Teen pays in legal tender has to call cops

Then why would we need such a law if accepting payment in US currency for a debt measured in US dollars is optional? It would be optional without the law as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You're still missing the point Blaubart.

The currency is recognized as legal tender and can <---key word] be used for payment of debts, not that it must be used, nor does it say it must be accepted. Go back to one of my other posts on this thread where I asked a question:

How many times have you seen a sign like that in a 7-Eleven, or any mini-mart for that matter?

Do you live in an apartment complex? If so, does the management office allow you to pay your rent in cash? Or do they require payment in check or credit card?

My complex does not accept cash for payment of rent. They take personal check, money order, or credit card only.

 

Yeah they could have been standing around talking somewhere, abusing their power, or using excessive/unnecessary force on someone.

 

On the contrary...

That is not a DEBT. This is the point you all seem to be missing. When you walk up to the counter with the goods you wish to purchase, you are proposing a sale. No debt has been incurred at that point. On the Wikipedia page, someone does bring up the special circumstances that restaurants find themselves in. They collect payment after the meal has been consumed. At that point there is a debt and if they want their money, they have to accept whatever form of legal tender is offered.

No, but I do own a rental property. If it is stipulated in the rental contract that payment must be made in a certain fashion, then you must pay according to the terms of your contract. Also, unless it's late, rent due for the next month is not a debt.

Despite it being mentioned several times, people keep bringing up examples that do not involve debt. What is so hard to understand about this concept?

 

At the point of you walking up to the counter, that is correct. However, once the clerk rings up the items, there is now a debt you owe for those items before you can leave the store with them. And the clerk has every right to refuse to accept a $50 or $100 bill for payment after a certain time of day. They are not obligated to accept every form of payment which could be offered.

No. They do not have to accept whatever form of payment is offered. They can refuse to accept a personal check, that is a form of payment. Hardly any restaurants accept a personal check these days. They can also refuse to accept a credit or debit card, which is also a form of payment. I know several restaurants around here that don't take plastic. They have an ATM available for you to withdraw cash from your account.

Even if it isn't stipulated in the contract, the property manager, or owner, can refuse to accept cash, no different than refusing to accept your personal check.

Everyone has brought up examples of debt. You're just micro-defining what debt is.

If you owe money, whether for rent, car payment, personal loan, groceries, a Big Gulp, you owe a debt.

Most of us are wondering the same.

 

There have been a few responses to this, but here's another.

I may be wrong, but I assume it's also somewhat of an offshoot of the laws passed in the mid-1800s that said foreign money (i.e. Spanish dollars) is NOT legal tender.
This is where I'm fuzzy though. Before that, either there wasn't a legal tender law, or US dollars were lumped in with the foreign money that was considered legal tender. Anybody know how that worked?

 

From what I understand this goes back to the Revolutionary War period. Up until we declared independence from Great Britain, the currency in use was the English pound. When we started making our own currency, or currency of the United States, that was the currency the founding fathers wanted to be legal and tender for use in commerce as well as paying debts, whether public or private as they didn't want foreign currency to have more buying power than our own.

 

I think that is stretching the defition of debt a bit because you can still leave the bag of items there and walk away.

[/quote]
By "legal tender", I was referring to US currency, not any other generally accepted form of payment such as checks, credit cards, gift certificates, coupons, bitcoins, etc. You know the whole thing this entire thread has been about.

Not quite. If you offer payment in legal US currency on the date your rent is due and they refuse it, they will have no legal ground to charge you any late fees.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the law is meant to provide protection to debtors from creditors. If you have a debt to someone that is measured in US Dollars, and you make an attempt to pay them using US currency, that represents a legal and valid offer of payment. Of course you can choose not to accept it, but in doing so you will forfeit certain legal rights that you would have had if they had not made an attempt to repay their debt. (The imposition of late fees, interest, placing adverse information in their credit report, forclosure, etc)

 

Well, the Spanish 8 Reales circulated alongside our dollars for a long time after and before the Revolution, and were considered legal tender. After all, it was a global currency and was fairly readily available. So from before the Revolution, until the 1850s, the 8 Reales had the same buying power as one US dollar.
But I was just wondering if there were legal tender laws before that, or was it just the public opinion that dictated legal tender.

 

"In 1793 our new coinage law gave legal tender status to Spanish and large silver coins of France. The status was to be temporary until the Philadelphia mint could meet the demand for a circulating medium. At that time it was estimated it would take the mint three years to strike enough coins, and then the foreign pieces could be withdrawn. In fact, the law was renewed in 1806, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1827, and 1834 until foreign coins were finally demonetized beginning in 1857."




http://www.crookedlakereview.com/articles/101_135/119spring2001/119muhl.html

[edit to add] I wonder how our contemporary money takers would react to the plethora of circulating coinage back in the time illustrated in the above linked article......blasted kids at McDonalds don't know what a presidential dollar coin is.

 

This is correct. What many people do not realize is that each of these extensions specified which coins would be legal tender and for how long. In many cases the legal tender extension would expire before the next renewal occurred. Sometimes for several years. For example the Spanish Milled dollars are typically though to have been legal tender from 1793 through 1857. Actually their legal tender status expired in 1801, was renewed for four years in 1806, expired in 1810 and was not renewed again until 1843. Spanish colonial dollars (Except for those of Bolivia) were only legal tender from 1834 to 1857. The Bolivian Spanish dollars were not legal tender until 1843. During the period from 1827 to 1833 all the extensions had expired and NO foreign coins were legal tender during that period. (I'm not aware of an extension in 1827.) Doesn't mean they didn't circulate though.