Maine steals money, flat out.

[doczinn]

If it is unable to do that, it hasn't kept it's [sic] end of the bargain and is a breach of contract.

It isn't unable to do that, it simply hasn't been asked to. As soon as the holder of the card asks, the store will redeem the card.

[drewtam]

I can see it both ways.
On one hand, the company is holding your money until you buy something. Much like an airline holds your luggage, until you claim it.
On the other hand, the money is kept as a secured credit account. So its very similar to a derivative, like a credit card that was pre-paid.

[Regolith]

And it is an agreement between the purchaser and the store.

Yes, and the agreement is that the store will redeem the gift certificate for goods or service.  If it is unable to do that, it hasn't kept it's end of the bargain and is a breach of contract.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.  The store doesn't 'own' the gift certificate money until they perform under the agreement.  If  the gc is never redeemed, they didn't perform so they send the money to another 'holder', who is the state, who holds it forever, or until the owner claims it.

BS, because I severely doubt that the state intends to pay the full value of the gift card back to the owner (the person who holds the gift card) if they ever decide to use it.

The state wouldn't be holding the money in lieu of being used. It would have stolen the money for its own use.

The only difference between this and an expiration date imposed by the store that issued the gift card is that in this case the state gets to keep the money after 2 years instead of the store.

[Paddy]

BS, because I severely doubt that the state intends to pay the full value of the gift card back to the owner (the person who holds the gift certificate) if they ever decide to use it.

The state isn't holding the money in lieu of being used. It has stolen the money for its own purchases.

The only difference between this and an expiration date imposed by the store that issued the gift card is that in this case the state gets to keep the money after 2 years instead of the store.

How can I say this?................. how about BULLSHIT.  You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.  The state holds the money FOREVER, or until the rightful owner claims it.

You really need to educate yourself with regard to the facts of law before you bloviate. 

[Regolith]

BS, because I severely doubt that the state intends to pay the full value of the gift card back to the owner (the person who holds the gift certificate) if they ever decide to use it.

The state isn't holding the money in lieu of being used. It has stolen the money for its own purchases.

The only difference between this and an expiration date imposed by the store that issued the gift card is that in this case the state gets to keep the money after 2 years instead of the store.

How can I say this?................. how about BULLSHIT.  You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.  The state holds the money FOREVER, or until the rightful owner claims it.

You really need to educate yourself with regard to the facts of law before you bloviate. 

Right.  So you're telling me that if the person who holds the gift card decides to use it after 2 years, there won't be a $0.00 balance on it, and the state will refund the 60% of the money they took off the value of the gift card back to the store?

Because if these quotes  are any indication, it sounds more like the state plans on using that money, not holding it indefinately until the owner claims it:

The refusal of national firms to pay up has left a hole in the state budget. The Legislature included $28.6 million from dormant gift cards in the budget for the two-year period that ends in mid-2009. Last month, a panel that projects state revenues said that figure won't be met.

The 60 percent share claimed by Maine isn't arbitrary. The state is letting retailers keep 40 percent, which equates roughly with the retail markup, while seeking to take the value of the product that never sold, Lemoine said.

"The remaining 60 percent is true windfall, and the Maine Legislature has taken the position that the windfall has been taken out of the consuming public and should be returned to the consuming public," he said.

[Paddy]

Right.  So you're telling me that if the person who holds the gift card decides to use it after 2 years, there won't be a $0.00 balance on it, and the state will refund the 60% of the money they took off the value of the gift card back to the store?

Because if these quotes  are any indication, it sounds more like the state plans on using that money, not holding it indefinately until the owner claims it:

I don't understand why the state is allowing the retailer to keep 40%; they damn sure didn't earn it and it's not their money.

And yes, the state will refund 60% of the money to the owner.  They gave the other 40% to the retailer.  For nothing. 

And it doesn't matter what it 'sounds like' to you, the state cannot 'use' the money.  You should read the law before you bloviate again.

[Warren]

California and many states have "lost money" lists. You can check under your name and find if there is any cash outstanding for you. Prove it belongs to you and the state will send you a check. Old bank accounts, court settlements, alimony, inheritances,....whatever.

It is so widespread that there are businesses that do this for a percentage, they find a bundle of money and they will tell you how to go about getting it for a fee.

So as far as how bad governments are about things in general, this gift card issue has a good chance of working for consumers.

[Regolith]

Right.  So you're telling me that if the person who holds the gift card decides to use it after 2 years, there won't be a $0.00 balance on it, and the state will refund the 60% of the money they took off the value of the gift card back to the store?

Because if these quotes  are any indication, it sounds more like the state plans on using that money, not holding it indefinately until the owner claims it:

I don't understand why the state is allowing the retailer to keep 40%; they damn sure didn't earn it and it's not their money.

And yes, the state will refund 60% of the money to the owner.  They gave the other 40% to the retailer.  For nothing. 

And it doesn't matter what it 'sounds like' to you, the state cannot 'use' the money.  You should read the law before you bloviate again.

Right.  I see you failed to completely read the article (and my edited post):

The refusal of national firms to pay up has left a hole in the state budget. The Legislature included $28.6 million from dormant gift cards in the budget for the two-year period that ends in mid-2009. Last month, a panel that projects state revenues said that figure won't be met.

Sure as hell looks like they intend to use it to me.  They are going to be 28.6 million short on their next two year budget because they had figured on getting the money from these gift cards.  Maybe next time YOU should read the law before you bloviate, eh?

[Paddy]

From your wage earning perspective 'you can only spend money once, then you ain't got no more until next payday'.  Right?  Makes no diff WHAT the state does with the CASH, the liability to the OWNER remains in PERPETUITY.  IOW, the state will return the money to the owner when he claims it.

sheesh.  Our public education really sucks. 

[Regolith]

From your wage earning perspective 'you can only spend money once, then you ain't got no more until next payday'.  Right?  Makes no diff WHAT the state does with the CASH, the liability to the OWNER remains in PERPETUITY.  IOW, the state will return the money to the owner when he claims it.

sheesh.  Our public education really sucks. 

So, say in three years you go to claim the money from some gift card you get last christmas. Because they've already used the money they got from these gift cards, they're going to have to borrow money to cover the costs when someone claims it later, and then increase the next budget to pay for that borrowed money plus whatever interest is being charged on it.

And of course increasing the next budget of course means they have to increase taxes.  Which of course means that you get to pay for that gift card TWICE.

Yeah, great way of doing things.

Sorry, I';d rather just keep the state out of the loop.  There is no reason for the state to "hold" the money, as the retailers are already prevented by law from causing the gift cards to expire.

[Warren]

The refusal of national firms to pay up has left a hole in the state budget. The Legislature included $28.6 million from dormant gift cards in the budget for the two-year period that ends in mid-2009. Last month, a panel that projects state revenues said that figure won't be met.

QUOTE (my previous post)

Well...except for that bit, which  I missed in the OP.

[Paddy]

Sorry, I';d rather just keep the state out of the loop.  There is no reason for the state to "hold" the money, as the retailers are already prevented by law from causing the gift cards to expire.

I understand.  You don't want the money returned to the rightful owner.  You want the store to steal it instead.

[Regolith]

Sorry, I';d rather just keep the state out of the loop.  There is no reason for the state to "hold" the money, as the retailers are already prevented by law from causing the gift cards to expire.

I understand.  You don't want the money returned to the rightful owner.  You want the store to steal it instead.

If the rightful owner (the holder of the giftcard) wants the money, then they can go to the store and use the gift card. Pretty simple.

[Paddy]

If the rightful owner (the holder of the giftcard) wants the money, then they can go to the store and use the gift card. Pretty simple.

And if they don't the store should keep the money.  That's theft, of which you apparently approve.  Unfortunately, this is a nation of laws.  Get used to it or move to Zimbabwe.

[Regolith]

If the rightful owner (the holder of the giftcard) wants the money, then they can go to the store and use the gift card. Pretty simple.

And if they don't the store should keep the money.  That's theft, of which you apparently approve.  Unfortunately, this is a nation of laws.  Get used to it or move to Zimbabwe.

No, its not theft, because when the someone bought the cardholder, it was understood contractually that the store would hold the money until the user sees fit to claim it.  If they didn't feel like claiming it, that's not the store's nor the state's problem.  The state has absolutely no business taking the money in the mean time.

Here's the other kicker:  this can cause some severe problems with interstate commerce.  Lets say I have a relative in Maine, and they get me a gift card from say, Burger King, and send it to me in Nevada.  I let it sit in a sock drawer for 2.4 years until I remember its there and go use it.

The store, since there is no expiration date, HAS to redeem it for its full value.  However, in order for them to get the 60% of the funds back, they now have to find out where the card came from, and apply for reimbursement.  This is direct interference into interstate commerce, and puts undue burden on the store owner to get reimbursement. 

[Paddy]

The store, since there is no expiration date, HAS to redeem it for its full value.  However, in order for them to get the 60% of the funds back, they now have to find out where the card came from, and apply for reimbursement.  This is direct interference into interstate commerce, and puts undue burden on the store owner to get reimbursement.

Doh.  You forgot the store ALREADY got its (excessive) 40% profit.  Now you want them to get the profit again, off of one transaction. Yeah, that's ethical. 

[Regolith]

The store, since there is no expiration date, HAS to redeem it for its full value.  However, in order for them to get the 60% of the funds back, they now have to find out where the card came from, and apply for reimbursement.  This is direct interference into interstate commerce, and puts undue burden on the store owner to get reimbursement.

Doh.  You forgot the store ALREADY got its (excessive) 40% profit.  Now you want them to get the profit again, off of one transaction. Yeah, that's ethical. 

I'm sorry, since when was there something wrong with profit?

Since the card never expires, the store will always be honor bound to give you the full value of the card if you ever decide to use it. And since it is understood that if you never use it then the store keeps the money that they are holding in lieu of use of the card, there isn't a problem.

The state, on the other hand, has no right to that money.

[Paddy]

And since it is understood that if you never use it then the store keeps the money that they are holding in lieu of use of the card, there isn't a problem.

You're wrong AGAIN. It never was 'understood' that the store gets to 'keep' the money.  You know nothing about contracts, do you?

[Regolith]

And since it is understood that if you never use it then the store keeps the money that they are holding in lieu of use of the card, there isn't a problem.

You're wrong AGAIN. It never was 'understood' that the store gets to 'keep' the money.  You know nothing about contracts, do you?

Read the EULA on a gift card.  I bet you its in there.  The store is holding the money that was used to purchase the gift card until you use the gift card.  Its a pretty simple concept.  If you never use the gift card, the store keeps the money.  Again, pretty simple. This is how gift cards work.  The money doesn't float out in la la land waiting for you to use it, its in the store's bank accounts. And if you never use it, the store doesn't have a reason to pay out, hence it keeps the money.

I don't see how you don't comprehend this.

[Regolith]

And it is an agreement between the purchaser and the store.

Yes, and the agreement is that the store will redeem the gift certificate for goods or service.  If it is unable to do that, it hasn't kept it's end of the bargain and is a breach of contract.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.  The store doesn't 'own' the gift certificate money until they perform under the agreement.  If  the gc is never redeemed, they didn't perform so they send the money to another 'holder', who is the state, who holds it forever, or until the owner claims it.

The store is completely able to redeem the gift card for goods and services, unless they go out of business.  At which point, you would be correct.  However, since its the USER who is responsible for redeeming said gift card for goods and services.  If they never do so, its not the store who is unable to keep its end of the bargain, its the user.

[Paddy]

First, EULA applies to computer software, not gift cards.  Second the gift card contract in unilateral, meaning that purchaser has not agreed to its terms, nor does the purchase constitute agreement.  And no, the store DOESN'T get to 'keep the money'.

Three strikes, you're out.

[Regolith]

First, EULA applies to computer software, not gift cards.  Second the gift card contract in unilateral, meaning that purchaser has not agreed to its terms, nor does the purchase constitute agreement.  And no, the store DOESN'T get to 'keep the money'.

Three strikes, you're out.

1.  Since I spend most of my time dealing with EULA's, I've gotten into the habit of using that as a byword for most contracts of this type.

2.  Its not unilateral, as the purchaser agrees to the terms in the act of purchasing.  Same as with EULA's for software purchases.

3.  Considering the fact no state has successfully been able to get the companies to give them the money, I'd say that they do.

[Paddy]

1.  Since I spend most of my time dealing with EULA's, I've gotten into the habit of using that as a byword for most contracts of this type.

2.  Its not unilateral, as the purchaser agrees to the terms in the act of purchasing.  Same as with EULA's for software purchases.

3.  Considering the fact no state has successfully been able to get the companies to give them the money, I'd say that they do.

1. I'm not impressed.  EULAs really aren't enforceable.

2. The purchaser made no such agreement.  There was no 'meeting of the minds, ergo, no contract.  A court will always find in favor of the party upon whom the unilateral contract was foisted.

3. So violations of the law void that law?  So much for your 'EULAS'   

I think you're living in cyberland.

[Fly320s]

And it doesn't matter what it 'sounds like' to you, the state cannot 'use' the money.

If the state can't use the money, why do they want to grab it?  Surely, they aren't doing that for my benefit.

[RocketMan]

Riley, it is state-sanctioned theft, pure and simple.  No matter how you spin it, the State gets 60% of the value of the unused card.  They are not doing this for the benefit of the card holder or anyone else but themselves.  They will never make an effort to find the holder of the card to make sure they use it.  This is another revenue raising project for the State.

What is the problem if the (evil) corporation holds on to the value of the unused card until the holder redeems it?  Where is the problem is the (evil) corporation gets to keep the value of the card should the holder never redeem it?  It is the card holders responsibility to redeem the card, or not.  If they shove into the back of a drawer someplace and forget about it, too bad, it's their problem.
Should the card holder decide ten years down the road to redeem the card, they can, and the (evil) corporation will gladly let them.  Most cards these days have no expiration. 
The responsibility for its use does not fall on the (evil) corporation's shoulders.  The damn government sticking its nose in this business is just another money (and power) grab on their part.  It cannot be anything else.

(I inserted "evil" for your benefit since you seem to have never met a corporation you thought was not evil.)