|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
A.J.,
> Which brings us to the central point - charges made on one's credit
> card require that they be made in writing, and one must sign as
> proof that they are approved.
Yes, A friend of mine had a similar experience. He was in a
restaurant in Aspen - where he enjoyed an especially bad service.
He even got into an argument with the waitress about it. This is why
he decided not to give any tip. Upon arrival of the credit card slip
he just put the sum of the bill into the total sum box - so that NO
tip could be added.
When he arrived back in London and received his credit card
statement he got a restaurant bill which was DOUBLE the original
amount.
What had happend ? He had filled the total sum into the tip box
instead of the last box on the credit card slip :-) The waitress must
have enjoyed this moment.
Needless to say that he did not receive a refund.
Gerrit
> Insisting on the charges for this was appalling - but here's the
> other side of it, for those who may be interested.
>
> Although our friend assumes that two-fifty implies $2.50, it is just
> as common that it would indicate $250. In fact, it is common for
> $250 to be expressed verbally as two-fifty and not two hundred and
> fifty. Most of the time, it is fairly obvious which amount is being
> referred to. However, it could be claimed that one is not buying one
> or two cookies, but the knowledge to produce these delicious treats,
> which may not be worth $250, but could easily be construed to be
> worth far more than $2.50, especially to the exclusive clientele
> that frequents this store. Therefore, it would be a stretch indeed
> to suggest that the employee intentionally tried to use deception
> here, especially since all purchases have to be approved by the
> customer, either in writing by way of a credit card charge, or by
> making payment at the time of sale.
>
> Which brings us to the central point - charges made on one's credit
> card require that they be made in writing, and one must sign as
> proof that they are approved. Even if he/she had no idea that
> acquiring the recipe was going to be so expensive, any confusion
> would have been cleared up here, save for the negligence on the part
> of the customer, who is fully responsible for examining the charges
> prior to approval.
>
> What about the lack of a refund? The store is right insofar as the
> benefit has already been conveyed, since there isn't any real way to
> return information. Moreover, there isn't any real grounds why the
> return should be granted, other than a misunderstanding arising from
> the customer's own negligence.
>
> Just playing devil's advocate here - personally, I feel the whole
> affair should have been settled in the interests of goodwill.
>
> A.J.
|