Originally Posted by
hillrider
Well, you are correct. I studied contract law, and that's the perspective I'm taking.
So then you probably know how complex that area can get -- and so is this one.
Originally Posted by
hillrider
However, this whole mess starts with the fact that the Card Agreement states that the junk fee applies to a "purchase made outside of the U.S." (quoted from agreement). It does not state that the junk fee to apply to purchases made (anywhere) from a company whose merchant account is located outside of the U.S.
While Citi could probably benefit from using a more clear wording, that statement is made in a context of a payment instrument (i.e. a credit card). As such, there is an an implied reference to a payment transaction, as in "
purchase [transactions] made outside of the U.S.".
Originally Posted by
hillrider
I think these are two completely different things: the first one derives from contract law, which is in the clear, the second one derives from agreements that are completely invisible to us.
There are a few different things: First one being the place, where the
transaction took place (AKA POS -- Point of Sale). Second is the place, where the
contract was formed. The third one is the
jurisdiction (or jurisdictions), where a legal action can be brought in connection with that contract.
Originally Posted by
hillrider
Have I interpreted the language in the agreement incorrectly?
Originally Posted by
hillrider
I stand corrected. I see why some commented that Air Canada should have listed/used a U.S. account.
Originally Posted by
hillrider
So now I am totally confused. A bank is considered an intermediary if I'm transferring cash but it isn't if I'm paying credit card?
Let's use a few illustrative scenarios:
1) You are in CA (=PAX) and are looking to buy a car from a dealer in NY (=Airline) via an intermediary dealer in NM (=TA). You are paying by check. The NY dealer's bank account (=merchant account) is in DE. Your account is in NJ (=Citi credit card). DE has a banking law that specifies that checks, deposited to DE-based accounts are subject to a 2% levy by that state. Your bank account agreement has a clause, stating that if you use your checks for "purchases made outside of NJ", then you will be charged 3% extra.
You write a check from your NJ account and give it to the dealer in NM. That intermediary forwards the check to the dealer in NY, which deposits it into their bank account in DE.
2) You are in CA (=PAX) and are looking to buy a set of new wheels for your car from a dealer in NY (=Airline). That dealer has a merchant account, and the merchant account specifies the location of the merchant as NYC, NY. Your credit card account agreement has a clause, stating that if you use your card for "purchases made outside of CA", then you will be charged 3% extra. You have a good friend, who works at a dealership in NM.
You e-mail your friend with your credit card details and ask them to make the purchase on your behalf (=Travel Agent). Your friend calls the NY dealer and relays your credit card details to them. The charge on your CC statement indicates "Dealer Name, NYC, NY".
Originally Posted by
hillrider
If I remember correctly, the method by which consideration is paid has no bearing on the place of a purchase agreement.
Bingo! You referring to the particulars of the
contract ("purchase agreement"), and not of the transaction (
Point of Sale, translating to Place of Purchase in Citi's lingo).
Originally Posted by
hillrider
Well, maybe we're talking past each other because I'm not trying to distinguish the intermediary from the merchant, but am solely focused on the (legal) place of purchase since that's what the Card Agreement contemplates.
There you go again -- "(legal) place of purchase" appears to refer to the place of contract formation, as opposed to the POS.
Why would Citi contemplate something in their cardholder's agreement,
which they have no possibility of determining (e.g. the place, where the contract was formed), as opposed to the
Point of Sale?