Market stall enforces minimum EFTPOS spend of $30?

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Market stall enforces minimum EFTPOS spend of $30?

1 | 2 | 3

1276 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#2509262 21-Jun-2020 17:12

Probably trying to evade paying tax. Ask for a GST receipt next time. For reference, the cost to process an EFTPOS (not debit / credit) transaction is in the order of around 1c per transaction.

Nate001

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 465

#2509269 21-Jun-2020 17:30

Interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. Didn't bother me but more a "thats unusual..." moment.

Are they trying to avoid a bit of GST? - Probably. But hey make good sausages so I'll be back, next time I'll just spend over $30 and force it to be on the books. Maybe thats their ploy...

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1100
Inactive user

#2509295 21-Jun-2020 18:59

Kyanar:

BlinkyBill:

oh, I didn’t realise that. What are they?

You've somehow never heard of the Consumer Guarantees Act? Sale of Goods Act? Goods and Services Tax?

yes, very familiar with all of those. None of them relate to terms of trade, which any business is entitled to establish according to their preference. Do you have actual facts to support your incorrect assertion?

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1100
Inactive user

#2509296 21-Jun-2020 19:00

nzkc:

BlinkyBill:

It’s their business, they can do what they want.

Indeed. And its my money and in this situation I'd just walk away out of principle.

Quite correct. It’s their choice, and your choice.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1100
Inactive user

#2509297 21-Jun-2020 19:01

Nate001:

Interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. Didn't bother me but more a "thats unusual..." moment.

Are they trying to avoid a bit of GST? - Probably. But hey make good sausages so I'll be back, next time I'll just spend over $30 and force it to be on the books. Maybe thats their ploy...

well, that’s one interpretation. The more likely interpretation is the paperwork involved in small transactions isn’t worth their time, in their opinion.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2509307 21-Jun-2020 19:45

xpd:
Long as they offer other methods to pay, they are fine to limit min spend on EFTPOS to whatever they want.

If EFTPOS was the ONLY payment method, then yes, they'd be in the wrong.

BNZs merchant agreement;

4.1 (e) you must not state or set a minimum or maximum amount
for a card transaction without our prior written
consent;

It's not something that is strictly enforced though.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2509326 21-Jun-2020 21:33

Kyanar:

You've somehow never heard of the Consumer Guarantees Act? Sale of Goods Act? Goods and Services Tax?

The problem is none of these laws have the slightest bit of relevance to the issue at hand. People can run their business how they like - even if the behaviour is irrational. As the only person in this thread so far who's (presumably) genuinely qualified to judge the legal implications of this, unless the stall was giving some kind of misleading/factually untrue justification as to why they have imposed this limit, they are doing nothing wrong.

Edit: Just to add in response to the post above mine - a breach of the merchant's agreement with their EFTPOS provider would not provide any consumer grounds to assert a breach of the likes of the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Guarantees Act either. Contract privity is with the EFTPOS provider. If they don't like this, they can take private action in accordance with the terms of their agreement with the merchant.

danielparker

250 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 101

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2509330 21-Jun-2020 21:53

Historically.. 10+ years ago (might still be the case but I have not been in the indistry for a while).. the percentage rate that the credit card companies used to charge were based on you average sale rate.. i.e if your average sale went below $30 your percentage rate could go up..

I understand that we are talking EFT-POS (Electronic FundsTransfer - Point of Sale) here.. but thought that the merchant might be confused..

Daniel

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2509359 21-Jun-2020 22:07

dejadeadnz:

The problem is none of these laws have the slightest bit of relevance to the issue at hand. People can run their business how they like - even if the behaviour is irrational. As the only person in this thread so far who's (presumably) genuinely qualified to judge the legal implications of this, unless the stall was giving some kind of misleading/factually untrue justification as to why they have imposed this limit, they are doing nothing wrong.

Edit: Just to add in response to the post above mine - a breach of the merchant's agreement with their EFTPOS provider would not provide any consumer grounds to assert a breach of the likes of the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Guarantees Act either. Contract privity is with the EFTPOS provider. If they don't like this, they can take private action in accordance with the terms of their agreement with the merchant.

The actual statement that BlinkyBill made was that "it's their business, they can do what they want". But this is factually incorrect (and sounds way too "free market" "invisible hand" to me), there are dozens of limitations on how a business can conduct itself - those laws being the least of them. That said, everything else you've said appears spot on - by all accounts the Commerce Commission is uninterested in regulating the behaviour of businesses accepting electronic payments, they don't even seem to have followed the Reserve Bank of Australia's lead on regulating surcharges by merchants to no more than the actual cost they incur.

I'll also point out that just being a lawyer does not make you the only person genuinely qualified to judge, I've recently had an argument with a lawyer who was dead set convinced the Privacy Act would not prevent a real estate agent posting a tenants name, address, and bank statements on Facebook.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2509365 21-Jun-2020 22:35

Kyanar:

I'll also point out that just being a lawyer does not make you the only person genuinely qualified to judge, I've recently had an argument with a lawyer who was dead set convinced the Privacy Act would not prevent a real estate agent posting a tenants name, address, and bank statements on Facebook.

In context, what I was talking about is being the only person who genuinely had authenticated/actual legal training to properly assess the legal implications of the interaction between a private contract, trader's conduct, and various legislation. Lots of people will occasionally make the right call on these issues due to general experience and the like. In the case of the lawyer you're talking about, this person is simply incompetent. That tends to not be the norm.

Rickles

3108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446

Trusted

#2509371 21-Jun-2020 22:51

https://support.eftpos.co.nz/2019/04/16/service-fee-guide-to-merchant-obligations/

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2509401 22-Jun-2020 01:24

Rickles:

https://support.eftpos.co.nz/2019/04/16/service-fee-guide-to-merchant-obligations/

It should be noted that EFTPOS NZ is only one of the acquiring networks. They could also be using Paymark, their bank, or another non-bank acquirer. Also, that page is actually regarding where you use EFTPOS NZ to acquire and the customer presents a debit or credit card, not an EFTPOS card.

Rickles

3108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446

Trusted

#2509483 22-Jun-2020 10:06

>It should be noted that EFTPOS NZ is only one of the acquiring networks. They could also be using Paymark, their bank, or another non-bank acquirer.<

Very true, good point.

>that page is actually regarding where you use EFTPOS NZ to acquire and the customer presents a debit or credit card, not an EFTPOS card.<

However, there is another page altogether, albeit similar, on that web site that specifically refers to credit cards

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#2509488 22-Jun-2020 10:26

A business that is doing so well in the post covid world that they would turn away a sale because of an arbitrary rule put in place for no apparent reason?

[sarcasm] Sounds like the owner should run a workshop on how he/she became so good? [/sarcasm]

Money is money, a sale is a sale. They need to look up and study "are you easy to do business with". Businesses that put rules in place for the sole benefit of the business, often forget that its the customer that has the ultimate choice whether or not to "obey" their rules. They may choose not to obey and simply take their custom elsewhere to another business that is easier to deal with.

I can fully understand businesses kicking up a fuss about clearance fees on contactless payments. They were just becoming more popular in the last 12-18 months of our old video shop, and our margins were so tight we never accepted paywave back then because of the fee, but we sure as heck accepted any other sort of payment even if it was just 50c or whatever. We were there (or our staff) who were getting paid regardless of whether or not it took 20 secs to process an eftpos transaction.

clinty

1201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 402

Lifetime subscriber

#2509563 22-Jun-2020 11:21

Nate001:

My partner reckons the stall is trying to pocket the cash off the books, but I'd like to think not and the lady was simply confused/uneducated of fees.

I am wondering if it is just a case of too many people saying "yep i am paying with EFTPOS" then pushing the CR button ( a lot of people having combined CC/EFTPOS cards )

As discussed the fees on Credit transaction can make it not worth it when under $30, so just easier for the Vendor to say no electronic transactions under $30. Also has the added effect of upselling the customer to a higher spend

Clint

1 | 2 | 3