|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Academy 6 in Pasadena SUCKS!!! (and how to manage customer complaints)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God
Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 09-12-2004 01:19 AM
Since it was brought up, I might as well rant.
Any business who refuses to take a $100 bill (in addition to other bills) for a purchase over $100 deserves to go out of business, and certainly doesn't deserve my business.
If it's an issue of not wanting that much cash in the till at night, fine, they can drop a $100 bill in the drop safe just as easy as 5 $20 bills.
If it's an issue of not wanting to be short on change, well that's a stupid excuse (that I've got many times) since purchasing something for $105 with a $100 bill and a $10 bill doesn't leave you any shorter on change than if I paid with 5 $20's and a $10 bill.
Actually, gas stations that refuse $50's and $100's piss me off too. It's plainly retarded that I can't pay for $65 or $85 dollars worth of gas using $50's. Even $100's shouldn't be an issue, especially when purchasing $85 in fuel.
Oh, but we don't want to take the hit from accepting a large counterfit bill. Well, sorry, in Canada, and proably pretty much everywhere else, $20 bills are by far the most commonly counterfitted bill. Even before stores started refusing large bills, large bills were never counterfitted more than they are now -- which is a rare occurence.
You don't like my $50, fine, I'll buy a chocolate bar and pay for it with my credit card so you can eat the processing fees. Go for it, refuse to take the card for the $1 purchase and I'll call Visa while standing in your store... just wait to see what happens when they find out you refused to take their card!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard C. Wolfe
Master Film Handler
Posts: 250
From: Northampton, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 09-12-2004 10:16 PM
quote: Dustin Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder about the legality of refusing to accept certain denominations of bills? All paper currency does have that little "This note good for all debts public and private." Thing on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 25 years ago at a time that I had been complaining about people using large bills to pay for small purchases, the following event happened. I was at that time a dollar house and it was not unusual for people to pay for a $1.00 ticket with a $20.00 bill. Sell $1.00 in goods, give back $19.00. If I had 300 ticket sales which was the average back then, at two tickets per transaction, I would get a twenty for each $2.00 in sales thus requiring $18.00 in change for each of those $2.00 in sales. Needless to say, it required an enormous about of petty cash for a small amount of sales.
One day one of my cashiers said to me: "Mr. Wolfe, you won't believe what I learned today" She was taking some kind of finacial course at the local community college and was told by her instructor that there are treasury laws that determine exactly what amounts of change are allowed in any given financial transaction. As an example... no more then 4 pennies are allowed to be used in any one transaction. No more then one nickel can be used. The same goes for paper bills as well. No more then 4 one dollar bills for any transaction. The reasoning for this is that when the 5th penny or dollar is needed, then a nickel or 5 dollar bill is to be used. This theory continues all the way through the money chain. You are never to use larger bills then the minimum necessary to make payment. Those laws therefore make it illegal to use a $50 or $100 bill for a $10.00 or even $20.00 charge. In fact it would even be illegal to use a $5.00 bill for a $1.00 payment. This all may sound a bit unrealistic, and of course isn't inforced, and I doubt many business' would want to enforce such. It wouldn't be practical.
The laws as she explained it to me, was to protect the seller from having to have unreasonable amounts of change on hand. The consumer has the responsibility to make payment with the smallest possible coin or bill that would require the least amount of change.
I never saw those laws in print. She didn't have a textbook to show me, as she only told me what her instructor had said in a lecture. I have always wondered if indeed that was the truth.
I'm curious if anyone else knows of such.
[ 09-13-2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Richard C. Wolfe ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 09-13-2004 12:50 PM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqcur.htm
quote:
Some movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations as a matter of policy may refuse to accept currency of a large denomination, such as notes above $20, and as long as notice is posted and a transaction giving rise to a debt has not already been completed, these organizations have not violated the legal tender law.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Legal_tender
quote:
Legal Tender is payment that cannot be refused in settlement of a debt.
Legal tender is a concept that is frequently misunderstood: this is often a result of differing legal definitions in different jurisdictions. Cheques, credit cards, debit cards and similar non-currency methods of payment are not generally defined as legal tender. Some jurisdictions may forbid by law, or otherwise restrict, payment other than by legal tender (for example, by outlawing the use of foreign coins and banknotes, or by requiring a licence to perform financial transactions in a foreign currency).
As legal tender can be refused until a person is in debt, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote for a single bus fare or bar of chocolate, and even shopkeepers can reject large banknotes. However, restaurants that do not collect money until after a meal is served would have to accept any legal tender, though they would not be obliged to provide change – the restaurant is not in debt, it has been given a gift.
The right of a trader to refuse to do business with any person means a purchaser cannot demand to make a purchase, and so declaring a legal tender other than for debts would be redundant.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ron Yost
Master Film Handler
Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-13-2004 02:49 PM
The currency laws weren't set up to inconvenience anyone. They were necessary to help the Treasury regulate (regulate, as in how much currency was available in each part of the country, and how it should be used, to avoid shortages) and maintain an even supply of currency across the country, back when communications and transportation weren't nearly as rapid and reliable as they are today. Even with the system, shortages did occur once in a while, as I remember.
Also, nearly every transaction was CASH, for most people. There was practically NO credit, except for houses, cars, and a few other purchases of 'durable goods'. This was true until relatively recently, believe it or not.
Freely-available 'credit', with no collateral, hasn't been around very long. We had a 'cash on the barrelhead' economy for most of our history. If you didn't have the cash, you didn't get the merchandise, in most cases. We lived in a durable (not disposable) society. I think we'd be FAR better off today if credit was much more restricted, and we didn't produce so much disposable non-fixable junk that people wind up paying for forever at high interest rates, but that's a little personal rant. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Back to the currency laws. I think it's a perfectly logical system, though obviously some of the details seem silly to us today. It wasn't set up by politicians with nothing better to do. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ron Yost
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic