Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. I'm going to try to explain this to you in the simplest of terms. When you drive down a road with a posted 70MPH speed limit, is there a law that you are breaking if you only drive 68MPH? Just because it says 70, doesn't mean you have to go the full limit. The same logic applies to companies who pull credit reports. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. If they decide that it's a policy to only pull reports on customers with non platinum credit cards, they are ok legally. You can hate them for it, but that is not their problem. Go rent from someone else. The company renting the tile cutter can legally check your credit if they choose to check it. So can Hertz. Just because they don't check it is meaningless. They choose not to do so for their own reasons. If they change that policy in the future, you either abide by it or don't do business with them. Dollar chose to check his credit because they thought he was a risk. Hertz may not see the same risk in renting a Jaguar to someone who uses a First Premier card. That's Hertz's legal right. It is also Dollar's legal right to choose to pull a report.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. gottago, there is no need to judge others on the quality of other posts by certain members. This is a discussion board and this thread is well open for that at this time. At this time I'm not saying I disagree or agree with your opinions or facts towards this situation. To be honest I am glad you are showing the other side of the situation. Hopefully others here will realize what you are trying to get at on this situation. I honestly do not know if Dollar had a right to pull a hard in this situation. Dollar could have pulled a soft and everything would have been O.K. on both ends probably. If you were Dollar would you have pulled a hard or a soft in this situation? Does this really call for a hard pull here? At what point is the line drawn on PP for a hard for others to attack it on a situation like this? A movir rental? Any input here would be great!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. You've just stepped in it, Gottago. If Dollar's rationale for PP was risk, then the rental of an arm load of DVDs would apply just as a vehicle would. You keep talking about mitigation of risk, but you then subjectify the application of risk by virtue of assignment of value. The law does not allow one to do that, as it promotes inconsistency. I understand that you're applying some common sense here--the rental of an expensive car is definitely a risk--but common sense does not always translate to application of law or application of jurisprudence. When one person's rights under the laws are compromised (renting a vehicle) and another's rights are not (renting a VCR) then there is unequal protection under the law based upon the same or similar circumstances. See the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
