Guess I'll be spending less money at the park at howl o scream
Busch Gardens Williamsburg Adds 5% Surcharge to In-Park Sales
- Thread starter horsesboy
- Start date
Any reasoning on why a surcharge?
Just a way to squeeze more money out of us? Or do they really, I mean really need to charge more to cover freight or supply costs. They can be a little transparent here, instead of the way they’re going about it.
I don’t mind still support local restaurants that
we love and are going through tough time with the state of the economy now and they let us know, “hey guys things suck now and we have to raise the prices to stay in business.”
Hopefully not in perpetuity though.
Just a way to squeeze more money out of us? Or do they really, I mean really need to charge more to cover freight or supply costs. They can be a little transparent here, instead of the way they’re going about it.
I don’t mind still support local restaurants that
we love and are going through tough time with the state of the economy now and they let us know, “hey guys things suck now and we have to raise the prices to stay in business.”
Hopefully not in perpetuity though.
Given that they increased prices of everything with the surcharge it’s hard to think of it any more than a money grab.
That is weird. Isn’t false advertisement illegal?Someone with more of a legal background feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from my basic understanding of commercial law, BGW isn’t doing anything illegal here. Legally, posted prices are considered an “invitation to treat,” not a binding “offer,” which means businesses are not under any obligation to honor the prices they post. So in theory, you could pick up your $21.99 Trapper’s sampler and head down to the register and be told that it’s actually $200. It is only when you reach the point of sales and the cashier tells you the final amount you owe and you agree to that amount that a binding offer has been made and accepted. (What would be illegal is if the cashier told you the final amount you owe, including tax, you agreed to it and swiped your credit card, and then the surcharge was secretly applied.)
To put this in context, technically, I don’t think BGW even has to include the fine print about the 5% charge being added. They could just tack that on at the register before reading the final amount to you (thus making an offer).
tl;dr Listed prices legally aren’t considered binding offers, so BGW is probably in the clear legally. That doesn’t meant what they’re doing isn’t super sleazy though — and guests should have every right to be outraged at this insanely slimy ploy.
Further reading for anyone interested:
What does
An invitation to treat is a statement that someone is interested in negotiating a business deal. It's important to understand that...www.mylawquestions.com
Legally, what they're doing isn't false advertising. It's a scummy (but legal) business tactic.
Honestly, this is becoming more and more common. Surprisingly, BGW's and SEAS implementation is the most consumer friendly that I've seen. They have lots of signage up all over the place and they specifically notate it on the receipt and provide information about it on the receipt. I've noticed a lot of places just have a line labeled Taxes and Fees and it's a lot more than just tax would be. But it's hidden Ave they don't acknowledge it. So while I don't like the practice, I have to give SEAS credit because they actually implemented it in a consumer friendly manner.
In fairness, a lot of the places adding a surcharge under the listing "taxes and fees' are only doing it with credit card transactions, where there is an actual cost the business bears. I would find SEAS surcharge more amenable if I could avoid it by paying cash.
I'm pretty sure the only reason the y do this is becuase it *wouldn't* be legal if they didn't. Sure they have fine print on menus and a message on the register for when you've ALREADY GOT YOUR PURCHASE IN HAND. It would be worse if they didn't list it but because the fee doesn't actually have any basis other than "if you want our products you are aggreeing to also give us an extra 5% because we want you to", they are only achieving the bare minimum. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the bar for SEAS policy on money making right now is what they can get away with without getting sued for and that's it.
You missed my entire point. I specifically said that I don't like the policy. However, It's clearly legal because there are plenty of places that just lump both taxes and their own surcharge together as 1 line item which is significantly less consumer friendly than what SEAS is doing. SEAS is being pretty forthcoming with signage on every menu board and signs at every register that say it, then it's on your receipt again. They aren't really trying to hide it.
You can be upset about it all you want, it doesn't change two things, #1 it's perfectly legal for companies to do it and #2 SEAS has actually chosen to do it in much more open way than any other company that I've seen do it.
Except that a lot of places batch their credit card transactions to reduce their fees. We see it as a processing charge on our side because they basically just did a check for the funds, but it's really processed as a big batch all at once to reduce their fees.
There are still some places where the fees are on CC charge range which would be around 2-2.5%, but most of the places I've seen it are closer to 5% or even higher if you do the math based on what the tax rate is for the area. I've even seen some as high as an additional 10% on the transaction.
You are conflating fees that consist of actual costs to businesses with a surcharge that exists solely to pad SEAS numbers. IANAL but I don't think that you can just put an extra charge on your bill and lump it in with actual fees. As other have mentioned, when this happens, it is usually a cost to recover business expenses. The surcharge is literally just an additional profit for the company with no actual basis.
This is why I think you're missing MY point. I am saying that I don't think SEAS feels comfortable legally doing any less than they already are. I know of multiple other things they have wanted to do only to later get a no from the legal team.
Your argument falls apart because you are under the impression that a surcharge is different from a fee. The only difference is the word chosen to describe it. There is literally no difference between the surcharge and other companies charging you fees. Those companies are doing the legal minimum by simply saying there's a fee, they don't even have to tell you what the percentage it is on your check. SEAS is being forthcoming that's it's to offset increased business costs.
I hate to break it to you, but companies can come up with pretty much any fee they want and add it to your bill. You're trying to argue that it's ok for a company to pass along their credit processing fees to consumers, but they could also just as easily calculate that into the overall price too.
I am inclined to agree with that being acceptable, if that is what most companies are doing. However I can tell you from experience that almost every large company pays probably no more than 2.25% of credit transactions, yet most places I see having fees have them as substantially higher.
Also, your point about SEAS wanting to do something only to be told by lawyers it's not ok isn't a SEAS problem. Every company I've ever worked for could be described that way, because most people don't know the law and they need legal to tell them what it is in certain situations.
I think that a lot of people don't understand pricing decisions or what companies can legally do when charging you.
My guess is that the way your company handles things is fairly common across the board.
We start everyone with an initial service that is uniform price across the board. $125.
We don’t list the cost of lessons anywhere. Partially because it’s market dependent. Mostly because we don’t want people to say no before coming in. Prices can be in the $500-6000 range.
On top of that many instructors have select instructor pricing. Meaning they charge a 10-30% fee on top of that base price.
Finally, when we do promotions, we use “up to” language to describe the discount. Up to 20%. But only 1 line item gets that discount.
Except it isn't. It exist solely to advertise one price and charge another. There isn't any "cost" or basis for it other than the desire to raise costs for everything by 5%. You don't get credit for not breaking the rules.
Then you must work for shit companies. If your company is trying to think up ways to deceive the consumer, which SEAS very much is, that already pretty bad. I know companies have legal teams and they have a purpose. But the direction at SEAS is abysmal ATM and thats what I'm talking about.
Otherwise this is going nowhere and I'm not super inclined to argue about it. Any company that charges BS fees and surcharges is one I'm not interested in dealing with. Based on how popular food delivery apps are though, I'm just gonna guess that SEAS is correct in assuming that people will just shrug and pony up anyway.
The list of companies with hidden fees is far far longer than ones without it.
What would stop Bg from charging this surcharge is if people left the food on the counter. I wonder if bg has instructed its crew to waive the surcharge if somone refuses to pay for it. Only one way to find out 