Had a business refuse coin payment today.

if a business doesn't have to offer you a service, then they don't have to accept a certain form of money

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The cops are wrong.

No, any legal tender form of payment is a legal attempt to satisfy the debt. It may still be refused and the debt is not discharged, but no penalty may be applied for late payment. it is still up to the debtor and creditor to arrange satisfactory payment to satisfy the debt.

 

That's what I said in post #37.

 

This made me laugh. You sure make a lot of assumptions. So, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions, considering alternatives instead, is gullible? I'd say you have it exactly backwards.

Your stance during this entire thread has been one of hyperbolic (and arrogant) conjecture. I merely called you on it (and I'm not defending the parking lot attendant; I really don't care).

As for "dark alleys" and other potentially unsavory locales, I'm curious: have you spent much time riding the NYC subway, say, after midnight? Ever caught the A train in Spanish Harlem at 2 AM on a Saturday night? And I'm thinking back to the 80s, when things were a bit more, shall we say, raw. If you have, let me know and we can compare notes about gullibility—and "candy."

BTW, how do you find time for all the assuming you do on CT? Aren't you supposed to be busting your butt somewhere? Isn't that what makes you special—separates you from the riff-raff?

 

I tried to spend 2 half dollars on donuts to benefit the Child Advocacy Center. The people taking the money were worried that they couldn't take the halves (not even silver), so I had to stand there for a few minutes to convince them that the coins were legal tender. They did eventually take them. Later I found a dollar bill in the bottom of my pocket.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

It would make sense, as the forfeiture would be the penalty for not observing the law. What is the point of a law if their is no penalty for not following it?

 

Do you have any evidence to refute Conder's claim?

 

It didn't go so well for Kramer....


[video=youtube;kMimygVTgbU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMimygVTgbU[/video]

 

What you did was attack me personally for my response to this thread. No more, no less. I haven't had to be in a NYC subway or Harlem to have a gun put in my face or in my back. Yes, it's happened. Yet, here I am.

I'm glad that post made you laugh. The bit about candy was supposed to be funny.

As for my job, I've posted much on it here, if you took the time to read about it before posting you wouldn't have made yourself look as stupid as you just did with that remark.

At least you aren't 'What If' -ing anymore. Fantasy defences didn't work? So you change tactics to ad hominem.... Classy. :rolling:

 

Guess what? You have no authority to prevent me from contributing to this forum. Your every post on this thread has been a jab or personal attack against me, for responding to the topic. You have contributed nothing, and continue to do so. I wonder how often that is the case?

 

Geeze...didn't I settle all this nonsense for everyone back in Post #54? :kewl:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx

 

^post 37.

I didn't cite the laws, though. I just explained them. My point is though, to a lesser degree, that while there is no FEDERAL law, there may be a STATE law.

My main point is that if it was the policy of this business not to accept change, it would have been posted in full plain view. The individual, for whatever reason and from whatever background, seems to be creating his own "policy" while he is "in charge" and I would not personally let that slide unchallenged.

 

My intention was not to "attack" you but to challenge your rash assumption, as did others, that the attendant in question is obviously lazy because he refused to give change. We suggested not to jump to conclusions. You made the thread personal (i.e., departing from the info in the OP) by going on about how hard you work and about the plight of your "forefathers." I stand by what I said in my initial post: your assumptions are based on the barest of info and infused with resentment—toward some faceless, abstract "other" who doesn't work as hard as you do.

Mine is not a "fantasy" defense; I did not once during this thread mount a defense. And my ad hominem comments followed yours, quid pro quo (something about "orifices").

I just read through again the first few pages of this post, before our exchanges, and have no idea what you do.

 

I don't even get this. How would I have authority to prevent anyone from posting on this forum? Authority came up in an earlier (and not surprisingly, accusatory) post of yours:

Do you have issues with authority?

How would he know the OP were a "born American," BTW?

Look, we clearly don't see eye to eye and have been talking right past each other for the entire thread. I've not singled you out for attack, I've challenged your assumptions. That's been my contribution to this thread; human dynamics interest me far more than laws about accepting change.

One final thought: as for defending anyone in any situation, I usually give the person the benefit of the doubt. Something about the Golden Rule...

 

Ladies, ladies, you are both pretty.

Sounds like the consensus is a business is free to not accept any payment, but if you attempt to pay them with legal tender, (coins and notes), they cannot later charge you interest or charge theft because you can prove you tried to pay them.

Good to know. Now lets play with pretty coins.

 

Lol, yes Chris you are right. I'm done with this one

 

delete

 

It appears I am at least partially wrong, since the courts of the USA no longer strive to uphold the laws of the land.

In State v. Carroll, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.) the courts said the law need not apply. (they cited no law to the contrary, merely that it wasn't practical)

The law being 31 U.S.C.A. ' 5103, United States coins are legal tender "for all debts, public charges taxes and dues".

They may as well just change the law if they aren't going to follow it. Make only $1 or larger denominations legal tender, or something along those lines.