Sentences with phrase «business as authorized user»

Add your business as authorized user on personal card?

Not exact matches

Here's a brief refresher of the Chase 5/24 rule: If you have been approved for or been listed as an authorized user on five credit cards (personal or business) in the 24 months, you will need to wait for your oldest card application inquiry to drop off your credit report.

That includes any charges made by any business employees you designate as authorized users of the card.

You further authorize your Administrator to add other persons as users of your Online Banking Services and designate which of your business Accounts they may access and the level of activity in which they can engage in such accounts («Sub-Users»).

For a $ 75 fee per year, you can add an authorized user to the card, such as a family member or business partner.

Ability to add employees With the best business credit cards, you can add employees as authorized users under the same account.

For a $ 75 fee per year, you can add an authorized user to the card, such as a family member or business partner.

Here's a brief refresher of the Chase 5/24 rule: If you have been approved for or been listed as an authorized user on five credit cards (personal or business) in the 24 months, you will need to wait for your oldest card application inquiry to drop off your credit report.

You can add anyone as an authorized user to your credit card, including a spouse, roommate, business partner, or child.

Chase Ink Business Preferred ℠ users can activate employees as authorized users at no additional cost.

On the one hand, many spouses add each other as an authorized user for convenience purposes if they have different cards, so they can help each other meet minimum spend for the best travel credit cards «signup bonuses, or so they can benefit from the annual AMEX Small Business Saturday promotion.

In addition, requesting authorized users can lower a cardholder's credit score by a few points, because some card companies check credit reports when customers request additional cards — known in the business as a «hard inquiry.»

Prof. Conduct 123 (2001)(subject to the operational structure and content described in the opinion, a lawyer may affiliate with an online legal services website); Nebraska Op. 07 - 05 (lawyer may participate in internet lawyer directory which identifies itself as a directory, disclaims being a referral service and only lists basic information about lawyers without recommending specific lawyers and charges a reasonable, flat annual advertising fee); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Op. 36 (2006)(lawyer may pay flat fee to internet marketing company for exclusive website listing for particular county in specific practice area if listing includes prominent, unmistakable disclaimer stating the listings are paid advertisements and not endorsements or authorized referrals); North Carolina Op. 2004 - 1 (lawyer may participate in for - profit online service that is a hybrid referral service - legal directory, provided there is no fee - sharing with the service and communications are truthful); Oregon Op. 2007 - 180 (2007)(lawyer may pay nationwide internet referral service for listing if listing is not false or misleading and does not imply that the lawyer can represent clients outside jurisdictions of the lawyer's license, fee is not based on number of referrals, retained clients or revenue generated by listing and the service does not exercise discretion in matching clients with lawyers); Rhode Island 2005 - 01 (permitting website that enables lawyers to post information about their services and respond to anonymous requests for legal services in exchange for flat annual membership fee if website exercises no discretion over which requests lawyers may access); South Carolina 01 - 03 (lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number of «hits» that the service produces for the lawyer provided that the service does not steer business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user ultimately becomes a client); Texas Op. 573 (2006)(lawyer may participate in for - profit internet service that matches potential clients and lawyers if selection process is fully automated and performed by computers without the exercise of human discretion); Virginia Advertising Op.