[Avodah] early bird specials and ribbis

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:22:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
> : prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.  What matters is
> : when is the usual time that payment is due...
 
> That's not always well defined. Camps, shul functions... there are
> a lot of such examples.

Generally the proper time to pay for such things is at the door,
when you are getting the benefit that you're paying for (just like
concert tickets, etc).  The proof is that they do sell tickets at
the door, so that is when payment is due.  The reason they ask
people to pay earlier is for their convenience; it's much easier
for their planning if they know in advance how many people will
come, and to have money to pay for the advance expenses.  So to
encourage early payment they offer a discount.  But if you had
to cancel, al pi din would they have to refund your money?  If
so, then you haven't got what you paid for, and payment is not
yet due. 


> It would seem that it such cases your chiluq would boil down to
> an issur on the lashon. Writing:
>     Admission: $20, $10 for early birds who sign up by Feb 15th
> would be mutar, but writing:
>     Admission: $10, $20 for late sign-up after Feb 15th
> (or the more common, "at the door") would be assur?

Yes, the lashon should match the reality, that they're offering
a discount for early payment, not a penalty for late payment.
If they misdescribe what they are doing, that could be a problem.
The lashon on mechirat chametz, otzar bet din, etc., must also
be correct, or it could be a problem.

But, e.g., if you show up at the door with no money, and they
let you in on a promise to pay later, they may not charge you
extra.

Q: What if the surcharge is intended to pay for the administrative
cost of having to send you a bill, and keep track of whether your
payment has come in yet, send you a second bill, etc.?  Surely
that is a reasonable charge which should be allowed; you're paying
not for the fact that their money is still in your hands, but for
the extra expense that you have made them undergo.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas