Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 20:43:09 +0100, nightja wrote:

    >
    > "devil" wrote in message
    > news[email protected]...
    > ....
    >> I don't believe trhis is quite the correct interpretation. You sign the
    >> slip *as a guarantee.*
    >
    > You could equally claim that the person who signs a credit card slip for a
    > ticket is signing it as a guarantee that they will pay the correct fare for
    > the journey undertaken.

Except, it's not. It's for a fixed charge.

I believe even the guarantee requires some sort of a confirmation signed
by you.

    >> Not quite the same as a blank cheque. They can't
    >> just arbitrarily add stuff.
    >
    > Neither does Eurotunnel arbitarily add stuff. They make surcharges in
    > accordance with their published terms and conditions, much as the hotel
    > publishes a list of prices for the minibar, which will be added to your bill
    > if you fail correctly to declare your useage at the time of leaving.

Without a signed slip, I believe there is no way the hotel can make these
charges stick if you contest them.

From the standpoint of the CC agreement these *are* arbitrary charges.
The credit card company is not a court of law. They don't get into the
merits of a contractual agreement. They merely checked whether you
approved the charge.

    > ...
    >> Try returning a damaged rental car. They sure will have you sign the
    >> bill.
    >
    > They will also charge your card for any traffic fines incurred by you when
    > using the car.

No they don't.

In North America, they send you a letter asking in no uncertain terms that
you send them a cheque. Under threat of "revoking your renting
privileges."

When in Europe, based upon my experience (renting in Germany and getting a
speeding ticket in Belgium) the rental car company passes on your
information. Local authorities then decide to either go after you or
not. I had rented giving a local address in Belgium, they sent the ticket
there. I told the folks there to say that I don't live there, the ticket
disappeared in a black hole.

Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 17:01:44 +0100, bigbrian wrote:

    > On Wed, 07 May 2003 14:23:26 GMT, "devil" wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 07 May 2003 13:47:22 +0100, bigbrian wrote:

    >>> But they can and do charge a supplmentary charge to the card if they
    >>> subsequently find charges that hadn't been included on the original
    >>> bill (last day minibar charges, for example)
    >>It is by no means clear whether they could make these stick if you contest them
    >>though.
    >
    > Assuming you don't contest charges that you know to be valid - which
    > would be an act of deception - its entirely clear that you can't
    > contest them.

That is not the point, is it?

    > If you complain to the credit card company that the hotel has
    > subsequently (after checking out) charged you for items which you
    > acknowledge are valid, but which you wish not to pay because they
    > didn't include them on the original bill, you'll get pretty short
    > shrift.

I would not be so sure. Acknowledging that you owe a charge and
authorizing them to be charged to a card are two different things.

You can very well say that yes, you acknowledge that you owe so and so to
the hotel but that you do not and never did authorize the charge to your
card.

    >>I have had a rental car company charge unauthorized stuff to me, in a
    >>similar scenario. When they failed to show the basis for the charge in
    >>question is was denied by the CC.
    >
    > Unauthorised is not the same as valid, supplementary charges

Actually, in the event, it was the basic rental charge that was in
dispute. Hertz Germany was charging a value that differed from the rental
agreement.

Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 23:05:31 +0100, bigbrian wrote:

    > On Wed, 07 May 2003 19:33:13 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
    > wrote:
    >
    >>bigbrian wrote:
    >>> If you complain to the credit card company that the hotel has
    >>> subsequently (after checking out) charged you for items which you
    >>> acknowledge are valid, but which you wish not to pay because they
    >>> didn't include them on the original bill, you'll get pretty short
    >>> shrift.
    >>Acknoledging that they are valid is not the same thing as agreeing that they
    >>may be charged to your credit card.
    >
    > IME, invariably you agree when you register that all valid charges can
    > be charged to the card

Perhaps. Possibly only until you check out.

But even if you do, this is only in the deal between the hotel and
you. That does not by itself constitute an authorization to the CC
company.

In other words, this is not an implicit authorization *given to* the credit
card. Merely a promise to the hotel.

nightjar

From what you write, I suspect that there are several basic differences in
the way that credit cards work in America as compared to Europe.

Colin Bignell

Devil

On Thu, 08 May 2003 08:45:36 +0100, nightja wrote:

    > From what you write, I suspect that there are several basic differences in
    > the way that credit cards work in America as compared to Europe.

Conceivably, although I have my doubts.

On one respect, I think we did establish (some time back) at least one
difference: that in the UK, it can be legal to charge a higher price to
credit card customers. Which elsewhere would be in violation of the
merchant's CC agreement.

Still, it could simply be that they just get away more easily with things
that would not stick if the customer would complain.

In the case I had with Hertz Germany, they surely tried. They lost.
The real question is whether a European-based CC would have handled the
issue differently.

Are CC contracts different? I would have thought not, but who knows.

In the case under discussion, I don't think we manged to establish once
and for all whether (1) the charge would stick if contested and (2)
that the policy was actually tested in court. So, it still may simply be
intimidation. As long as people don't fight, they get away with it. But
until these pending questions remain, who knows.

I have also noted that putting a minumum charge requirement for CC
transactions, which at least on this side of the pond, is a clear
violation of the merchant agreement, is much more common in Europe. They
also seem to get away with it. Presumably because people don't complaint?

Jonathan Bryce

wrote:

    > The basic fallacy that keeps cropping up is the presumption that the
    > charge made by Eurotunnel is for damages. It is not. It is for the
    > difference between two fares, in accordance with their published terms and
    > conditions, which were accepted by the act of buying the ticket.

If I buy a return on eg. Virgin Trains, and only travel one way, Virgin
don't seek to refund the difference between the single and return tickets,
nor do I expect to have much hope of getting it.

The agreement was

You pay some money
They make a seat available for you
You turn up
They take you to your destination.


If you don't turn up, then fine, they don't take you to your destination,
but why should you have to pay extra over and above what you have already
given them for that?

Jonathan Bryce

devil wrote:

    > I have also noted that putting a minumum charge requirement for CC
    > transactions, which at least on this side of the pond, is a clear
    > violation of the merchant agreement, is much more common in Europe. They
    > also seem to get away with it. Presumably because people don't complaint?

I suspect for many retailers, if they were forced to have a minimum charge,
and make a loss on the transaction, they wouldn't take credit cards at all.

barney

In article ,
[email protected] (Jonathan Bryce) wrote:

    > If you don't turn up, then fine, they don't take you to your
    > destination,
    > but why should you have to pay extra over and above what you have
    > already
    > given them for that?

Because, in the case of Eurotunnel and the ferries, it is what you agreed
to do when you made a contract with them by purchasing the ticket in the
first place. If you recall, this thread started on the question of whether
this is an *unfair* contract term -- not whether it is an eccentric one,
or an unattractive one!

It is not a charge for *not* making the return trip (and I agree it would
fly in the face of common sense and fairness to make that kind of charge,
which is why it has been so difficult to find an adequate analogy from
other businesses). Rather it is a charge for taking a trip other than that
you bought a ticket for -- or, if you prefer, a charge for altering your
ticket type...which brings us neatly to Ryanair.

Devil

On Thu, 08 May 2003 20:06:55 +0000, barne wrote:

    > In article ,
    > [email protected] (Jonathan Bryce) wrote:
    >
    >> If you don't turn up, then fine, they don't take you to your
    >> destination,
    >> but why should you have to pay extra over and above what you have
    >> already
    >> given them for that?
    >
    > Because, in the case of Eurotunnel and the ferries, it is what you agreed
    > to do when you made a contract with them by purchasing the ticket in the
    > first place. If you recall, this thread started on the question of whether
    > this is an *unfair* contract term -- not whether it is an eccentric one,
    > or an unattractive one!
    >
    > It is not a charge for *not* making the return trip (and I agree it would
    > fly in the face of common sense and fairness to make that kind of charge,
    > which is why it has been so difficult to find an adequate analogy from
    > other businesses). Rather it is a charge for taking a trip other than that
    > you bought a ticket for -- or, if you prefer, a charge for altering your
    > ticket type...which brings us neatly to Ryanair.

Either ways, we are dealing with exercises in semantics. Semantics from
the ferry/airline vs. semantics from the throw-away-return user.

Favoring one view or the other. Only proper resolution would be a court precedent.

Devil

On Thu, 08 May 2003 20:50:56 +0100, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

    > devil wrote:
    >
    >> I have also noted that putting a minumum charge requirement for CC
    >> transactions, which at least on this side of the pond, is a clear
    >> violation of the merchant agreement, is much more common in Europe. They
    >> also seem to get away with it. Presumably because people don't complaint?
    >
    > I suspect for many retailers, if they were forced to have a minimum charge,
    > and make a loss on the transaction, they wouldn't take credit cards at all.

"If they were?" I think they actually are, but they violate their
agreement.

barney

In article ,
[email protected] (devil) wrote:


    > Either ways, we are dealing with exercises in semantics. Semantics
    > from
    > the ferry/airline vs. semantics from the throw-away-return user.
    >
    > Favoring one view or the other. Only proper resolution would be a
    > court precedent.

True. But, wrt unfair contract terms, the relevant UK legislation is
fairly narrow in defining what's "unfair". Semantics it may be -- but it
is that legal definition of unfairness that's important!

From memory, some things are absolutely "unfair" (for example, a contract
in which the seller attempts to absolve themselves of responsibility for
the death of or injury to the consumer). The broadest definition, and I'm
paraphrasing, is something like "a contract term whereby the obligations
on the parties are significantly unbalanced".

Also AIUI, though not relevant to the situation we're discussing so added
here purely as a matter of interest, individually negotiated contract
terms are never unfair.

Mark Brader

Colin Bignell:
    > What is offensive about being able to buy cheap return fares, subject
    > to certain restrictions, at less than the single fare price?

Nothing. What's offensive is the provision of such fares *only* to
people actually making a round trip, without a similarly cheap fare
available for one-way travel.

The reason many of us find it offensive is this. A round trip is
made up of outward and return journeys, each of which the company
must spend money and resources to provide. Now consider one person
who complies with all conditions and obtains the cheap fare, and a
second person who is able to comply with all the conditions except
that he travels only one way. They consume the identical outward
trip; only the first person consumes the return trip; and the first
person pays less. In effect the charge for the return trip is
negative. Which is financially reasonable only if they are charging
an offensively excessive fare to someone else -- in this case, the
person traveling one way.

Many of us feel that prices should in some way relate to the cost
of providing the goods or services offered, and that anything else
is offensive. It is reasonable to charge extra for last-minute
travel, because providing it requires the company to operate seats
that may go empty. It is reasonable to charge more for the outward
than the return trip, because it helps balance loads and because
it's more efficient to ticket two journeys together. But it is
not reasonable, we feel, to charge more for a round trip than a
one-way under similar circumstances. And it's similarly offensive
to charge less for a longer trip than for a shorter one included
within it, as has also been known to happen.

I suppose the real answer is, "if you could even ask that question,
you'll never understand". Perhaps you think that one-way travelers
are simply a separate market and that it's fair to charge them what
that market will bear. Okay, suppose the company had found that
their female customers are more likely then males to find the cost
of travel objectionable, and decided it was good marketing to charge
men 25% more than women for the identical trip. That's an example
of a cheaper fare with "certain restrictions" -- is it reasonable,
or is it offensive?
--
Mark Brader "Men are animals."
Toronto "What are women? Plants, birds, fish?"
[email protected] -- Spider Robinson, "Night of Power"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader

Colin Bignell:
    > That still perpetuates the misunderstanding that a return trip is a
    > composite of two single trips, rather than a separate service existing in
    > its own right.

Yes, that's because it *is*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Altruism is a fine motive, but if you want results,
[email protected] | greed works much better." -- Henry Spencer

Petem

nightjar@?.? alleged:
    >"News User" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >...
    >> That's not a good analogy, surely ... How about you go to buy two sofas
    >> for £800. But then you decide to take only one sofa and not have the
    >> other. Now would you like to still pay £800?
    >That still perpetuates the misunderstanding that a return trip is a
    >composite of two single trips, rather than a separate service existing in
    >its own right.

Leaving aside the legalities, why *do* they do this? What is the
commercial advantage to Eurotunnel in doing so?

--
PeteM

Percy Picacity

PeteM wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > nightjar@?.? alleged:

    >>That still perpetuates the misunderstanding that a return trip is
    >>a composite of two single trips, rather than a separate service
    >>existing in its own right.
    >
    > Leaving aside the legalities, why *do* they do this? What is the
    > commercial advantage to Eurotunnel in doing so?
    >

People who don't need to go to France, and could not justify the full
commercial cost of the trip will take a cheap day out and fill empty
seats while providing a small marginal income to the railway company.
These are additional travellers who would not travel to France at all
if the full fare prevailed.

Such fares are common practice in the airline industry. At one stage, I
could get a cheap return flight from US to UK cheaper than any single
flight to US. But I would not be able to use the return half unless I
made the outward journey. There is no law of nature or commerce saying
that everyone has to be charged the same price for the same journey!



--
Percy Picacity