Tis The Season,.. to WILLINGLY give up Your Rights

OK,

That is where the confusion sets in...

Breaking a Contract is NOT, I repeat NOT a violation of the Law in and of itself...

It falls almost completely under the Civil Statute and NOT the Criminal Code.

That being said, no one is going to get arrested for Breaking a Contract.... Not under any law that I am aware of..

"Breach" of Contract is a very common legal Torte, that is exclusive to the Civil Branch of the Judiciary....

Just to make it clear..

Semper

Originally posted by smirkley
The 'unfortunate soul' that runs the register should not allow him/herself to be a stooge for the store manager/owner who wishes on their own accord to break the rules or laws.

But at he same time, this unfortunate soul, needs to pay the bills. A lot of their workers are not there by choice. They need this pay check, and not every locality has an abundance of open positions. Some people are lucky to have a job, and need to do what they can to hold onto it. The fact is, nobody grows up and wants to work at Wal-Mart. So at best, these people are just dealing with the job they have. They don't love their work, so I'm willing to make things easier for them.

The point I am trying to make is, most times they do not have an option. They may have to be this stooge, to buy diapers for their baby at home.

The worker at the check-out, does not deserve to hear our ridicule. That is my only criticism to this thread. The wrong person is having the finger pointed at them.

But yes, there's more


A case went thru court is an example below...

LAWSUIT FILED OVER WAL-MART’S VIOLATION OF VISA CHECK
PLAINTIFF HOPES THAT SHEDDING LIGHT ON THESE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES WILL STOP CONSUMER ABUSE



Bruce Hillberry, a resident of Louisville, Kentucky filed a lawsuit against the corporate giant Wal-Mart in Jefferson Circuit Court. Mr. Hillberry filed and is handling the matter as a Pro-Se Plaintiff, a move practically unheard of in today’s legal environment. In a strange twist, the Defendant who was named in the complaint failed to answer, creating an interesting legal question that is now being brought to the United States Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

The allegations waged against the conglomerate are ones that many average Americans may have submitted to or been a victim of, and not even have realized that Wal-Mart was overstepping its legal bounds. The lawsuit alleged that the retailer has in place a systematic means of requiring the photo identification of the customer when conducting a Visa Card and/or Check Card Transaction. A brief filed by a Wal-Mart subsidiary confirms this. The commercials broadcasted nationwide by the Visa Corporation explain that the main benefit of use of their Card is that Identification is not required. In Mr. Hillberry’s case, the system imposed by Visa was not even attempted. Rather, Wal-Mart has its register systems set to violate the terms of that contractual relationship with Visa and the Customer. The Visa Policy of no Identification required was confirmed through a representative from Visa International.

So here is a CASE that is relevent (now closed by judge for lack of jurisdiction).

Not just me stating my own personal views.

See what VISA sent him...
www.bay54.com...

and as a note, the USPS policy on such related.
www.bay54.com...

www.imsuing.com...

At the start of the Christmas Shopping Season, Mr. Hillberry went to the local Walrelevant-Mart to buy a few incidentals. He waited in a long line that day as has become customary at most Wal-Mart stores around the Country. He finally arrived at the cash register and was greeted by a weary worker, who wasn't quite like the happy holiday workers depicted in their commercials.

He loaded his items on the belt, she scanned them, and gave him his total. He pulled out his Visa Check Card to pay. I bet everyone has seen the Visa Check Card commercials that prompt you to use their Card so that you don't have to be troubled with searching for I.D. If you haven't, you can see one for yourself. .

Well, he swiped his Card, and was asked to show his drivers license. (Remember, what Visa says.) So, he told her that he hadn't brought it in, as he was using the Visa Card and it was never required before. She decided to move right on to calling the manager. When he got there, he wasn't interested in passing any Christmas cheer along to Mr. Hillberry. Instead, after the cashier told him that Mr. Hillberry did not have his drivers license, the manager starting punching the keys of the register. Mr. Hillberry did not receive the award winning satisfaction that was praised by J.D. Powers. My understanding is that he got something more akin to the feeling that Ms. Catherine Herrell talked about in her Wal-Mart satisfaction rating. Not the same circumstances, but the same feeling of yuk!

Mr. Hillberry did try to find out exactly what was going on, but he was told to leave the store. Naturally, he was surprised by this, and decided to inform Mr. Manager that the Visa Check Card does not require an I.D. The response was that Wal-Mart did. Of course, it was for Mr. Hillberry's protection. While that sounds very thoughtful, customers are protected by the Superheroes at Visa. So perhaps Wal-Mart should just try the honest approach and tell their customers that they are really watching out for their own billion (yes, I said BILLION) dollar wallet. The fact is, Wal-Mart can't tell you that because it is not part of the agreement (contract) that they sign with Visa.

For those of you who didn't know, and many don't- the Visa policy as confirmed by Visa International- is as follows:

If you go to purchase with a Visa emblazoned card, the process is to swipe it, then sign the receipt that is printed out. The cashier is supposed to compare the signature on the card with the one you just gave them on the receipt. There are so many people who do not understand this process or the rules that Visa has laid out for companies like Wal-Mart.

Now I am still doing a little searching, and I will find more, if not exactly what I seek. I am diligent yes.

I honestly would love to see a scan of that VISA-SC State Police memo, as it would implicate exactly what I am suggesting. That foul play is occurring, and LEGAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN.

Now, tell me, room for improprieties anywhere?




Now, for some fun ...

How far could I go before they would check my credit card signature?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Breaking a Contract is NOT, I repeat NOT a violation of the Law in and of itself...

It falls almost completely under the Civil Statute and NOT the Criminal Code.

That being said, no one is going to get arrested for Breaking a Contract.... Not under any law that I am aware of..

"Breach" of Contract is a very common legal Torte, that is exclusive to the Civil Branch of the Judiciary....

I am not suggesting that I was implying "an arrestable offense" is being committed. But if a contract is broken, and a judge has it before him on decision, he would allow for a decision, no? Implying since you don't get arrested for breaking a contract, does not mean it isn't able to be litigated. And if done with malicious intent, quite possibly becoming criminal as a result. No?



Let me turn the tables for a second, just for a different look at things.

You go to a store to buy a beer, and the clerk appropriately asks for your government issue ID to verify your age requirement. You flip it out, feeling not bothered by it as it is required. Then the clerk asks for a valid VISA card to substantiate that it is who you are. (I know, apples and oranges, but bear with me for a moment)


Of course that is ridiculous. Right?

Primarily because the government identification (drivers license, etc) IS identification and would be upheld in any court that it IS identification.

Well,...


SO is a VISA Card !!

... and would be upheld in any court that it is its own identification. As advertised. As already upheld in courts.


So again,... tell me why it is OK to submit to a demand for additional identification when presenting a VISA?


I have not heard one valid argument yet that explains why such a demand should be complied with. Not one.

Yet I bet half of you out there, at least, ... have been in such a situation where the sale was contingent of additional identification being required!


I have heard in explanation,... no big worries, ... hurts the little guys,.. gets the clerks in trouble with their boss,.. and is not a crime at all.

Yet when it involves two very big corporate powerhouses as well as the police, and all as an action against the consumer, and not to generally benefit the consumer, and against the (written) policies of all parties involved,...


I defy them, I deny them. I have a right to say no, and I will, even if it means I will not go home with that particular product or service I was shopping for.

Since I cannot instigate a class action suit on my own, the best I can do is INFORM persons of the wrongdoing upon them, and the ILLEGAL actions being perpetrated upon them by corporate America, and hopefully show some people that this IS actually a very good example of how one may lose his "larger"rights.

Almost subliminally.

Originally posted by smirkley
I have not heard one valid argument yet that explains why such a demand should be complied with. Not one.

Well, I have not heard one valid argument of why we would refuse to show our identification?

It is our right to refuse. Ok, we have heard that. But were dealing with an ethical question here. Do I show my identification and give up my right, or do I refuse to show my identification and give up a portion of my day.

Whats more important to you?

Well obviously our time has been more important for several members in this thread, myself included. For smirkley, it seems your right is more important. It is important for both sides to see this, understand, and most importantly respect the other's wishes. If you choose to make a fuss over this, so be it. But I truly feel that this choice is only causing frustration to be taken out on a completely innocent person. I support your right, but I do not support the bashing of a clerk who does not deserve it.

Fight corporate, if not, leave it alone. Bickering with a clerk is not going to change a thing. If your making yourself believe your trying to make a difference, then go after the right people.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by smirkley
I have not heard one valid argument yet that explains why such a demand should be complied with. Not one.

Well, I have not heard one valid argument of why we would refuse to show our identification?

One valid argument? Common now, VISA gives you that right.
The courts uphold that right.
The right exists.

Lets say you go to McDonalds and ask for a hamburger, but when you get it you realize they left out the meat. You have a right to have meat in your hamburger, it was advertised that way, and you paid for it.

I would recommend as indicated in this thread, to go back to the counter, and ask for your hamburger with meat, and if the clerk refuses, then ask for the manager.

Chissler, it seems your recommendation would be to just quietly and meekly walk away and enjoy your pickle and mustard between bread meatless hamburger, for the sake of saving time and not harassing and bickering with the clerk, and if you were to take action, to take it out on the corporation, as that is your preferred actionable right. No?

Originally posted by smirkley
I challenge anyone when confronted in such a scenario,..

Ask to speak to the manager and tell then you feel they have violated their merchant agreement by asking for additional ID.
They will comply once they realize the err of their ways.

If they still refuse to make the transaction, just call the 800 number hotline VISA has available for consumers for this exact reason, and VISA will splain it to them in a way they can understand.

This is quoted from the first page of this thread.
This shows proper sequence of action.

1 - present credit card for payment to clerk.
2 - clerk asks for additional ID.
3 - refuse additional ID politely.
4 - if clerk says ok, then ok, but if clerk says it is needed, then just ask for the manager.
5 - when manager shows up, explain that you refuse to show ID to make a transaction, and it is against their merchant agreement with VISA.
6 - if manager disagree's, thank him for his time, do not purchase or make purchase for cash, and when you get home call the VISA 800 number they have setup just for this purpose, to report non-compliance.



In store time, maybe 10 minutes additional, out of store time, maybe 10 minutes more too. My life isnt so busy where I cant take 20 minutes to correct a wrongdoing.

Well obviously our time has been more important for several members in this thread, myself included.
..
If you choose to make a fuss over this, so be it. But I truly feel that this choice is only causing frustration to be taken out on a completely innocent person. I support your right, but I do not support the bashing of a clerk who does not deserve it.
..
Bickering with a clerk is not going to change a thing. If your making yourself believe your trying to make a difference, then go after the right people.

Nobody is bashing or arguing with any clerks, nobody is detained for hours, nobody is harassed. VISA will contact their merchant account provider and the store will be informed of their error.

I don't have time to fully respond to the post, but I do have time to say this.

I would, & have, gone back for the meat!

However, you are arguing apples & oranges. Were not discussing the quality of the product, we are discussing the manner in which we purchase the product.

So that comparison does not really fit.

Well, a direct inquiry in a professional manner, produced this in reply directly from VISA ...

Any information not listed on our website is considered confidential and proprietary, and we would not be able to provide further details of this nature.

This tells me three things,...

1 - the common public must accept all statements from VISA as fact, via their website as a published conduit, including the public version of the expected merchant agreement and policies.

2 - that VISA's authorized merchants can be told from official VISA sources, to operate otherwise than what is stated on their "official publication" website as far as merchant expectations and policies (as indicated by a post in this thread), and VISA could look the other way if desired.

3 - that VISA corp considers public domain information such as court records and/or proceedings, as confidential or proprietary. (I guess if a court action is settled and not completely litigated, and part of the settlement is non-disclosure by all parties involved, that that can be construed as appropriate, but doesn't that imply something else also?)




[edit on 5-12-2006 by smirkley]