AMEX not accepted or surcharge

[jetpack]

Uber, Deliveroo, etc don't take cash. I can't imagine that is illegal.

 

[Legoman]

Uber, Deliveroo, etc don't take cash. I can't imagine that is illegal.

The difference here I believe is that these are subscription services where you have to register & sign up before you can use them. In that process I'm sure there's a set of terms & conditions and agreements you must accept before they will welcome you as a potential customer. In those T&C's will be a condition about the method by which you agree to pay them. It will probably be in the conditions of sale. The concept of legal tender lies under all of this, not on top trumping them.

You can refuse to accept their terms as having precedence if you wish in order to try and force them to accept legal tender, but they also have the right to not serve you as a customer. A right they will exercise.

This is a slightly different situation to a bricks & mortar shop selling pizza to a passing physical customer base in a shopping centre. There is an understandable expectation in the community that if you enter a shopping centre with cash in your pocket, you are capable of buying anything from any vendor in that shopping centre without question. Perhaps this pizza shop owner is on the bleeding edge of trying to change that perception?

By way of contrast, there is an olds-cool, fish & chip shop near me run by an old Greek fisher person and his deckie mate. Brilliant product and well known in the local circles kinda place. All marketing by word of mouth only. You know the kind of place. He accepts nothing but cash to the extreme point of still serving you and trusting that you'll come back and pay him later if you expected to be able to pay by card and had no cash on you when you ordered. Of course, with the kind of following he has and a regular clientel, you'd be taking your life in your hands if you didn't come back and settle up, so I think he knows he's pretty safe!

 

[FrequentFlyer85]

The difference here I believe is that these are subscription services where you have to register & sign up before you can use them. In that process I'm sure there's a set of terms & conditions and agreements you must accept before they will welcome you as a potential customer. In those T&C's will be a condition about the method by which you agree to pay them. It will probably be in the conditions of sale. The concept of legal tender lies under all of this, not on top trumping them.

You can refuse to accept their terms as having precedence if you wish in order to try and force them to accept legal tender, but they also have the right to not serve you as a customer. A right they will exercise.

This is a slightly different situation to a bricks & mortar shop selling pizza to a passing physical customer base in a shopping centre. There is an understandable expectation in the community that if you enter a shopping centre with cash in your pocket, you are capable of buying anything from any vendor in that shopping centre without question. Perhaps this pizza shop owner is on the bleeding edge of trying to change that perception?

That's not correct.

"It appears that a provider of goods or services is at liberty to set the commercial terms upon which payment will take place before the ‘contract’ for supply of the goods or services is entered into... If a provider of goods or services specifies other means of payment prior to the contract, then there is usually no obligation for legal tender to be accepted as payment." (see RBA Banknotes: Legal Tender)

A bricks and mortar shop has just as much right to set terms regarding the payment methods they will accept before a contract is formed as an online business does.

 

[Legoman]

I would think it comes down to an argument as to when the contract has been formed. With online subscription business models, this is black and white. There is no ambiguity. With a foot traffic shop in a shopping centre, it's much less well defined. Is it when the customer walks in the store, or when they place their order? Maybe it's when they actually entered the entire shopping centre because the individual businesses within no doubt have an agreement with the centre management they must all comply with as sub-tenants. What if the customer says they didn't see the sign advising the payment terms because it was obscured by other shoppers blocking its view? These are all issues that could make the argument a very grey area I wouldn't like to navigate, which is why you probably don't see any shops trying this tactic of not accepting cash.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

Getting back to the topic (AMEX not accepted or surcharge ), there is finally a coffee place near where I live that takes AMEX. Was one of the only purchases that required my Visa to come out, so I'm happy to have another one in the AMEX camp.

But come on AMEX, still can't use the card for Queensland car rego, Brisbane City Council rates, QLD drivers licenses, Brisbane street parking meters... I know those would all be 'government charges', but still.

There seems to be a new bill payment app called Sniip which I've installed which allows you to pay BCC rates and you can add an AMEX card as payment, but it cautions that AMEX acceptance is up to the biller, and BCC is notoriously AMEX-stingey, so I doubt it'd work with them. (Don't have a bill to pay yet to test it out.)

 

[Legoman]

But come on AMEX, still can't use the card for Queensland car rego, Brisbane City Council rates, QLD drivers licenses, Brisbane street parking meters... <snip> it cautions that AMEX acceptance is up to the biller

Why do you want to whinge at AMEX about acceptance, when you've been told already that it's up to the biller to decide what they'll accept?

I guess AMEX's fees must be considerably less in their home country, because over in Trump-land AMEX is accepted everywhere.

 

[Le Clair]

We have a small business in Hervey Bay, Queensland. Accept AmEx of course. Business is not so swimmingly easy that we can afford to pick and choose how our customers pay us. Surcharges - NEVER! Now, I am not talking about $10 payments, average payment is $5,000. More than happy to take AmEx, surcharge free, payments (and have) for $30,000. Hate cash. Waste of time counting it when given, then it has to be stored, then taken to the bank - drive, park, fill out a deposit slip, stand in a queue, watch the teller count it, wait for a receipt and then be charged an over-the-counter deposit fee. Or, swipe a card, press a few buttons and presto, the next day the money is in the bank - magic. For 0.8% Visa and Master and 1.5% AmEx, its a bargain.

 

[Le Clair]

Why do you want to whinge at AMEX about acceptance, when you've been told already that it's up to the biller to decide what they'll accept?

I guess AMEX's fees must be considerably less in their home country, because over in Trump-land AMEX is accepted everywhere.

Even Aldi, surcharge free what's more.

 

[Legoman]

Councils though are much more aware they're spending ratepayers money. I wish state & federal government were as aware they're spending taxpayer money as councils are they're spending ratepayers money. Councils are more mindful of criticism coming back to haunt them if they're seen to be wasting ratepayer money. They're closer to their funding source, unlike politicians and an easier target for anger/protest. If they don't have the buying power to negotiate a competitive commission rate with AMEX, then it's probably prudent for them to not accept it, else they can face a backlash.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

Why do you want to whinge at AMEX about acceptance, when you've been told already that it's up to the biller to decide what they'll accept?

The phrasing of your loaded question aside, that's the case with every merchant, so this is hardly any different. My full post (of which you've only partially quoted) said that the specific app advises that it can only process AMEX if the biller chooses to accept it.

In Queensland's case, the council isn't exactly "spending ratepayers' money" on credit card fees, either: a surcharge is levied on all Visa and Mastercard payments to recover the processing cost, so logically, AMEX could be accepted at a higher surcharge to recover the processing cost also, which would ultimately 'cost' the council nothing. Ditto Queensland Government with car registration which also applies a surcharge to Visa and Mastercard.

 

[oz_mark]

No it's not even remotely legal. Cash is legal tender which means there is a legal requirement to accept it within certain limits that a pizza shop would never get near.

The Reserve Bank disagrees with you

However although transactions are to be in Australian currency unless otherwise agreed or specified, and Australian currency has legal tender status, Australian banknotes and coins do not necessarily have to be used in transactions and refusal to accept payment in legal tender banknotes and coins is not unlawful.

RBA Banknotes: Legal Tender

 

[WeeWillyWonka]

Councils though are much more aware they're spending ratepayers money. I wish state & federal government were as aware they're spending taxpayer money as councils are they're spending ratepayers money. Councils are more mindful of criticism coming back to haunt them if they're seen to be wasting ratepayer money. They're closer to their funding source, unlike politicians and an easier target for anger/protest. If they don't have the buying power to negotiate a competitive commission rate with AMEX, then it's probably prudent for them to not accept it, else they can face a backlash.

You gotta be kidding here, right? Councils are just as guilty as state and federal governments for wasting rate-payers money.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

drive, park, fill out a deposit slip, stand in a queue, watch the teller count it, wait for a receipt and then be charged an over-the-counter deposit fee.

Cash Deposit Machines are pretty handy

Narev, who will be leaving CBA by mid-2018, said the bank had decided to set a 200-banknote deposit limit on its IDMs to satisfy its small business customers, and that had set a theoretical deposit limit of $20,000.

The Labor MP Matt Thistlethwaite said: “If you’re a criminal and you want to launder $3.5m and send it overseas through one of these machines, if CBA’s takes 200 notes and the other [banks’ machines] take a quarter of that, it’s a no-brainer isn’t it, for a criminal?”

Narev said: “We are certainly open and eager to have any discussions we can based on what we’ve learned about whatever changes we should make [to these machines] that will make us do our job better.”

 

[Legoman]

The phrasing of your loaded question aside

I'm sorry, but I didn't mean for my question to be taken as loaded. It was a genuine question looking for an answer. You were figuratively asking AMEX why they wouldn't get on board with no surcharges, but then in the next line you quoted that you had been told the merchants decide and set the surcharges you as the customer gets to see. I couldn't see the worth in questioning AMEX, when they would only have limited capacity to influence what the merchant decides to do with respect surcharges.

The Reserve Bank disagrees with you

In this case then I must not fully understand the meaning of the words legal or unlawful, because the Reserve Bank appears to be using them in conflict with each other. I rather think the RBA is trying to cover all possible bases here by stretching the meaning and application of words to breaking point. It sounds like a similar legal mumbo jumbo wordplay they're using with cigarettes too. They want to keep cigarettes legal because they're addicted to the tax revenue they generate, but at the same time they want them to be virtually unlawful by every other means possible because they don't want the public health expenditure from the results of using them. How to make something both legal + unlawful at the same time? The RBA has the answer!

You gotta be kidding here, right? Councils are just as guilty as state and federal governments for wasting rate-payers money.

Yes they are, but that's not strictly what I said. I said councils are more closely aware of the potential consequences and pitfalls for them of wasting public money than governments are. Councils can be sacked and often are. Governments can be sacked too, but that's a big constitutional drama if it happens and the last time was in 1975, so it's much less likely.

I only know this because I'm involved in a community action group with my local council right now since February over a local issue which has involved numerous meetings at council chambers and just this last weekend a mayoral address in a local park. I can assure you they are acutely aware of the fragility of the limb they climb out on when they do things like take cases to court, lose and then cop the winner's legal costs to pay as well as their own from ratepayers' money. This does not go down well and there is a backlash to pay.

 

[basso]

In this case then I must not fully understand the meaning of the words legal or unlawful, because the Reserve Bank appears to be using them in conflict with each other. I rather think the RBA is trying to cover all possible bases here by stretching the meaning and application of words to breaking point. It sounds like a similar legal mumbo jumbo wordplay they're using with cigarettes too. They want to keep cigarettes legal because they're addicted to the tax revenue they generate, but at the same time they want them to be virtually unlawful by every other means possible because they don't want the public health expenditure from the results of using them. How to make something both legal + unlawful at the same time? The RBA has the answer!

Just because something can be used as payment, doesn't mean that it has to be. It seems to be buried in the idea that prices etc in a shop are an 'invitation to treat', not an offer. Where a debt does not exist already (such as when you enter a shop), they can state that they don't want to accept a particular form of payment.

 

[Legoman]

The concept of what legal tender means then has shifted significantly. It used to mean that if it was offered as payment, then yes, it was in fact illegal to not accept it. It could not be refused. It really was as simple as that. There were limits of course. Copper coins (when they still existed) were only legal tender up to $2 in value. If someone offered $2.01 in payment using entirely copper coins, then it did not constitute legal tender and could be refused. Silver coins were only legal tender up to $20 total value I think. When gold coins were introduced, this extended to $50 I think. Notes were always legal tender and in fact carry the words "This Australian Note is Legal Tender Throughout Australia and its Territories". All of the Australian paper banknotes in my collection carry that wording on the front face under the RBA govenor's signature.

If you think about it, this makes perfect sense and arguably it's how it should be. Bank notes have no intrinsic value on their own. They're just sheets of cotton paper or polymer composite. It's what they represent that has value and what they represent is trust that when you offer them as payment, they will be unquestionably accepted as promissary notes with a defined value that everyone agrees on. When that trust breaks down or is broken down by a loss of confidence, then people start runs on banks and start buying other things with rarity value instead such as precious metals or stones or using another country's currency instead like the residents of Zimbabwe & Venezuela are doing. I have a 50 Billion Dollar note from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in my collection which is worth nothing.

It's a different world though I guess and Legal Tender no longer means what it used to, but the RBA seem to be skirting the definitions of the English language to try and avoid saying so and thus instantly destroying the concept of trust in Australia's currency like India did when they scrapped high value notes overnight with no warning.

 

[Mr_Orange]

Even Aldi, surcharge free what's more.

I assume you mean Aldi in the US? Aldi here does not accept Amex and surcharges for Visa and MC.

 

[mark_syd]

Had Yum Cha at East Ocean Restaurant in Chinatown (Haymarket) and a 2.5% Amex surcharge has now been introduced, previously no surcharge for Amex. Visa/MasterCard was no surcharge.

SkyPhoenix Westfield Sydney introduced a 1.5% 'card payment fee' for all cards some months ago. Previously all cards, including Amex, were surcharge free.

 

[snabbu]

Apologies if this has been covered earlier but I was floored the other day when for the first time I saw a merchant charging no fees for Amex and 1.5% for Visa / MC. If only this was the norm...

 

[coriander]

Family dinner at Rosetta this evening for son #3's 20th birthday (no more teenagers in the house!). 2% surcharge on Amex which doesn't appear till you're about to enter your pin. "But sir, you will get the 4 QFF points per dollar on the surcharge as well". Grrr....

Loved the manager's comment whilst sighting and recording the QFF number on my card for the Rockpool bonus "ooh, Platinum, you must fly a lot" (smiled to myself thinking, no we just fly smart <g!>).

Oh well it all adds up - (a) booked through QF restaurants, (b) bonus Rockpool points, (c) 1.5 points on Amex Ultimate.