On 04/12/2015 08:12 PM, Jason Adams wrote: > On 04/11/2015 06:01 AM, IMAP List Administration wrote: >> The trouble began immediately. I chose electronic wire transfer as the >> payment >> method, > Its not 1929 any more. I'm utterly suprised the store still offers wire > transfer. > > In my day job, we refuse wire transfers. We would rather lose a customer > than deal > with it unless the invoice is several thousand dollars. Its too much work > (on both ends) > and one never gets the invoice amount, as the banks charge fees on both ends. As other people have pointed out, wire transfer (EWT) is the norm in Europe. It is effortless, automated by most, and it replaced using cheques 25 or so years ago. There is either zero added fee or the fee is trivial -- this is required by EU law.
So bragging that your company refuses EWT can be compared to bragging that your company refuses to use online electronic methods to transfer files such as FTP/etc, and only accepts files that are provided on floppy disks. Your perception is highly subjective and in fact badly distorted because you think that because your country/system has botched the implementation of EWT that all countries/systems must also have botched it. wrong. > What should have been an automated order now requites human intervention on > both ends, plus any transcription error along the way sends your money to > no-man's land. botched implementation of your system. Not in EU. > Even the store's handling of PayPal is obsolete, requiring two steps, and > manual matching > of orders to payments. nothing to do with EWT, but not surprising. > > There are a dozen other payment methods that could be used on the store, but > it seems > hopelessly stuck in 1996. > based on assumption that own system is "best". How could anything be simpler than having A instruct A's bank to move funds to B's bank account?
