vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
No, they do this to change behavior by providing a disincentive (the stick) - $2 fee - on something they want their customers to do less of. In this case, they want everyone to sign up for automatic billing via CC or bank transfer.  Their mistake was to not combine this with a positive incentive (the carrot) on the behavior they want more of. In this case, they should have promised a $2 monthly discount for the first year for customers who switch to automatic billing.
Yes, you can set up a PayPal or a Google Checkout account without a bank account linked to it. Neither PayPal nor Google Checkout requires you to link to a bank account. Both services provide for linking your payment account to a credit card instead.
Legal Tender means you have to accept that money as payment for a legal (as in not illegal) debt.   If I'm in country X, and we go to court over a dispute of a debt, the law in most places is that the court will insist the debt be paid in the local legal tender at a specific amount.   As others already said below - taxes, etc -those are debts.  Eating at a restaurant is a debt (you ate it already) Filling up with gas without paying first is a debt. Employees work for you build up debt.   But in any private transaction where there is no debt, people are free to do whatever they want (let's ignore discrimination laws and whatnot for this discussion, mmkay?).   You can come into my store and I can insist that today I'll only accept euros.  Or jelly beans.  Or I can choose to simply not do business with you.   We are two free people who are under no obligation to do business with each other, and if we choose to, how we choose to remunerate each other for that business is completely up to us.  (How I pay the sales tax on that transaction, though, well, thats' between me and the tax authorites, and will be in the local legal tender)
"I'm not the commenter you replied to, so I didn't bother addressing the rest since it wasn't directed to me. I was merely pointing out that once again you're bringing utilities into the discussion, which is irrelevant because PayPal *is not a utility.*  Also, it's laughable that you're trying to compare hospitals being allowed to ""let someone die based on their political views"" to a being denied use of a money transfer/credit card processing service.   Try relevant comparisons and maybe you'll get farther with a discussion."
I'm guessing that you've reached the value limit of a payment that can be made without linking your account to a bank account. While you want privacy, PayPal wants to not be a money launderer. You may need to seek an alternative way to pay for this if you're trying to be private about it.
Is this even legal? How can a bank refuse to deposit legal tender in   the United States? Legal for all debts, public or private, doesn't mean quite what I used to think, either.  Per The Fed: This statute means that all United States money as identified above is   a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a   creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a   private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or   coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to   develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a   state law which says otherwise. Yes, they can refuse loose change. Also, they aren't refusing your deposit, just requiring that it be rolled. What do I do with my change? I do not want to spend the time rolling   it, and I am not going to pay a fee to cash my change. There aren't many other options, change is a nuisance. I believe Coinstar machines reduce/remove their fee if you exchange coins for gift cards, so that might be the best option for convenience and retaining value.
It appears so. I suppose you could try saying that you don't want to pay for it and won't have Internet installed, but that could be detrimental to your career. There is no law that says your company has to pay for your Internet unless you have some kind of contract with them that says you will. If anything, your best option might be to try to claim it is a business expense and deduct it on your taxes.
No there aren't any such funds.
Would be interesting to compare with how it used to work in the pre-internet days...  Newspapers: You paid for the physical object, the printing, the delivery. If you didn't pay, then you didn't get the object, you didn't get the content.  Radio, television: Free broadcasts, paid for by advertising. No paywall.  Cable, satellite: Pay for installation and subscription, which delivers content. If you didn't pay, no content.  The internet basically delivers content for free, so I'd think it's very difficult to implement a paywall, since you'll be undercut by others who are willing to deliver content for free (or something almost free). About the only caveat would be that delivering the internet itself isn't free, so if your content was attached to the ISP, it would be more similar to the newspaper / cable model than the radio / TV model.
No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.
In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to ""late payment"" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such ""electronic"" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste."
Your simplest option, and probably the only reasonable one, is to dispute the original charge with your bank.  Since you used a debit card and not a credit card, you don't have quite as much protection, but you still can dispute the charge and ask your bank to step in and help.  See this debit card dispute article for more information on disputing a charge for a debit card. You may or may not have a case here, depending on the specifics.  If the merchant accepted your payment without letting you know you should have used paypal, you may have a shot at getting the full refund; but if it was clearly labelled that you should have used paypal, it may be harder.
"Have you ever read a TOS. All of that can be covered.  ""We are not responsible for the use of this app or the bla bla bla.""  Payment is not built into the app, there is plenty of other methods of payment.   https://arcade.city/ was pointed out by another user."
You're knowingly providing a payment method which has insufficient funds to meet the terms of the contract, because you are too lazy to comply with the contract. That's unethical and fraudulent behavior. Will you get in trouble? I don't know. I'd suggest getting acquainted with an electronic calendar that can remind you to do things.
No, I don't mix business and personal affairs.
No.  What's the point in that?  All it does is create government overhead to administer the payments.  Just pay your own way in the first place.    Oh, wait!  I see, when you say it's my turn now and your turn later, later never comes.  Nevermind.  I get it.
"~~Not only would it be illegal, but~~ the $10k doesn't even sound like it would be a ""bonus"" of any sort for doing so. From the article: &gt; If a restaurant opts in, it'll get a $10,000 gift from Visa (V) **to help pay for technology upgrades**, the company said. Emphasis is mine. --- **Edit ::** I was curious about this, so I started doing a little reading-up on businesses not accepting cash. It turns out that it **is legal** to refuse cash, but only if there is no debt to pay. If you get your product first, then there's a debt to pay, and the business must accept cash. If the customer pays first, then there's *no* debt to pay (the customer is already paid up), so the business *does not* have to accept cash. Link for the info: https://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/2016/08/05/do-businesses-have-to-accept-cash/ There are plenty of additional articles that talk about it, but I opted to link this one as it's a recent article by an economic researcher at a university. I figured that, if I'm going to link something, a primary source is probably better than a news agency reporting on it. It's kind of interesting, really, and I wonder how it would work in a place such as a restaurant. You typically get your food first, and pay later. This creates a scenario where the customer is in debt to the restaurant, so the restaurant would theoretically have to accept cash. However, if you pay first, *then* get your food, you don't have an outstanding debt, and thus the restaurant doesn't have to accept cash. Looking at the article again about Visa's offer, two of the types of groups it mentions are cafes and food trucks, which typically require you to pay before you get your food. This would mean that the customer isn't in debt to the service, and thus cash can be refused.
"Software or any online service fits this category I suppose.  There are two apps I pay for that are ""free."" Evernote and Pandora.  Evernote is free for 40MB, $45/yr for 500MB/mo transfer. Pandora is free for 40hrs/mo, $36/yr unlimited. When I use a free product and hit the limit it's a sign to me that I value that product and the owners deserve to get paid. To me, both products provide value that's well above the cost they are asking. In this case, both products are annual subscriptions, but offer monthly as well.  You don't mention the type of product you have, the two I listed are similar in billing type, but very difference end uses. The question is - How do you provide value and make your customers want to pay you?  BTW - the ~$40/yr give or take, seems a good price point. Under $50, it feels a fair price to pay for a useful product."
"I looked this up on Wikipedia, and was hoping the answer would be ""no - stores cannot refuse legal tender"", but unfortunately, it's not the case!  If the retailer wants to go to the lengths of refusing certain denominations to protect themselves from counterfeit currency, they are fully within their rights to do so. The ""Legal Tender"" page on Wikipedia says this about Canadian bills: [...] Retailers in Canada may refuse bank notes without breaking the law. According to legal guidelines, the method of payment has to be mutually agreed upon by the parties involved with the transactions. For example, convenience stores may refuse $100 bank notes if they feel that would put them at risk of being counterfeit victims [...] What is interesting about what I found out, is that legal tender cannot be refused if it is in repayment of an existing debt (i.e. not a store transaction for which there existed no previous debt).  So you could offload your $100 bills when repaying your Sears credit card account (or pay in pennies if you wanted to!) and they couldn't refuse you!"
Interchange fees. Every time a customer buys something on credit, the seller pays a fee. They're not allowed to itemize that fee and pass it on to the buyer, but they can offer a cash payment discount.  In short, rewards cards are a system of collective bargaining for buyers versus sellers. Some argue it drives prices up for everyone who isn't a cardholder, but I think the evidence is mixed.
"They don't have to take cash if they reasonably told you in advance they don't take cash, because they made fair effort to prevent you from incurring a debt.  They don't have to take cash if the transaction hasn't yet happened (not a debt) or if it can be easily undone at no cost to either party - such as a newspaper subscription they can just stop delivering.  Both of these reasons are limited by the rules against discrimination, see below.  They don't have to take cash if it's impracticable. For instance a transit bus when fares first went to $1.00, it took years to fund new fareboxes able to take paper money.  You don't have to take a mortgage payment in pennies.  Liquor stores don't have to take $100 bills. (it requires them to keep too much change in the till, which makes them a robbery target).  Trouble arises when it appears there's an ulterior motive for the rule.   Suppose a Landlord Jim requires rent to be paid with EFT.  Rent-controlled Marcie tells the judge ""It's a scheme to oust me, he knows I'm unbanked"".  Jim counters ""No. I got mugged last month because criminals know when I collect cash rents.""  It will turn on whether Jim can show good-faith effort to work with his unbanked tenants to find other ways to pay. If Jim does a particularly bad job of this, he could find himself paying Marcie's legal bills! Even worse if the ulterior motive is discrimination. Chet the plumber hates Muslims. Alice the feed supplier hates the Amish.  So they decide to take credit cards only, knowing those people's religions don't allow them.  Their goose is cooked once they can't show any other reasonable reason to refuse cash."
Even for those of us who aren't at risk of over drafting, direct debit is a less-than-stellar option. Direct debit is a great way to begin ignoring how large your bills are. By explicitly paying them through my bank's online billpay, I notice immediately when a bill is larger than it ought to be. This is often caused by a billing error. In which case I've found it far easier to resolve disputes when the money is still in my hands. It's significantly harder to convince an internet provider, cell phone service, or utility to reverse an incorrect charge after it's been paid than it is before. The other times, it's because I've been using the service more than normal. For example, sending text messages more frequently or using more electricity. Explicitly paying these bills makes me realize upfront that there's been a change in my behavior and I can either reduce my expenses or accept the higher cost for higher service. My own experience leads me to believe that paying your bills automatically every month is a great way to ignore these events, and leak money like a sieve. Online bill pay makes doing this as trivial as I could hope for, and the risk of missing a payment is essentially nil.
First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer.  In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible.  Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated.  The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real.  They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive.  Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100.  This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection.
"First, contact your credit card company and explain the problem to them, to ensure that they never pay any money to this company. Second, research the US postal code.  Somewhere it says that if you receive unsolicited goods in the mail, they are a gift to you.  Then it becomes a question of whether you went far enough in the subscription process to commit to the subscription. Third, reread the fine print on the web page.  ""By clicking submit, you agree to deliver us your firstborn and a herd(?) of baby goats."" Finally, armed with information from the previous steps, call (maybe better to do it in writing by sending a letter to) the company selling the magazines to let them know their mistake.  That the transaction was never completed and that the failure of the transaction led you to believe that the subscription was never agreed upon.  And that you never received a confirmation.  Let them know that you do not wish to continue receiving the magazine.  If you're on the hook, having clicked submit, then find out about their cancellation policy.  Hopefully there's a cancel any time policy.  If so, pay for the first couple of issues, then write it off as a relatively inexpensive lesson on subscriptions, fine print, and reading and keeping copies of contracts. 50 bucks an issue for a monthly magazine sounds expensive.  Is it a trade magazine?"
"&gt;Are you being paid by the word?  I'm not religious. I think the bible is full of fairy tales. So no! I just don't like being stolen from and having it whitewashed as ""the ends justify the means"". Which is crap. Theft is theft no matter who does it for you. A badge or costume does not change that fact. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. If your ""solution"" requires theft and violence to pay for it, it isn't much of a ""solution"" then."
"Understood. But based on the OP, it's not categorically clear what they were refusing.   If they refused to quote the balance and/or refused to take a phone payment that was otherwise in keeping with the cardholder agreement (i.e., the cardmember called the correct number for phone payments and balance-checking, etc), then yeah, they were not only being unreasonable, but also violating the contract.   What I read as ambiguous is whether the cardholder was specifically asking for the *payoff* balance/amount, and whether they were following process for phone-payments and balance-checking, etc.   IOW, it's not necessarily ""illegal"" and might not even be unreasonable for the customer-service number to have different departments for balance-checking and phone-payments versus card-cancellation. It's not falsifiably clear from the OP that the cardholder was not asking the person on the other end of the phone for categorical statements of fact that they were obligated to make.   I'm not accusing anyone of lying or saying that the CC company was acting reasonably, I'm just saying that language such as **""They do not provide mid-cycle payoff quotes""** is not evidence that they were doing any kind of funny-business."
I don't see the problem with what they proposed. Visa, Mastercard, American Express etc don't run charities, they charge for their services. And you better believe that cost gets passed down to the consumer one way ir another.  Verizon wanted to itemize this charge directly on your bill. Big whoop. I'd prefer a little bit of transparency in where, exactly, my money goes when I pay a bill.
One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods.  Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee.
There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges.  Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not.  My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real.  (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)
If the card has no annual fee, you can keep it for as long as you like and you will never get charged. I advise you to GoPaperless so you stop getting the $0 bills every month. Many cards have the fee waived for the first year. If you have such a card, you should make sure to cancel it when you stop using it, or when the fee waiver expires.
"Welcome to America!  This country is not meant to be a free ride. I personally  (single, ""native"" male) pay a significant amount each year to Uncle Sam and receive no benefits at all.  Where do ""natives"" sign up for the free stuff?!"
It's possible the recipient of the payment is not setup to receive funds form PayPal from a credit card, too.
"Yes. ""There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury."
Inform the company that you didn't receive the payment. Only they can trace the payment via their bank.
Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.
"My gym has a habit of randomly increasing our monthly payment with a $20 ""Special Fee"" a couple times a year.   This charge was not initiated until after I signed up, and signed authorization for a set monthly fee. The agreement I signed included no wording of this fee, so I have not given them permission to charge me this fee. I also have received no type of notification of this fee prior to it being charged to my credit card on file.   This seems very illegal to me. Am I right? What course of action might I have to get this stopped?"
Usually payments are applied towards: