It strikes me that we are not fully exploiting a form of payment that some 'corporate' might be able to provide for their benefit, aimed at 'normal' folk to buy things.

This idea is driven by the problem that I hate paying for things in advance or receiving a bill that is then pursued, when I receive goods or services that I feel are not of the quality to justify partial or full payment. I would prefer to agree to purchase but only allow payment once I have received goods or services to my satifaction.

We have money - used to either pay a supplier in advance or pay in arrears once goods are services are provided.

Credit - used to obtain goods well in advance of paying (paying a fee for the privilege)

Neither of the above have any step in the process that says 'I am satisfied - the money can be passed to the supplier'

The concept of paying by Escrow is already established, yet its use is limited to large payments with lawyers involved, or auctions on eBay.

Why can there not be an easier method for paying for goods (maybe on an Escrow VISA), this gives the confidence to the supplier that payment is available. Yet the hand-over of money does not happen until the customer confirms that the goods/services have been provided to satisfaction. This gives the customer confidence that the focus will be on quality of service.

Obviously there would have to be sensible boundaries agreed to the definition of 'provided to satisfaction' maybe there could be a number of pre-canned definitions that the lawyers could define and then put into plain English for the rest of us to understand.

This technique would obviously have the potential for the Escrow service provider to make money through the handling of lots of small sums of money that would be able to sit in their bank accounts earning interest (or however it works) during the period of the transaction. Or a fee could be charged 'a quality of service guarantee charge'.

Any thoughts?