Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!larry From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: Checks and Credit Card ID Message-ID: <742@kitty.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 08:45:00 EST Article-I.D.: kitty.742 Posted: Thu Jan 23 08:45:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 11:16:37 EST References: <220@micropro.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 30 > Here's a new wrinkle. We went to a Lane Bryant store (for ladies > clothes) and, when my wife wrote the check, the cashier stamped it on > the back, recorded my wifes drivers licence and credit card and then > asked her to sign the back of the check under the following rubber > stamped text: > > THE CUSTOMER AGREES THAT IN THE EVENT THIS CHECK IS RETURNED > AS UNCOLLECTABLE, WE MAY CHARGE THE CUSTOMERS VISA, MASTERCARD, > AMERICAN EXPRESS, OR LANE BRYANT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THIS CHECK > AND A SERVICE FEE OF $15.00. > > Surprise! comments? I think that's clever! With the rather loose interpretation which the major credit card companies give to charging methods (i.e., via telephone, mail order with only a card number, etc.), I would think that this statement is legally enforceable. From a consumer standpoint, no one should get bent out of shape over the practice unless they intend to write a rubber check to begin with. Many stores have a serious rubber check problem, which in most cases winds up costing them money (for returned deposit item fees, if nothing else). This needless expense becomes part of their overhead, which gets passed on to the consumer in higher prices. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==