9 ms·

It says right on the face of all US paper money that it’s legal tender for all debts, public and private. So I think your explanation requires an authoritative

It says right on the face of all US paper money that it’s legal tender for all debts, public and private. So I think your explanation requires an authoritative source that agrees with you, like a government website.

traceroute66 4y ago
> So I think your explanation requires an authoritative source that agrees with you The FED good enough for you ? ;-) https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm As I said. Its valid for private debts IF you decide to let it get to a point where you are forced to pay it INTO COURT. Otherwise the business is free to do what they like.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  You may want to reread your source. > Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    IANAL. This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Legal tender doctrine is not a universal edict applied to every transaction. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-a-legal-tender-law-and-is-it-a-problem/?sh=6bad28a625da https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-...
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      > This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        Provided a contract or agreement doesn't stipulate otherwise. A way to think about this is that while the constitution recognizes freedom of speech, signing an NDA results in the exchanges of one's right to disclose certain information in exchange for the privileges and benefits of employment.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        You can't typically seek court help for a debt and not accept cash, reasonableness permiting. The law typically allows you to charge a penalty for accepting cash - everyone recognizes handling large amounts of cash incurs issues.
        Dracophoenix 4y ago
        What about bankruptcy courts? Repossession? Liquidation auctions? The seizure of assets as compensation for debts incurred is not in and of itself unreasonable or particularly atypical, even when the option of cash exists. Although, depending on legislation and jurisdiction, there may be prescribed limits (e.g. homestead exemptions and limited liability) With all that said, none of what you've stated proves that the law requires all debts to be accepted in cash in every case regardless of circumstances. What you've offered so far is an asserted reading of the text without any arguments backing up the claim.
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      > This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Yes. I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter, i.e. the moment that reasonable alternative(s) have been offered then the whole "cash is legal tender" thing (basically) goes out the window. There was an interesting ruling in Europe[1] in relation to Euro cash where it was even ruled that European government bodies are not obliged to accept cash. The ruling basically said exactly what @Dracopheonix pointed out: "Limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with the status of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts are available" [1] https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-delivers-judgment-cash-acceptance-case https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-deli...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I'm confused now, if I eat at a restaurant and they bring me the bill - is that not a private debt? Yes a transaction is happening, but since I am not able to give back the food in the condition I received it the restaurant's part of the transaction is completed this means I am in debt to them until I complete my part. Sorry for the insane level of specificity here but we are on the internet and on HN so... So I offer up the money and they say hey we only take cards here and I say well I only give cash. Your theory is what - I would be arrested, it would go to court and the court would say pay the debt at which point I can pay in cash and the restaurant can't do anything about it because at that point it is a debt and not before? Also, cops don't have to arrest you on the restaurant's say so, the cops I know would be all take the damn cash and don't bother me. So to reiterate the parent poster's point: If you eat at a restaurant and then they bring you the check, they have to accept the money because that is a private debt and money is legal tender for all private debts. If they take your order and say pay with a credit card please then they are free to do so, if you do not have a card you don't eat. There is of course the edge case where the business makes quite clear you need to pay with a card to eat there (probably by having prominent signs saying so) and then they ask you to pay after eating and you say I only pay with cash, in which case yes I think the cops might agree to arrest you and in which case it will have to go all the way to court to get to where you can pay with cash. And then there is the even edgier case where you say oh, damn, somebody stole my credit card but I have cash here. You think the restaurant is really going to call the police and the police are really going to arrest the person? In short if a restaurant gives you food and you eat it they better have a way to accept cash or to accept returns of an unsanitary nature.
  - galdosdi 4y ago
    > in which case yes I think the cops might agree to arrest you and in which case it will have to go all the way to court to get to where you can pay with cash. Wow. I think a lot of the people commenting in this thread don't have any familiarity with cops or service workers, like at all, if they honestly think cops will be called or that said cops will start making arrests. Nobody will call cops over this and if they did, the cops would laugh or be annoyed or just tell the clerk to just take the cash so the cops can move on to a more pressing service call. Just put yourself in their shoes and this will be obvious.
iaabtpbtpnn 4y ago
I’ve visited the page you linked before, but it doesn’t say anything about court proceedings being required. It just says payment for a debt. Isn’t a debt created once a provider performs a service and then requests payment?

traceroute66 4y ago

> So I think your explanation requires an authoritative source that agrees with you The FED good enough for you ? ;-) https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm As I said. Its valid for private debts IF you decide to let it get to a point where you are forced to pay it INTO COURT. Otherwise the business is free to do what they like.

vorpalhex 4y ago
You may want to reread your source. > Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  IANAL. This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Legal tender doctrine is not a universal edict applied to every transaction. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-a-legal-tender-law-and-is-it-a-problem/?sh=6bad28a625da https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-...
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    > This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Provided a contract or agreement doesn't stipulate otherwise. A way to think about this is that while the constitution recognizes freedom of speech, signing an NDA results in the exchanges of one's right to disclose certain information in exchange for the privileges and benefits of employment.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        You can't typically seek court help for a debt and not accept cash, reasonableness permiting. The law typically allows you to charge a penalty for accepting cash - everyone recognizes handling large amounts of cash incurs issues.
        Dracophoenix 4y ago
        What about bankruptcy courts? Repossession? Liquidation auctions? The seizure of assets as compensation for debts incurred is not in and of itself unreasonable or particularly atypical, even when the option of cash exists. Although, depending on legislation and jurisdiction, there may be prescribed limits (e.g. homestead exemptions and limited liability) With all that said, none of what you've stated proves that the law requires all debts to be accepted in cash in every case regardless of circumstances. What you've offered so far is an asserted reading of the text without any arguments backing up the claim.
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Yes. I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter, i.e. the moment that reasonable alternative(s) have been offered then the whole "cash is legal tender" thing (basically) goes out the window. There was an interesting ruling in Europe[1] in relation to Euro cash where it was even ruled that European government bodies are not obliged to accept cash. The ruling basically said exactly what @Dracopheonix pointed out: "Limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with the status of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts are available" [1] https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-delivers-judgment-cash-acceptance-case https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-deli...
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I'm confused now, if I eat at a restaurant and they bring me the bill - is that not a private debt? Yes a transaction is happening, but since I am not able to give back the food in the condition I received it the restaurant's part of the transaction is completed this means I am in debt to them until I complete my part. Sorry for the insane level of specificity here but we are on the internet and on HN so... So I offer up the money and they say hey we only take cards here and I say well I only give cash. Your theory is what - I would be arrested, it would go to court and the court would say pay the debt at which point I can pay in cash and the restaurant can't do anything about it because at that point it is a debt and not before? Also, cops don't have to arrest you on the restaurant's say so, the cops I know would be all take the damn cash and don't bother me. So to reiterate the parent poster's point: If you eat at a restaurant and then they bring you the check, they have to accept the money because that is a private debt and money is legal tender for all private debts. If they take your order and say pay with a credit card please then they are free to do so, if you do not have a card you don't eat. There is of course the edge case where the business makes quite clear you need to pay with a card to eat there (probably by having prominent signs saying so) and then they ask you to pay after eating and you say I only pay with cash, in which case yes I think the cops might agree to arrest you and in which case it will have to go all the way to court to get to where you can pay with cash. And then there is the even edgier case where you say oh, damn, somebody stole my credit card but I have cash here. You think the restaurant is really going to call the police and the police are really going to arrest the person? In short if a restaurant gives you food and you eat it they better have a way to accept cash or to accept returns of an unsanitary nature.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  > in which case yes I think the cops might agree to arrest you and in which case it will have to go all the way to court to get to where you can pay with cash. Wow. I think a lot of the people commenting in this thread don't have any familiarity with cops or service workers, like at all, if they honestly think cops will be called or that said cops will start making arrests. Nobody will call cops over this and if they did, the cops would laugh or be annoyed or just tell the clerk to just take the cash so the cops can move on to a more pressing service call. Just put yourself in their shoes and this will be obvious.

iaabtpbtpnn 4y ago

I’ve visited the page you linked before, but it doesn’t say anything about court proceedings being required. It just says payment for a debt. Isn’t a debt created once a provider performs a service and then requests payment?