Hertz Charging a Tesla Renter for Gas Was Not an Isolated Incident

Post by Repulsion9513 » Tue, May 21, 2024, 10:58 PM UTC

saligne wrote: post #171

grugagag wrote: post #9

Rented a Hertz and got charged $90 a day for easy pass service whether I drove the car or not (I was camping for a week) and had no way of fighting the charges, some fine print tricked me. For such scams I vowed to never give my business to Hertz again. Ever.

avis does the same thing: they ask you if you want the ez pass to be activated and if you say yes, they put abbreviations in the fine print that indicate you agreed to their ridiculously priced "unlimited tolls" package, even though there are other cheaper ez pass related services, and because you sign the rental agreement in order to get the keys, you don't have a leg to stand on if you dispute it later. because the…

Post by Repulsion9513 » Tue, May 21, 2024, 11:02 PM UTC

sircastor wrote: post #65

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you can unfortunately, and arbitration should be banned. I’m not sure how a system overriding the legal system is allowed.

It’s not overriding the legal system, it willfully sidestepping it. But obligating the contracted party to agree. The issue of course is that Hertz (in this case) can put whatever random requirements into the contract, and you can’t arbitrarily strike them. You still need/want their service. That said, just because there’s an arbitration clause in the contract doesn’t mean you’re absolutely stuck. You can hire a lawy…

Post by qingcharles » Wed, May 22, 2024, 8:10 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #56

samatman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely can. Now the company has to pay one of their lawyers ($$$) to show up, or the claim is a default judgement, which they have to pay. So the lawyer shows up and says blah blah mandatory binding arbitration. The judge can interrupt and say "don't care, judgement against, pay the man". Or the opposite, in which case at least you cost them more than they cost you. Which is why they probably take the default…

At least in some courts, I would think filing a motion to dismiss would be enough, without swnding a lawyer to court... but I have never been theough that process before so I can't say for sure? Still takes time, and arbitration isn't all that scary, ao forcing them to arbitrate can also be a costly endeavor for them.

Post by mbesto » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:06 PM UTC

pests wrote: post #185

mbesto wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone pays it "pays it" is relative. The merchant is generally charging 3~6% more than they would otherwise if they didn't use a CC. Said differently, assuming all other things equal, buying the same good for the same price from two identical stores, one who only accepts CCs and one who accepts cash, the one who accepts cash will profit more. Therefore they can, in theory, charge less for their good. > being che…

If both customers are shopping at the same store, and one pays in card and one pays in cash, the card holder pays less due to cashback. I agree the prices will be higher than at a store that does not accept credit cards due to not having to pay the fees. The only way I see the extra 3% for cardholders is because they are "forced" to shop in card-accepting establishments which will have higher costs to cover fees whil…

Post by Teever » Sat, May 25, 2024, 5:44 AM UTC

asvitkine wrote: post #31

Teever wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see a campaign to coordinate small claims court claims against abusive companies. It could really fuck a company's day up if several hundred to thousand people across the world decides to seek redress from a small claims court on the same day.

If it's to dispute small charges, the company doesn't need to show up and just accept the loss.