If you really wanted to be a dick (or if it’s such a small town that the bartender has damaged your reputation) you could sue her for slander. 
And I hope you reported the incident to Visa.
I suspect that it would have been very hard for an impartial observer to tell you and a belligerent drunk apart to be honest.
Unlikely. Belligerent drunks are often unable to put together coherent sentences in a modulated and reasonable tone of voice. They would be more likely to slur; “Fuck yooouu and the donkey your mother fucked to conceive you,” than to state: “Am I to understand that I’m being kicked out simply because I asked you to abide by the merchant agreement that your business willingly entered into?”, and this so quietly that the very bouncer who kicked him out didn’t know what the problem was. I presume that had be been disruptive, the bouncer would have known exactly why he was asked to leave.
I know that the spanking you’re getting in this thread is stinging you a little, but don’t let it fog your common sense.
Most belligerent drunks are indeed like that, but there are plenty where alcohol brings up a bad attitude without too much apparent impariment.
I’m not getting a spanking, I’m administering it!
I hardly think that politely asking a merchant to behave ethically is a display of “bad attitude”. What happened to “the customer is always right”?
Hogwash.
Not that I think the bar has a right to ignore their contract, but a late-night bartender and bouncer sure don’t have the authority to make that sort of call. If their manager puts down a policy, it’s their primary obligation to follow that.
As for the rest of the thread…CC transactions have been incredibly speedy for me lately. I use my debit card for nearly all transactions, but I tell the cashier to swipe it as credit, because it goes through immediately and I don’t have to sign anything. If I do debit, then there’s the extra step of entering the PIN, which isn’t always convenient. It most certainly is faster than using cash, too, since there’s no time spent in the cashier digging out the correct change and me putting it away.
Likewise, I haven’t seen a minimum transaction policy listed anywhere in a very long time. It might be that I tend to prefer chains over smaller businesses, but the last such policy I remember was about 6 years ago at a little grocery store near the university. Even then, there wasn’t a minimum on credit transactions, but rather a $3 minimum on debit transactions. The nearest analog I see these days is a fee some stores impose on, again, debit transactions; usually about 75 cents or so.
It used to be that credit card transactions took so long to complete that it would be worth the extra fee to do it through debit, but these days it literally is just swipe and go. Most of my purchases are $5-10, and I couldn’t tell you how much money the stores make off them, but they certainly don’t appear upset over it.
neutron star, maybe this is a story that a local paper would be interested in covering?
I understand the bartender was likely toeing the organizational policy, which she could have explained and then invited you to take it up with a manager when he or she was present. Handled awfully from my perspective.
I’ve got no problem if merchants don’t accept CCs. But if the Visa card is on their door, I would be beyond pissed if they didn’t accept it. (I’d probably meet the minimum payment issue and never shop there again, though - doubt I would follow up with Visa.)
I have no idea whether or not there is a provision in VISA-retailer contracts in England that prohibit the retailer adding a fee to VISA transactions. That being said, you have put out that if there were such a term, it would not be enforceable, and to support this, you have referred to Yianni.
When someone seeks damages for negligence, that person must first prove that there was a duty of care owed by the negligent party to the injured party. Yianni stands for the proposition that if the injured party had reasonably relied on the negligent party, that is sufficient to establish a duty of care, even if there was no contract between the two.
That simply is not relevant to the discussion at hand, which questions whether or not terms in the VISA – Retailer contract that require that VISA be accepted for all transactions should be void or voidable. If you think it is relevant, please provide us with your reasoning.
I suggest that you might have better luck at starting with a general decision on equality of bargaining powers, look at the concepts upon which it is based, and apply those concepts to your matter at hand with VISA. For example, start with the long established premise that there should be freedom to bargain, and then apply Lord Denning’s sympathetic-to-the-litle-guy reasoning in Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] Q.B. 326, 336: “There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms – when one is so strong in bargaining power and the other so weak – that, as a matter of common fairness it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.”
What, I ask, is fundamentally unequal in the bargaining powers between small retailers and VISA?
Yes, individual retailers are much smaller than the giant VISA, but if retailers do not like VISA’s terms they can use any number of other forms of payment: cash, cheque, money order, debit card, credit card (any one of hundreds other than VISA), or IOU written on the back of a handkerchief.
Small retailers also have the ability to price their goods, so as to absorb any VISA transaction costs into the price of a particular good, or into the price of goods overall at the store (and bear in mind that if there were no base VISA transaction fee, there would simply be a higher VISA percentage fee).
Small retailers are experienced business persons, who should know whether a deal with VISA is good for them or bad for them, and who also should be experienced enough to realize that even if an overall contract is favourable to them, not all of the individual terms may favourable. Small retailers contracting with VISA are experienced business persons, not poor naïve consumers.
VISA offers its customers acceptance of its card for all purchases at contracting retailers, and it processes each transaction based on a flat fee plus percentage. If this is too expensive for a retailer, then the retailer is free to not contact with VISA. If enough small retailers start dumping VISA, then VISA will adjust its rates, or simply continue on without that section of the market.
Let’s look at it another way. Let’s say that I, a humble tourist, happen upon your shop. I see something I like, but it is too expensive for me. Are you obligated to sell it to me at my price, or are you free to bargain or to hold to your price, despite you being an experienced business person and me being only a naïve tourist, entirely out of my element, not even knowing the difference between a pence and a dollar, or the consumer protection / sale of goods laws of England, or the customary practices of trading in small shops?
Or let’s look at it yet another way. Should VISA be able to unilaterally refuse to handle transactions that it does not think are profitable for it, despite having contracted with small retailers to handle all transactions?
I expect that if both parties are experienced business persons, and know exactly what they are getting into before making the contract, then the courts would be very hesitant to disturb the contract simply because one side got a better deal out of it than the other, or one element of the contract cost one party or the other some expense. In short, it is up to the courts to ensure that the negotiations that led to the bargain were fair, but it is up to the parties to decide for themselves that the bargain is fair.
We’re all aware of English gentlemen’s predilections for spanking. The question is whether or not the VISA fee schedule is fair for the lady in such spanking sessions. (Asks Muffin, who is eagerly awaiting a whipping.)
Just came up with a brilliant TV advert for Master Card: follow some boor bastard VISA cardholder as he is ejected from pub after pub after pub for trying to use VISA to pay for a pint.
I was not respoding to your post. But here’s what you said "
Our merchant agreement, from the top of my head, takes about 2.2%* + 25 pence per transaction. This may not sound like much to you, but consider that our highest margin, on any product bar soft drinks, is 30%. Typical margin is 10 or 15%. This is before taxes, wages, utilities, etc. So our actual margin is closer to 5%. In other words, we won’t even break even taking Visa until the purchase is approaching £10.
Well, it is clear that the British school system doesn’t teach economics or Accounting, as " taxes, wages, utilities, etc" are *fixed expenses *which should not be figuered in as a % of the gross profit, thus your “actual margin is closer to 5%” figure is completely false… And you simply threw out a figure of "Typical margin is 10 or 15%. " which wasn’t backed by examples nor IRL. The typical mark-up on Beer is 40%. Thus a $5 six-pack costs a seller $3. Thus there is a $2 Gross profit on that item, subtracting the .35 charged in the USA leaves a margin of $1.65. Then if the sale is over $10, the % is around 2%, while if the average sale is under $10, the % can be as high as 3% (2.9% is the usual IRL max % paid). Meaning that the Gross profit (before fixed expenses) is less than a nickel (US) difference. So a Gross Profit of either 1.45 or 1.40.
You don’t add in “fixed expenses” as part of *Gross *profit. Net profit comes later and oddly enough is calculated on the Net, not each individual item.
A merchant should do as follows: Take your CC %, whether 2.9 or 2%. Then figure out how much as a % of total sales CC purchases are- let us say half. Then add 1.5 or 1% to the price of each item. If your CC sales are only 10% of your gross sales, then the amount is too tiny to figure.
"But what about the $00.35 I am being charged for each sale?’ you cry. Well, oddly enough your overall sales should increase enough to cover that and more simply by offering customers the convenience of paying with plastic.
Now, I am not adverse to putting up a sign that explains that you are charged more by Visa and MC for small sales and asking customers to pay cash if they can for sales under $10. I have seen those, and I have been moved by them, since it is a request, not a demand.
"Dear Customers. We are charged an extra fee on Credit Card sales under $10. Thus, if you can, please pay with cash on sales under $10. We want your business either way, so if all you have is plastic, we understand, and thank you for your business"**
Goodness me, you’ll be telling me to equate marginal cost with marginal revenue next!
You have assumed that these extra sales on credit cards will all be in addition to my current sales. I have assumed that they will replace current sales. I promise you that my model is closer to the mark.
Absolute rubbish. The larger supermarkets in the UK even run beer as a loss leader.
It is not feasible to increase prices by one percent.
I don’t doubt that this is the case for some businesses. I promise you that it isn’t for mine, and I’m rather amused that you think seem to think you have a better idea about this than me!
I wouldn’t recommend this course of action. Your friends will believe you. Your enemies will believe the bar.
Folks who don’t know you - well, I suspect that the bar’s version (complete with the bartender and bouncer) will play out better - ‘some guy came in looking to buy beer late and argued w/us about the transaction and was asked to leave’.
It’s not difficult to believe that the customer appearing late at the bar wanting to buy beer had already been drinking, it’s very easy to believe that some one who has already been drinking and encounters trouble when attempting to purchase more alcohol would become beligerant.
Unless you are a bar and you sell individual product that generally retails for under $ 10.
FWIW, I have NEVER been in a bar that doesn’t have a $ 20 minimum for credit card purchases.
I think it’s funny that everyone here is going against the small business. The minimum charge and the fact that in a bar, almost all of their purchases are less than $ 10, should be obvious as to why they would behave like that, and yet it isn’t. I have yet to see one offered solution for how a small business should proceed that doesn’t in some way fuck the small business. Small businesses are already known for being more expensive than corporate chains that have the benefit of buying in bulk. So let’s raise the price across the board to accomodate for the visa charge! :rolleyes:
This is a smalltown bartender it sounds like, so she probably has no idea what the Visa contract says, has no idea whether or not you are just trying to get one over on her, and isn’t going to call her Manager because some asshole is getting belligerent, that’s what the bouncer is for.
Neutron Star You are criminally negligent of the economics of bar management. I suggest you humble yourself and seek the teachings of this bartender, so that you’ll stop being such a belligerent asshole in the future.
Definitely on the side of the business here. I see no reason they should take a loss on any transaction, especially one where someone needs to finance a six-pack.
As I see it, them accepting the card is a convenience to me. It is one that I appreciate. And if they think the minimum is TEN WHOLE FREAKIN DOLLARS :eek: , well that doesn’t seem like a hardship, seeing what I get in return.
I cannot anderstand why ANYONE would feel cheated by this. They gave you the items you wanted…and you didn’t have to run out to the ATM. It’s win-win.
I do see your point and have a lot of sympathy for the “little guy,” but they don’t have to enter into the agreement with VISA. There are restaurants in our area that don’t. Those businesses have decided that the cost associated with VISA is more than the business they lose because they don’t accept credit cards. That’s their prerogative. That’s what your point misses, I think. Entering into a business relationship with VISA does not guarantee that every transaction will increase your profitability–some will decrease it. But in the aggregate, it will increase the business’s profitability–or so one would assume, if they entered into the agreement.
It seems like bad darts to enter into the agreement (accepting the added revenue that results), but ignoring the down side. If abiding by VISA’s rules overall reduces your business’s profits, then don’t enter into the agreement. Deal only in cash.
I’m missing your point here. If I only want $8 worth of stuff, how am I getting what I want?
.
I would be totally 100% satisfied with either of these. It s MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH^75 better then the sh!t they are pulling now
No one is really against small business here that I have heard, they are against dishonest business owners, who overwhelmingly, in regards to these types of agreements they have entered into and have blatantly ignored their end of the agreement they have made for their own enrichment and greed just happen to be mainly small business owners.
No one is really against small business here that I have heard, they are against dishonest business owners, who overwhelmingly, in regards to these types of agreements they have entered into and have blatantly ignored their end of the agreement they have made for their own enrichment and greed just happen to be mainly small business owners.