Not sure if this deserves hero tag, Cap One is just trying to lock people in so they can continue to get over limit fees. Anyone stupid enough to fall for this deserves to pay fees anyway.

The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

WaMu didn't even let that happen. They accidentally triple-posted a bunch of purchases to my card. After about the fifth duplicate post, I started generating overdraft fees of $39 each -- for their mistake. There were 6 overdrafts, so that's $234 in bogus fees. There's also a daily "assessment fee" of $39 for having an overdrafted card, so that was another few hundred bucks. All in all I "owed" just shy of a grand for their mistake.

The conversation of me complaining went like this:

Me: But this was your mistake.
WaMu: Sir I understand but your card is over the limit.
Me: But it's over the limit because of your mistake, not my usage.
WaMu: Sir your card is over the limit.
Me: My purchases came nowhere near my limit. Your repeated mistakes caused this.
WaMu: But sir your card is over the limit.

Three certified letters later they still hadn't fixed it. I filed suit at the local District Justice and a few days after being served they "helpfully" credited my account for the fees. Then they had the audacity to not only close my account, but list it on my credit report as "closed by credit grantor".

So banks can suck it. They had a chance to play fair. If they don't want to, they can feel the pain of a government beatdown.

Seems to me they should be prevented from even verbally offering this as a "sales pitch" - stick it in that 8 point font on page 97 of that book they send out when you get a new account about how you can "opt in" to screweing yourself over - that way anyone bitten in the ass by this can clearly be labled a dumb ass instead of someone who said "uh-huh" at the wrong time during a phone call.

I say. I don't need any farking Nanny state to tell me when to say "Uh no" to a bad deal. Anybody who makes a bad deal gets what they bargained for. Hydrogen is not the most plentiful element in the universe, it's stupidity. And I am unwilling, yea dead opposed to giving my hard-earned money to keep stupid people "safe."

floor9: So banks can suck it. They had a chance to play fair. If they don't want to, they can feel the pain of a government beatdown.

Wow, that sucks, but not the first I have heard of such things. Got to love the simple minded receptionist on the other end that can only respond with, "but you were over your limit" Guess its no shock that bank collapsed.

ac982000: Guess its no shock that bank collapsed.

I take great pleasure in this fact. Fark you, WaMu.

If only there was some way to deny charges when there's not adequate funds to cover said charges.

ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get a Cap One card.

/FTFY

CPT Ethanolic: If only there was some way to deny charges when there's not adequate funds to cover said charges.

Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that - I asked why they even allowed the charges in the first place, and I swear I am not making this up, her response was:

"Sir, do you know how many customers we have? There's no way we can possibly keep track of all the money at one time."

Apparently not.

Expect to see this same story with debit cards soon. When all of those broke college kids and poor folk can't overdraft a card 7 times for a total of $11.50 in purchases and $245 in overdraft fees, the banks' bottom lines are gonna start hurting.

Also, when they can't play 'a hold is on your account until the merchant processes the transaction' games to assist in said overdrafts, they're also going to have a problem.

whistleridge: Expect to see this same story with debit cards soon. When all of those broke college kids and poor folk can't overdraft a card 7 times for a total of $11.50 in purchases and $245 in overdraft fees, the banks' bottom lines are gonna start hurting.

Also, when they can't play 'a hold is on your account until the merchant processes the transaction' games to assist in said overdrafts, they're also going to have a problem.

Captive customers are very lucrative. Nearly three-quarters of banks' total service charges of $34.3 billion in 2008 came from overdraft or NSF (not sufficient funds) fees.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-02/how-big-banks-fleece- y ou/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

All I can say at this point is I'm glad I paid my Cap One card off.

floor9: "Sir, do you know how many customers we have? There's no way we can possibly keep track of all the money at one time."

My response would have been, "How do you know that I even owe you money now?" If there is a system for approval of charges then it can also be used for denials.

floor9: ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

WaMu didn't even let that happen. They accidentally triple-posted a bunch of purchases to my card. After about the fifth duplicate post, I started generating overdraft fees of $39 each -- for their mistake. There were 6 overdrafts, so that's $234 in bogus fees. There's also a daily "assessment fee" of $39 for having an overdrafted card, so that was another few hundred bucks. All in all I "owed" just shy of a grand for their mistake.

The conversation of me complaining went like this:

Me: But this was your mistake.
WaMu: Sir I understand but your card is over the limit.
Me: But it's over the limit because of your mistake, not my usage.
WaMu: Sir your card is over the limit.
Me: My purchases came nowhere near my limit. Your repeated mistakes caused this.
WaMu: But sir your card is over the limit.

Three certified letters later they still hadn't fixed it. I filed suit at the local District Justice and a few days after being served they "helpfully" credited my account for the fees. Then they had the audacity to not only close my account, but list it on my credit report as "closed by credit grantor".

So banks can suck it. They had a chance to play fair. If they don't want to, they can feel the pain of a government beatdown.

I appreciate your problem there - that truly sucks - but I'm going to have to say that fropm here it sounds like some of the blame lies with you. Bear with me.

Customer service is a simple industry manned by simple folks who live by only 2 credos: the customer is always right, and never ever give back any money you don't have to. I know, because for 9 hellish months in grad school I had to work for one of those places.

Common caller mistakes: getting mad, not being pleasant, not understanding that the person on the other end HAS to say certain things - they're either obligated by law, or they know all of their calls are being recorded and monitored and they could lose their jobs for even a moment's deviation from the script. When you call, be pleasant. Use their name. Thank them for their time. It doesn't matter how mad you are, being nasty with the person on the other end of the line will NEVER help. Just briefly explain your problem, and ask them nicely if they can help. Usually, they WANT to help you - their pay is tied to their ability to demonstrably resolve calls favorably. If they can't (or won't) help, ask to speak with someone who can (their boss). Keep doing this until you speak with someone who solves your problem.

Make sure you get the names and direct lines or ID numbers of everyone you speak to. As a last resort - when they won't pass you on or resolve your problem, ask for the number to the legal department.

I'm not saying these are fail-safe procedures, and maybe you used them all, but I do know I've *never* had to get nasty with a bank to get fees that weren't my fault reversed, and I've only rarely had to get nasty to get fees that WERE my fault reversed. I'm not saying you're to blame - clearly, WaMu got what it had coming to it - but typically customer service 'disasters' like yours are at least partly a product of the customer not using the system properly.

/sorry if you did all those things...and yes, I know, you shouldn't HAVE to do them in the first place
//that sounds really really irritating either way

floor9: but list it on my credit report as "closed by credit grantor".

If you have the evidence, you can actually sue them for slander since that action on their part has damaged your reputation and caused you financial harm. Like the higher interest rates you'll qualify for with that on your record. Lawyer up.

Diogenes: All I can say at this point is I'm glad I paid my Cap One card off.

Same here -- after some hard labor mine is riding at zero, but I still get paranoid and check it online every two weeks or so to make sure I didn't get a sudden "$79 Zero Balance Convenience Fee" and a "$69 No Need to Send a Statement Charge" or a "$49 Because Just FARK YOU Assessment."

Don't want to cancel it and dent the credit score. I think I'll use it about once every two months to buy gas or something and pay it off immediately.

Wish I could say my Chase card was empty.

And this "Oh, I can save some money?" pseudo-offer from Cap One is pure ass. An ex of mine fell for the "Limited Tort Option" to save a few bucks on her car insurance, then got slammed by a drunk woman who blew a red light (and a .17) and ended up financially hosed. When a company offers you a "great deal" be sure to read the fine print and keep your ass-cheeks clenched.

My limited knowledge of contract law is making me think this whole scheme is all sorts of illegal, but I want to ask somebody who has more legal background to verify it.

From what I understand, you cannot make a legal contract that involves breaking the law -- e.g., the hitman can't sue the mob boss for not paying up after committing the murder, claiming they had a verbal contract for services. Therefore, two private entities (the CC company and the cardholder) cannot make a verbal or written agreement to ignore the protections provided by federal law. Am I right about that, or is there some loophole here?

Donnchadha: My limited knowledge of contract law is making me think this whole scheme is all sorts of illegal, but I want to ask somebody who has more legal background to verify it.

From what I understand, you cannot make a legal contract that involves breaking the law -- e.g., the hitman can't sue the mob boss for not paying up after committing the murder, claiming they had a verbal contract for services. Therefore, two private entities (the CC company and the cardholder) cannot make a verbal or written agreement to ignore the protections provided by federal law. Am I right about that, or is there some loophole here?

You can waive rights though. Sort of like when you waive yours rights to plead the 5th for a police interrogation, or when you waive certain rights to a bailbondsman in order to get out of jail.

damageddude: ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get a Cap One card.

/FTFY

What's in your wallet?

whistleridge: I appreciate your problem there - that truly sucks - but I'm going to have to say that fropm here it sounds like some of the blame lies with you. Bear with me.

Oh bullshiat. The bank screwed up, they should reverse the charges and put his account right. End of story.

If you're stupid enough to take this deal you deserve to get farked hard by Capital One and everybody else.

Gamer Grrrl: whistleridge: I appreciate your problem there - that truly sucks - but I'm going to have to say that fropm here it sounds like some of the blame lies with you. Bear with me.

Oh bullshiat. The bank screwed up, they should reverse the charges and put his account right. End of story.

I agree. But when you're dealing with an incompetent organization - as WaMu was - you have to make sure they *know* about the error. If they see no error, why would they reverse the charges?

Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to do that, but he did. And it sure sounds like he didn't get the message through to someone who could do something about it.

whistleridge: Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to do that, but he did. And it sure sounds like he didn't get the message through to someone who could do something about it.

You appear to be saying that the blame rests with him because the blame should rest with WaMu, but they're too incompetent to actually do anything, so we can't blame them.

That doesn't make much sense. WaMu is supposed to get this right. It's what they do.

Alacritous: If you have the evidence, you can actually sue them for slander since that action on their part has damaged your reputation and caused you financial harm.

And probably for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well. Unfortunately, WaMu is no more.

Capital One can suck my big toe.

whistleridge: I'm not saying these are fail-safe procedures, and maybe you used them all, but I do know I've *never* had to get nasty with a bank to get fees that weren't my fault reversed, and I've only rarely had to get nasty to get fees that WERE my fault reversed. I'm not saying you're to blame - clearly, WaMu got what it had coming to it - but typically customer service 'disasters' like yours are at least partly a product of the customer not using the system properly.

Just an FYI: this approach works wonders in all sorts of places. As a frequent air traveler, I've had just about no bad experiences in years (except delays) with customer service/counter/gate/rental personnel because I'm courteous and professional with them. When something gets f'd that they can't control (i.e. a flight is canceled) I don't take it out on them, I just smile and reassure them that I'm not going to get angry.

I'm frequently surprised how the situation gets resolved by them to my benefit, be it a flight voucher, squeezing onto another flight, or an upgraded car. Sure, the company is at fault, but you can either garner their cooperation, as THEY are the only ones that can fix it, or you can sh*t on them and see how long they can put you on hold.

Obdicut: You appear to be saying that the blame rests with him because the blame should rest with WaMu, but they're too incompetent to actually do anything, so we can't blame them.

That doesn't make much sense. WaMu is supposed to get this right. It's what they do.

My thoughts exactly. When dealing with WaMu, one party is in the credit card business. That they should be the ones more competent at said business is a fact so obvious it should not need to be stated. Don't get me started on how f-ed it is that if I mess up they collect a fee and if they mess up I collect a shiat sandwich.

whistleridge: Donnchadha: My limited knowledge of contract law is making me think this whole scheme is all sorts of illegal, but I want to ask somebody who has more legal background to verify it.

From what I understand, you cannot make a legal contract that involves breaking the law -- e.g., the hitman can't sue the mob boss for not paying up after committing the murder, claiming they had a verbal contract for services. Therefore, two private entities (the CC company and the cardholder) cannot make a verbal or written agreement to ignore the protections provided by federal law. Am I right about that, or is there some loophole here?

You can waive rights though. Sort of like when you waive yours rights to plead the 5th for a police interrogation, or when you waive certain rights to a bailbondsman in order to get out of jail.

I don't think that's true. During a police interrogation, you can, at any point, invoke your fifth amendment rights, even if you signed a waiver previously. If you say you're willing to talk to a police without a lawyer present and sign a waiver to that effect, they can talk to you until you say the magic words "I want a lawyer" regardless of the previously signed waiver. The waiver does not revoke your rights, but acknowledges that you do not wish to invoke them at this moment but reserves the right to do so later.

With the CC scenario, it would be highly illegal for a waiver of CARD act rights to be a condition of issuing the card. It would defeat the points of the statutory rights if they could be subverted by a private contract. In this particular case you're being given a benefit in lieu of your rights, and not the issuance of credit at all. I still think that they are walking afoul if somebody were to sue for breach of their CARD act rights despite taking the offer, but can't say for certain.

whistleridge: Gamer Grrrl: whistleridge: I appreciate your problem there - that truly sucks - but I'm going to have to say that fropm here it sounds like some of the blame lies with you. Bear with me.

Oh bullshiat. The bank screwed up, they should reverse the charges and put his account right. End of story.

I agree. But when you're dealing with an incompetent organization - as WaMu was - you have to make sure they *know* about the error. If they see no error, why would they reverse the charges?

Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to do that, but he did. And it sure sounds like he didn't get the message through to someone who could do something about it.

I think you missed that part where the same transaction was repeated over 5 times.

I think a bank is pretty aware about unintended duplicate charges, considering they're the ones who have to approve the goddamn transaction in the first place. Banks are ALWAYS on point when YOU, the consumer owe THEM, the bank money. But whenever the bank owes YOU something that is rightfully yours (the money in your account, that you earned), they do a FANTASTIC job of balking

WaMu was in the wrong here, there is no other answer than to say that they screwed up, it's the bank's fault, and the consumer should get all his money back that was ROBBED from by the bank.

Where is John Dillinger when you need him....

Alacritous: If you have the evidence, you can actually sue them for slander since that action on their part has damaged your reputation and caused you financial harm. Like the higher interest rates you'll qualify for with that on your record. Lawyer up.

Can't he just file a dispute with the credit bureaus? It's not like WaMu will be answering their phones to argue about it...

There are some bros with some uncool stories in here. I'm just thankful I've been lucky enough to have avoided problems like those.

I only use discover, never had a problem but I go over everything and never let it come close to limit.

I don't get it - hero tag because they give you $10 off in return for being able to hold you liable for charges beyond your credit limit?

amireadingitrite?

I'm pretty sure that they can't do that. Certainly not with a simple voice confirmation over the phone, even if it is recorded

floor9: ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

WaMu didn't even let that happen. They accidentally triple-posted a bunch of purchases to my card. After about the fifth duplicate post, I started generating overdraft fees of $39 each -- for their mistake. There were 6 overdrafts, so that's $234 in bogus fees. There's also a daily "assessment fee" of $39 for having an overdrafted card, so that was another few hundred bucks. All in all I "owed" just shy of a grand for their mistake.

The conversation of me complaining went like this:

Me: But this was your mistake.
WaMu: Sir I understand but your card is over the limit.
Me: But it's over the limit because of your mistake, not my usage.
WaMu: Sir your card is over the limit.
Me: My purchases came nowhere near my limit. Your repeated mistakes caused this.
WaMu: But sir your card is over the limit.

Three certified letters later they still hadn't fixed it. I filed suit at the local District Justice and a few days after being served they "helpfully" credited my account for the fees. Then they had the audacity to not only close my account, but list it on my credit report as "closed by credit grantor".

So banks can suck it. They had a chance to play fair. If they don't want to, they can feel the pain of a government beatdown.

I had a similar experience with TCF Bank. I deposited cash on Friday morning (around 10 AM, right after my morning class). I asked the teller if the funds were available, and he said yes. I did the normal weekend activities; food, beer; movies; junk food; beer; beer; beer. Lots of small purchases.

On Tuesday, I checked my balance. -300ish bucks. I wasn't THAT drunk, how the hell did this happen? I checked my online account. Somehow, the cash did not get deposited into my account until Monday morning. So all those small charges I made were overcharged, and it cost me 39 bucks each transaction. I was pissed. I printed out the online statement, and thankfully I still had the receipt from Friday in my pocket.

I went to the branch, asked to talk to the manager, showed him my proof...and you know what he said? He called me a liar! He said the employee that did my transaction did not work on Friday. Even though I had a receipt that showed otherwise. After like 15 minutes, he decided to "do me a favor" and waive the fees.

So I decided to do his bank a favor. I withdrew all my money right after he did that and closed my account.

I got an email from BofA the other day asking me to make myself familiar with their fees.

I thought what the hell, I've got 10 minutes to waste.

They changed their overdraft policy so that only get an overdraft fee if your account goes more than $10 over.

I know it isn't a big deal, but if you go $6 over your limit, they won't assess you $35.

I guess that is their thank you for the $45bil we gave them.

Here's a great idea: Use a debit card and live within your means. Pretty wild, huh?

Part of me wants to say that the banks are incredibly sleazy for doing this.

But since I am a person who keeps within my limits, pays my bills, and plays by all the other rules, I have a strong ethos that is based on personal responsibility and using all available options.

That ethos wins out and says this is an OK thing for Capital One to do, because it gives options to people who want to willfully go over their credit limit.

MBK: So I decided to do his bank a favor. I withdrew all my money right after he did that and closed my account.

A lot of banks now will hold your deposits until the close of business, even if you make them in cash. They will post debits, however, immediately. There's no technological reason for this. They simply want to charge you overdraft fees.

Say your bank's policy is that all deposits made after 3pm will post the following day. Your checking account has a balance of $1000 at 8am. At 9am you walk in and make a cash deposit of $250. At 3:30pm you purchase a laptop for $1100. Congratulations; you just overdrew your account.

It's funny when people defend banks by saying that there's "nothing wrong" with this sort of behavior, while simultaneously decrying the consumer as needing to "take some personal responsibility". There may not technically be anything *ILLEGAL* about the bank doing this, but that doesn't make it "right" or even "not wrong". And it certainly doesn't push blame to the consumer.

mrmopar5287: That ethos wins out and says this is an OK thing for Capital One to do, because it gives options to people who want to willfully go over their credit limit.

Truly, it is a good thing that banks provide people this rope to hang themselves with. For without this option, what other crazy choice would exist? NOT allowing customers to spend more fees than they currently hold in their account? Why, that's crazy talk, good sir! If we imposed such an option, how else would I be enabled to feel far superior to those silly plebes that overdraft!? The very nerve of such a suggestion might go so far as to give me the vapors.

Donnchadha: My limited knowledge of contract law is making me think this whole scheme is all sorts of illegal, but I want to ask somebody who has more legal background to verify it.

From what I understand, you cannot make a legal contract that involves breaking the law -- e.g., the hitman can't sue the mob boss for not paying up after committing the murder, claiming they had a verbal contract for services. Therefore, two private entities (the CC company and the cardholder) cannot make a verbal or written agreement to ignore the protections provided by federal law. Am I right about that, or is there some loophole here?

You are correct that a contract to do something illegal is void. However this is slightly different as you are not agreeing to DO something illegal, just waive your rights under the law. This is done rather frequently in various settings. (Like for example if you worked for a defense contractor and and a s condition of employment they require you to waive your right to sue them if say fellow employees gang-raped you and then locked you in a shipping containter)

Now there IS a related dcotrine that could come into play here where contract is void if it is "against public policy"

In this case it needn't be illegal per se, just frowned upon by the jurisdiction of the court called upon to enforce it.

So, for example, Gambling is legal in Nevada, and therefore a contract made with a casino there (like say, a line of credit or marker contract) is perfectly legal and acceptable. But lets suppose the maker of the at contaract goes back to his home state of say, Utah, where gambling is illegal. He might have a contractual defense that a enforcing a contract based on gambling is "against the public policy" of Utah and therefore unenforceable there.


Similarly, a contract by a consumer to waive their rights under a brand new consumer protection law, especially for what it arguably "nominal consideration" might well be considered as "against public policy" if challenged, as it directly frustrates the intent of the law.

floor9: MBK: So I decided to do his bank a favor. I withdrew all my money right after he did that and closed my account.

A lot of banks now will hold your deposits until the close of business, even if you make them in cash. They will post debits, however, immediately. There's no technological reason for this. They simply want to charge you overdraft fees.

Say your bank's policy is that all deposits made after 3pm will post the following day. Your checking account has a balance of $1000 at 8am. At 9am you walk in and make a cash deposit of $250. At 3:30pm you purchase a laptop for $1100. Congratulations; you just overdrew your account.

It's funny when people defend banks by saying that there's "nothing wrong" with this sort of behavior, while simultaneously decrying the consumer as needing to "take some personal responsibility". There may not technically be anything *ILLEGAL* about the bank doing this, but that doesn't make it "right" or even "not wrong". And it certainly doesn't push blame to the consumer.

I was told, when I opened my account (at the time I was working as a valet, and got a lot of cash tips, so I would be depositing lots of cash) if cash was available as soon as I deposited it. The manager told me yes. When I deposited the cash on Friday, I asked if I can spend the money, and the teller told me yes.

TCF Bank is open 7 days, and there have been times were I deposited cash on Saturday morning and the money was available right away.

The manager, even though I had my receipt showing the money was deposited on Friday, still insisted that I was a liar because "the employee that did my transaction did not work on Friday". I'm glad I closed my account and now deal with Chase (and have yet to have any problems).

Magorn: He might have a contractual defense that a enforcing a contract based on gambling is "against the public policy" of Utah and therefore unenforceable there.

Well, this is where the whole "choice of law" thing comes in, but that's really getting off-topic.

floor9: MBK: So I decided to do his bank a favor. I withdrew all my money right after he did that and closed my account.

A lot of banks now will hold your deposits until the close of business, even if you make them in cash. They will post debits, however, immediately. There's no technological reason for this. They simply want to charge you overdraft fees.

Say your bank's policy is that all deposits made after 3pm will post the following day. Your checking account has a balance of $1000 at 8am. At 9am you walk in and make a cash deposit of $250. At 3:30pm you purchase a laptop for $1100. Congratulations; you just overdrew your account.

It's funny when people defend banks by saying that there's "nothing wrong" with this sort of behavior, while simultaneously decrying the consumer as needing to "take some personal responsibility". There may not technically be anything *ILLEGAL* about the bank doing this, but that doesn't make it "right" or even "not wrong". And it certainly doesn't push blame to the consumer.

I don't think 'government oversight' is really going to fix this corruption problem of entire sectors of our economy. I think that when 'We, the people' begin burning down bank branches is when companies will finally take notice of their own behavior.

ac982000: Not sure if this deserves hero tag, Cap One is just trying to lock trick people in so they can continue to get over limit fees. Anyone stupid enough to fall for this deserves to pay fees anyway.

The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

FTFY

A couple weeks ago I receved a letter from Wells Fargo stating that they would be raising my interest rate by 2% in lieu of charging overdraft fees. Considering I've not gone over once in the 5 years I've had the account, I'm thinking I'm on the losing end of this deal.

Donnchadha: whistleridge: Donnchadha: My limited knowledge of contract law is making me think this whole scheme is all sorts of illegal, but I want to ask somebody who has more legal background to verify it.

From what I understand, you cannot make a legal contract that involves breaking the law -- e.g., the hitman can't sue the mob boss for not paying up after committing the murder, claiming they had a verbal contract for services. Therefore, two private entities (the CC company and the cardholder) cannot make a verbal or written agreement to ignore the protections provided by federal law. Am I right about that, or is there some loophole here?

You can waive rights though. Sort of like when you waive yours rights to plead the 5th for a police interrogation, or when you waive certain rights to a bailbondsman in order to get out of jail.

I don't think that's true. During a police interrogation, you can, at any point, invoke your fifth amendment rights, even if you signed a waiver previously. If you say you're willing to talk to a police without a lawyer present and sign a waiver to that effect, they can talk to you until you say the magic words "I want a lawyer" regardless of the previously signed waiver. The waiver does not revoke your rights, but acknowledges that you do not wish to invoke them at this moment but reserves the right to do so later.

With the CC scenario, it would be highly illegal for a waiver of CARD act rights to be a condition of issuing the card. It would defeat the points of the statutory rights if they could be subverted by a private contract. In this particular case you're being given a benefit in lieu of your rights, and not the issuance of credit at all. I still think that they are walking afoul if somebody were to sue for breach of their CARD act rights despite taking the offer, but can't say for certain.

I'll try to clear this up to the best of my ability. You cannot waive a "right" to something that it criminally illegal. However, you can wiave a right to a civil liability say. There is a huge difference. If your credit card company breaks those CARD laws, they will be civilly punished, they won't be arrested and go to jail, therein lies the problem.

Waiving a right in this case would be the same as waiving your right to file any suite against a person because of a settlement. When you settle, you agree to waive your right to civil litigation, in return, you are given the settlement, usually a sum of money. This is the same concept. For your forebearance of waiving your CARD rights, you get your overdraft fee knocked down by $10.

MBK: insisted that I was a liar because "the employee that did my transaction did not work on Friday

I'm curious about this part. How did he know what employee performed the transaction if that wasn't written on the receipt (Assuming you didn't take the teller's name down)? If it was written on the receipt, isn't he actually calling the bank itself a liar?

floor9: ac982000: The smarter thing to do is never get to the point where your credit/debit limits could ever be declined, but then that would make too much sense huh?

WaMu didn't even let that happen. They accidentally triple-posted a bunch of purchases to my card. After about the fifth duplicate post, I started generating overdraft fees of $39 each -- for their mistake. There were 6 overdrafts, so that's $234 in bogus fees. There's also a daily "assessment fee" of $39 for having an overdrafted card, so that was another few hundred bucks. All in all I "owed" just shy of a grand for their mistake.

The conversation of me complaining went like this:

Me: But this was your mistake.
WaMu: Sir I understand but your card is over the limit.
Me: But it's over the limit because of your mistake, not my usage.
WaMu: Sir your card is over the limit.
Me: My purchases came nowhere near my limit. Your repeated mistakes caused this.
WaMu: But sir your card is over the limit.

Three certified letters later they still hadn't fixed it. I filed suit at the local District Justice and a few days after being served they "helpfully" credited my account for the fees. Then they had the audacity to not only close my account, but list it on my credit report as "closed by credit grantor".

So banks can suck it. They had a chance to play fair. If they don't want to, they can feel the pain of a government beatdown.

I got an overdraft fee once. The ATM said that deposits made on a Saturday wouldn't show up till Monday. So when Tuesday rolled around and one of our checks was cashed, we got the overdraft fee because my deposit hadn't registered yet. I went into the bank, explained my situation and they reversed the overdraft charge.

Maybe I am just better than you.

/WaMu

floor9: Magorn: He might have a contractual defense that a enforcing a contract based on gambling is "against the public policy" of Utah and therefore unenforceable there.

Well, this is where the whole "choice of law" thing comes in, but that's really getting off-topic.

well this being a federal law i figured that bit would only get confusing. Especially since there has been a longstanding debate over whether the choice of law clause is even reached or considered when the court makes an Against Public Policy ruling,