Individual Client or Customer fining or charging a Company a penalty fee
What's the primary factor keeping a consumer from handing out fees as liberally as corporations or small businesses do? Power. Can an individual, or more appropriately, what keeps an individual from being able to charge, fine or penalize a Business? If it could be accomplished, but at a high cost, let's assume it's based on principal and not monetary gain. And have a legal entitlement to money back?  No.  You are of course welcome to send your doctor a letter stating that you would like $50 to make up for your two hour wait last time around, but there's no legal obligation for him to pay up, unless he signed a contract stating that he would do so. Corporations also cannot simply send you a fine or fee and expect you to pay it; you must have either agreed to pay it in the past, or now agree to pay it in exchange for something. In these cases, the corporations have the power: you have to agree to their rules to play ball.   However, consumers do have a significant power as well, in well-competed markets: the power to do business with someone else.  You don't like the restocking fee?  Buy from Amazon, which offers free shipping on returns.  You don't like paying a no-show fee from the doctor?  Find a doctor without one (or with a more forgiving fee), or with a low enough caseload that you don't have to make appointments early.  Your ability to fine them exists as your ability to not continue to patronize them. In some markets, though, consumers don't have a lot of power - for example, cable television (or other utilities). The FCC has a list of Customer Service Standards, which cable companies are required to meet, and many states have additional rules requiring penalties for missed or late appointments tougher than that.   And, in the case of the doctor, if your doctor is late - find one that is.  Or, try sending him a bill.  It does, apparently, work from time to time - particularly if the doctor wants to keep your business.
"I just looked at a fund for my client, the fund is T Rowe Price Retirement 2015 (TRRGX).  As stated in the prospectus, it has an annual expense ratio of 0.63%.  In the fine print below the funds expenses, it says  ""While the fund itself charges no management fee, it will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds). The acquired funds are expected to bear the operating expenses of the fund.""  One of it's acquired funds is TROSX which has an expense ratio of 0.86%.  So the total cost of the fund is the weighted average of the ""acquired funds"" expense ratio's plus the listed expense ratio of the fund.  You can see this at http://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=74149P796 and its all listed in ""Fees and Expenses of the Fund""" The rounding should always follow the same rule. If the value ends in .01 or .02 then you round to .00. Doesn't matter if it's 10.01 rounding to 10.00 or 0.01 to 0.00. The decision on what a company wants to do if an invoice total is $0.01 or $0.02 would be up to the company. The POS system should follow the rule and round to $0.00 if the method of payment is cash, but the company has the right to not give things away for free.  They can impose a minimum cash invoice amount of $0.05. But you would do this by requiring the customer to add more items to their purchase. You couldn't just round the invoice up to $0.05 and to charge them $0.05 for a $0.01 item It would be similar to companies having a minimum purchase amount when paying by credit card. If their minimum amount is $10.00 and you want to buy something that's $5.00, you either pay cash or add something to your order. They don't just charge you $10.00 for your $5.00 item. I think this would be a extreme edge case where you have an invoice with a total of $0.01 or $0.02, without any discounts, partial payments, etc. If the customer's total was $10.01 and they paid with a $10.00 gift card, the final amount owing of $0.01 would round down to $0.00 and they wouldn't owe any more. If they had paid cash, the total would have rounded to $10.00 anyway.  Similarly, if the customer returned an item and bought a new item, or used coupons, and the total owing was $0.01 or $0.02, then you would round down to $0.00 and they wouldn't pay anything. As BobbyScon said, you can implement some options to allow the company to decide how they want to handle this. You could have an option that doesn't allow a sale to be processed if the total amount is less than $0.03 and the sale doesn't include any discounts, returned items, coupons, etc. The option could be to completely block the sale, require a supervisor override, or just display a warning to the cashier. Best bet is to talk to as many of your current or potential clients as you can to see how they would like this edge case handled. For many, it's probably a mute case since they wouldn't have items that have a unit price less than $0.03. Maybe a place like a hardware store that sells individual nuts, bolts, and washers. "I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: ""disposable"", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!" I thought this was because credit card companies charge the retailer a fee to accept credit card payments. If you spend $100, the retailer pays $1 (or whatever percentage they have negotiated) to the credit card provider.  Handing over $100 cash and paying $1 fee to Visa means a loss to the retailer. The same transaction on $100 worth of product means the loss is accepted out of the profit margin which the retailer accepts to attract custom. The big problem I see with this article is it does not state what the profits would be minus the licensing fees. It only states revenue, which is obviously a bad indicator of taxes owed.   Also, licensing fees are applicable in some markets. For example in markets like China that mandate a company do business under a subsidiary, licensing is a legitimate expense, considering the subsidiary might not be wholly owned by the parent company (per the country's laws).   That said, this is the UK we're talking about, so it is clearly not in that situation. I was just pointing out in some markets it is a legitimate expense. Maybe the UK could make licensing fees a non-deductible expense after a certain percentage of subsidiary income. Its a complex problem, I would be interested to see if any other jurisdictions have tackled it. Your cheapest option is to pay the penalty on $ 60,000 now, and pay the remaining $ 40,000 this coming January.  I assume the penalty will be 2.15% of $ 60,000, or $ 1,380. My logic:  The effective cost of the money is 3.186% - 0.8% = 2.386%.  Thus, it is worth paying the penalty if and only if you can save at least 11 months of interest by paying the penalty.  Eight months of interest differential on the $ 40,000 will be about 1.6%, or $ 640, which is less than the $ 860 penalty you will avoid on the $ 40,000. The contract is not with the guests. The guests will not be paying the $500 fee, the people paying for the wedding have a contract and they will be required to pay the fee.   That's reasonable to me. If an employee causes damage the employer can be liable; if I have guests at my home who cause damage I can be found liable. Why not wedding guests? Some people in the corporation set up a system that some other employees gamed, right? That's not exactly a middle finger to the country, that's an incentive system gone horrible wrong for the bank themselves. And for any consumers who were hit with fees from this, but from the class action settlement email I just got it looks like impacted consumers will be getting their money back and more.   That seems to be the gist of this scandal. It's a worrisome comment on WFC internal controls, but if you are worried about internal controls then the bank that just had a scandal is likely to have over-corrected for this issue relative to other options.