect and consideration for the customer, and they’ll be inclined to show it back to you.
As I’ve said many times, I am not doing anything wrong in my country.
But that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is what that logo means to most people, not what Visa says it means.
I submit that it IS part of Visa’s policy to allow minimum charges. It is not part of the contract, but Visa’s business practices are such that small vendors can use minimum charges with impunity, and Visa will do nothing to prevent it.
Can’t you also say the impetus is on you to find a CC company that actually enforces its contracts?
What bugs me here is that Visa is seemingly off the hook because everyone is mad at the retailer for “violating the contract”. The reality is that Visa has set up a sham contract that they have no intention of enforcing and state the terms of that contract as part of their presumed deliverables to you as a Visa customer. Then, when you do not get the service you thought you were getting, your ire is directed to the merchant instead of to Visa who is allowing the lack of service to exist.
Um, I’m pretty sure they are!
INAL but, if party A of a contract fails to meet a condition of a contract, and party B has knowledge of that failure but takes no action to enforce the condition in a reasonable period, the condition becomes unenforceable.
There is no contract between the cardholder and the merchant.
CMC fnord!