Morons.org article
Not much else to say.
Well, that was dumb but its hard to fault Best Buy as a whole. That fact is, the individuals in the story thought they were fake.
That they thought they were fake is incidental: The salient point is the cashier said Best Buy wouldn’t accept his payment. The ‘legal tender’ language on US currency doesn’t prevent someone from refusing to accept it as payment, and in that case it falls upon the buyer to make new arrangements more palatable to the seller.
This isn’t legally ambiguous. The guy is in the wrong here.
What worries me (angers me, pisses me right the hell off) is this quote:
Fuck the hell off, you stupid fucking fuck. 9/11 doesn’t have a damned thing to do with this little provincial clusterfuck. It is a matter between Best Buy and Mike Bolesta and the situation doesn’t need the emotional baggage of an association with a real fucking disaster.
(Fuck him, fuck me, fuck the Constitution. Yet another example of using 9/11 as an excuse for whatever you damned well please, even if you aren’t actually wrong.)
That comment by the Baltimore police dude is the truly pittable portion of that article.
I probably wouldn’t accept money where the ink was smeared, either. I’ve never heard of that before and it would immediately cause me to think it was counterfeit currency.
I hate to encourage the “sue 'em all” brigade, but this sounds like a time to call a lawyer. He probaly couldn’t get anything on the cops, but there is a chance he could get Worst Buy for something. Defamation of character, if nothing else. Needless to say, I’d also refuse to pay the fee they told him didn’t exist, too.
Here is the part I don’t understand:
Why didn’t he just tell them to fuck themselves sideways? He hadn’t committed any crime. If Best Buy wants to file a civil suit against him, they will have to explain to a judge why they released the vehicle upon payment of the bill sans installation fee. If he has a receipt for payment of the bill, he is in the clear.
I may be wrong, but isn’t it the case that a creditor cannot refuse legal tender in satisfaction of a debt?
If I read this story correctly, the guy had already received services and was now being hassled to pay extra fees. It seems to me that if they had asked for full payment beforehand, then they could have turned him away for offering $2 bills. However, once they’d rendered services, they were obligated to accept any legal tender as payment of the debt (or just write it off if they were that opposed to the form of payment).
Of course, all of that is just a side issue to the counterfeit allegations, which seem to have been handled rather poorly.
I like the idea that spending $2 bills is dangerous in this post 9/11 world. Next thing you know, the terrorists will be flying $2 bills into tall buildings, and bringing them down with those green pictures of Tom Jefferson and Monticello…
I work at a gas station, and a guy paid me with a two dollar bill just a couple of days ago. I thought it was cool. Of course, I have a couple of those stashed away because I think they’re cool. I also think they would be very useful these days.
Heck, I don’t know how BB does it, but at the end of my shifts when I fill out a little sheet detailing how many of what bills and rolls of coins I have left in my drawer, the listing starts at $1 bills, then $2, then $5…I mean, if there’s a spot for them on the verification sheets, I’m thinking they’re real money.
I don’t take checks, though. Everything else, but not those.
They accepted his money, and have no corporate rules against 2$ bills. He may have been mean in giving them 2$ bills, but it was alright. Their jumping the gun and threatening police action, and then calling the police because they’re idiots is bad.
The 9/11 quote wasn’t an actual excuse. It was some dumb cop trying desperately to pretend it was an excuse.
This thread has inspired me to go to the bank Monday and get $100 in $2 bills. I’ll leave them in the truck, and use them for service-people who annoy me. 
Thanks for the idea!
Well, according to the website of the U.S. Treasury:
So, i guess the answer in this particular case depends on whether the money that he owed Best Buy is legally defined as a debt to a creditor, or a payment for goods and/or services.
Also, according to Snopes, private businesses are free to determine what currency they will accept in exchange for good or services, but that those businesses “should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers.”
If Best Buy never made clear to the guy that $2 bills were unacceptable payment for this type of service, it seems that he’s well within his rights to offer those bills.
And you are precisely, unequivocably wrong on that point.
Yes, the store does not have to accept a particular variety of legal tender for a retail transaction. We’ve been through this several times in GQ, GD, and for all I know ATMB as well.
This was a service, which they originally said would be at no charge, which they then decided to impose a charge for.
That makes it a debt which he owes the store, unless he chooses to fight it in court based on their original statement that it would be at no charge.
Now read the language on the bill. Then read the Legal Tender Act.
It strikes me that if you owe money for a service, that constitutes a “debt public or private.”
Or are we saying that the store can ignore Federal law, and demand payment in Albanian leks if they feel like it?
For what it’s worth Mr. Sin has for the past 10 years, gone to Kinko’s with fistfulls of two dollar bills and had them glued into packs with decorated cardboard covers for our kids and assorted relatives as Christmas presents. The kids have then gone to stores and peeled the bills from the packs to purchase trifles. All of the store-keeperes have been amused and somewhat bemused, but, all have taken the money. No one was arrested :smack: Or threatened. WTF.
My experiences with Best Buys have all been positive. When purchasing a multi-media system for intallation in the fire company training room, they were helpful and delivered a better price than Circuit City or Tweeter.
The other day, I went to Best Buys looking for a digicam case. A gentleman was dusting products in the aisle, and I asked him joking if dusty cases could be had at a discout. He laughed, and asked what camera I had-directing me to a good case which protected it and did everything else I’d have wanted. Quality help-in and out of the store < than 10 minutes.
What I got from this is that any kind of money that is identified as U. S. legal tender is valid to be used to pay for anything, but that none of it specifically has to be accepted if it is outside of the stated policy of the business.
I don’t think it’s differentiating between debts owed to a creditor, as in credit cards or things like that, and payments at a business. I think all it says is that the money is legal, but no business has to accept it, if they have a policy against it.
I do think the sales clerk is a dipstick, though. I understand how the ink being smeared might be questionable, but I got the impression that it was the $2 thing that was the initial problem.
It’s not clear from the link…was the guy actually arrested, or were the cops called to investigate and let him go?
I agree that no business has to accept it. It’s perfectly fine to turn someone away at the checkout counter, sign or no sign.
However, if they’ve already given over the goods or services (thus establishing a debt), and they then refuse the legal tender offered in payment, then I wouldn’t think they have any legal footing to try to force the debtor to pay in some other way.