Yeah... just wondering... cause I want one now... anyone have one?

there is no such thing as a good credit card




stick to cash kiddo



but if your reall such an eager beaver then I suggest writing an email to your local Finance newspaper writer. Check it out............they will help you, trust.


get ya local paper
go to the finance section
and well at least in my newspaper (aint no small local town bullshit, the Toronto Sun) there is a head person that writes for that section and she always giving advice and whatnot to people for financial concerns......a contact or email should always be at the end of the article, look for it



ask that person.........not no kids on this site

none man, take it from me paying off debt from being young and stupid sucks. But im almost out and will never get another credit card in my life.

I actually agree with everybody that posted above me. Credit cards in themselves are bad investments. The same goes for debit cards (unless used sparingly, when you are in dire need of cash and don't have any on you). There must be something about plastic that makes people spend more than they should.

I went back to England a couple months ago and pulled out my English debit-card, and come to find out that British banks have adopted this "pin-policy". I refuse to put my pin number in to make purchases. The best thing is that I dont use my debit card because of it. My credit cards stay stacked away in my wallet. My Mastercard hasn't been used. My Visa has, but only for mundane things. Plus, my debit card from home (not Britian) is a Visa as well.

But the lesson is simple: being cognizant of how much money you're spending; where you're spending that money; and how much you should spend; can only be achieved by dealing in cash. Cash or a cheque.

MONEY MATTERS more than you know.
THE TRUTH

I went back to England a couple months ago and pulled out my English debit-card, and come to find out that British banks have adopted this "pin-policy".

LoL... There were clear signs that said everywhere... 'Pin is coming!' :)

I dont live in Britain, Mush.

Furthermore, no matter if "pin is coming" or not, the policy which made Pin cum, wasn't right at all. Here's a test for you, Mush ole boy. Go into a store with your debit card. Say you do not want to pin. When they say you must, ask them (1) why do I have to pin?; (2) what law says that I must pin?; (3) is this the banks' idea or the retailers?; and finally ask in exactly these words: (4) "Seeing that the contract to buy these goods was concluded the minute I passed my debit card to you, wouldn't you be in breach of contract by not accepting payment simply because I want to sign? seeing that signature is a valid way of payment, that is why there is a signature strip on the back of the card."; then conclude by picking up the goods you were going to buy and walk out -- I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED INTO IT, BUT I'M SURE THAT IT'LL BE HARD TO MAKE A THEFT CHARGE OR A MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT CHARGE STICK IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.


act to your own peril. Never simply accept a policy if it makes no sense. Pinning doesn't reduce fraud, it changes it's complexion. Instead of the banks paying for fraud, now the consumers do. Think about how that is true.

^ lmao... great idea...

I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED INTO IT, BUT I'M SURE THAT IT'LL BE HARD TO MAKE A THEFT CHARGE OR A MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT CHARGE STICK IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.


It might be because there is no official contract between the two of you as they haven't accepted payment, and if they don't accept it then if you walk out with the product that's basically theft e.g. if i wanted to swap my Ford with your Ferrari but you said no, and i just got in your ferrari and ran off with it... that would be theft... meh..

The Ford for the Ferrari incident you laid out above would be a theft, as there is no acceptance of the offer, but your example differs.

Since you wanna get legal, let me:

The question is when does acceptance of the offer occur. Remember that a contract for the sale of goods occurs slightly contrary to how you described it. First of all, if the acceptance took place at the counter by the retailer, then the offer must be made by the consumer. That's incorrect. The offer to sell the goods for a certain price is made by the retailer at the counter, the acceptance of that offer made by the consumer.

What needs to be determined is what constitutes a valid acceptance in these circumstances. There is such a thing as a bilateral 'executory' contract; and they are just as enforceable as any other contract, be it unilateral or "executed". The fact that a contract isn't executed according to one's self-implicit plans doesn't mean there is a breach of contract or a criminal charge.

Take this example:

P, the purchaser, goes to the counter to buy a book. R, the retailer, acting through it's agent the store-clerk, rings up the book and says "that'll be 50 quid". The words "that'll be 50 quid" is surely an offer. When P passes his/her debit card to R, that is the acceptance (subject to the caveat that there is adequate money on the card). A signature and/or pinning is a way to make that payment of the moneys, which are already cleared, valid. R by stopping P from taking the books unless he signs, looks closer to a breach of contract on R's part rather than a theft on P's part if he just takes the book.

When there is an offer and an acceptance, in an executory form, there should be no further question of theft. For instance, when the offer on the books is made by R, and P accepts that offer, the ownership of the books transfers to P. Therefore the property in question (the book) does not belong to another (see: s. 4 of the Theft Act 1968) as well as this situation arguably not being dishonest at all (see: R v Gosh and s. 2 of the Theft Act 1968). In my mind the definition of theft is not made out on the facts of P and R in those circumstances.

In regards the making off without payment, P cannot be assumed to have done that. He passed over his payment, and had that payment accepted, but could not validify it by way of signature because of the breach of contract on R's part.

This would all be different if R had a sign saying that when customers are paying by debit, they must ONLY do so if they verify that payment by PIN. Or, alternatively, R should say, as part of the offer: "If you are paying by debit, you must pin, and the price is" that would mean that acceptance depends on the PINNING. Otherwise, I dont think so.

RESPOND
THE TRUTH

I'm not going to argue with that, lmao. :)

No, I could see it from your point of view as well... go ahead and argue. How is the law going for you anyway, Mush?

I'm going to reply to this later on... Anyway, Law... is just meh... i'm not sure whether i want to do it anymore. I'v decided i don't want to become a Barrister and i'd rather become a solicitor but the number of applications to Uni's and the amount of solicitors there are it makes it even difficult. Finance is not a problem, my parents are backing me up on that, but the LPC for 1 year then getting a Training Contract... very likely i might drop out. Plus, i want to do Corporate Law and there are joint degrees which mix Business and Law but that doesn't add to a LLB and the LLB holds more weight than a BA imo. Have you gained a Law degree yet and from where?

I reckon credit rules. You can delay payments for upto 45 days without interest. Works out good for me.

If I bought something now. I would actually pay for it in June. :cool: Just don't miss tha bill date or you'll get raped ;) .

lol...

llyods tsb is shit i rekkon my peeps always complain bout dem

No Credit Card. That's the best credit card. If you need a credit card then that means you don't have any money.