I lost my statement for a car payment due 12/1 and couldn’t set up automatic payments due to their website being screwed up, so it cost me a $10 fee to call in my payment…which did not involve talking to an actual human being, just an automated system. I’ll be very careful about keeping track of the mailed quarterly statements in the future.
Yuck!
My county does the opposite. It’s $1 cheaper (per year I think - I know. A whole buck!) to renew tags online. And you can renew for 3 years online (vs only 1 or 2 in person/by mail).
I think that the answer to all of these questions is: Yes, if you are presented with a statement that you owe someone a debt then by default, an offer of cash is considered a legal offer to pay that debt. However, companies and individuals can contract around this default provision by asking for gold bullion, an equivalent supply of live chickens, or online payments.
I would forever love any American large business that outwardly stated they accepted live chickens as payments for debts.
I’d never be able to take advantage such a capability, but I’d still love them. Especially if they ran a prominent commercial series advertising that they accept live chickens. That would be so awesome!
The only problem with that is giving change. You can’t really split a live chicken without winding up with two halves of a dead chicken–which wouldn’t be nearly as valuable as a live chicken.
deleted
If I ever get to formulate a law about behaviour in online message board, it will be Schnitte’s law saying that in any discussion in which somebody mentions the term “legal tender” somebody will come up arguing, as Wallenstein did, that this term is often misunderstood, and that legal tender does not mean merchants have to accept legal tender if they don’t want to. True, but too generalised and not necessarily relevant here.
The correct way to understand legal tender is to draw a distinction between debts that are already owed, and debts that are not yet owed because no contract has yet been concluded. In the latter case, the legal tender concept is meaningless: Since there is no obligation of people to contract with other people, anybody can refuse to conclude any sort of contract if he or she is not happy with the payment offered.
In the OP’s case, the situation is different, however: The debt is already owed. In this case, the method of payment is to be determined by the original contract. If there’s a “convenience charge” clause there, fine, since parties to a contract can determine any payment method they wish; but if there’s no such clause, then AT&T will have to accept cash in US$ banknotes for payment, since US$ banknotes are legal tender. AT&T cannot unilaterally amend the terms of the contract in such a way as to introduce a payment clause that was not agreed by the parties. And AT&T cannot unilaterally impose a charge for the use of cash: The original debt was x dollars, not x plus 5 dollars, and AT&T does not have the power, in the absence of agreement to that effect in the contract, to claim that x plus 5 dollars are owed. It’s the contract that defines what the OP’s cousin owes AT&T, not what AT&T deems convenient for the purposes of running its business.
The DIY chain Obi ran a commercial some time ago where a customer comes up to the cashier and just puts an egg and an apple on the moving belt (after the german idiomatic expression “costs an apple and an egg” for something that doesn’t cost much). I don’t know if anybody tried to take them literally, though - it was obviously intended to be humourous, but I was tempted to try and take them at their word. (Didn’t, though, because I know that the cashiers aren’t responsible for the weird stuff that ad agencies high on drugs dream up).
All nice in theory, but I would bet that either there is some unspecified clause buried in the fine print of the contract (whoever reads and understands the fine print, anyway?), or AT&T sent out a notice “our general terms of service have changed, read the point-6 whole contract here, (with no highlights of the changed sections). If you don’t give notice in 2 weeks, we will take your silence as agreement with the new terms. If you don’t agree, feel free to cancel our service”. Because I get those notices regularly from my bank and other companies I do business with. They never send only the changed portions, always 10 pages of legalese; and cancelling the service in 2 weeks is usually not something I want at that moment and short notice.
You give change in eggs, silly.
As one of those people who does read an understand fine print, I’ve noticed they usually seem to have a clause nowadays to the effect that they can unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the contract from time to time and there’s generally nothing you can do about it unless the changes are “unconscionable”.
It’s somewhat annoying that the phone company can arbitrarily decide to charge you a fee for paying the bill in any way except direct debit, but you, the consumer, can’t arbitrarily decide to impose an inconvenience fee on the phone company every time one of your calls drops out or goes straight to voicemail because there’s suddenly no coverage in an otherwise established area.