"You have one of those new cards. We don't need your pin or signature with one of those. Isn't that handy?" she replied with a huge smile on her face.
The man looked puzzled, wanted to ask the girl another question but then thought better of it, and reluctantly left with his purchase. It's likely his next stop was the bank to get a proper explanation.
It's not like me to complain about new technology but I have a problem with the Wave and Go cards that most banks, including ASB, ANZ, BNZ, Kiwibank and Westpac, are now issuing.
On my own bank's website, it says: "It's like having exact change, so you don't have to worry about carrying around a lot of cash and coins. There's no need to dip or swipe your card in the terminal. Simply tap your card against the reader and you're done."
The woman at my branch was also tremendously enthusiastic about it. "It's the latest technology," she said. "Isn't it great?"
"No, I don't think it's that great at all as I have concerns about security," I said.
"What if my card gets nicked and the thief starts waving it around all over the place before I have noticed it has gone missing?"
"Well, it's only up to $80," she replied.
"Eighty dollars is a lot of money to me and I don't feel comfortable with it, so can I opt out?"
She tried hard to convince me of its benefits before explaining customers don't have the choice of opting out of the swipe or tap function.
My new credit card has been chucked in a drawer, nowhere near a terminal, only to be used for online purchases. But when my debit card expires, I'll probably have to face the music anyway.
Customers averse to these new cards simply have no option but to conform.
I know card holders will generally not be liable for losses from unauthorised use of their card unless they had acted fraudulently or negligently, or had contributed to the loss.
But you have to prove it, even if it's as clear as day.
Someone somehow got hold of my credit card details a few years ago and, even though not a lot was stolen, it was a lot to me and it took several months of phone calls, signing statements, and writing to the bank to get my money back.
I simply don't want that to happen again and I think this new technology increases that risk.
The Banking Ombudsman Scheme even warns about it on their website.
"Because you don't need a PIN or signature to complete a contactless transaction for under $80, there is a greater chance of transactions being made without your knowledge or consent," it says.
Furthermore, I think the new technology brings along the risk for people to get deeper in debt and no one but banks and credit providers benefit from that.
On tvnz.co.nz, I read this week that University of Canterbury associate professor in marketing Ekant Veer thinks the contactless technology makes it easier for people to spend money "without even thinking about it" as the transaction requires "such low involvement" on their part.
A similar story can be found on the sorted.org.nz website, posted by Tom Hartmann, which says: "Credit cards lead to dumb debt. It's been widely proven that people tend to spend more on their credit cards than when paying by cash or cheque. So even if you budget to pay off your credit card every month, you are probably spending more than you planned.
"What the new waveable, tappable cards do is shorten the time it takes to reach the pleasure that comes from buying something. There's even less time to make an informed decision and remember the pain of paying that lies off in the future.
"It's a streamlined, more convenient world - but one in which we all need to be way more savvy about avoiding the drag of dumb debt."
Because I'm not convinced there is little risk and also because senseless spending will be even easier, I've decided not to play ball with the banks just yet.
