Fewer, but not zero. As of last year, there were still 3% of Americans who didn’t have a mobile phone of any kind. But, for purposes of this topic, what’s more relevant is that 15% of Americans don’t have a smartphone (which is what is needed for apps like Venmo, Apple Pay, etc. when you are out at a store).
So, it’s still one out of seven Americans who simply can’t use those apps.
But there’s a fee to use an ATM in most cases…
Lots of music festivals and concert venues have stopped accepting cash. It’s either credit cards or your phone or an ap on your phone. The people vending in the parking lot will all take cash but more and more they’ll also have a Venmo QR code or a square phone plugin. Even semi-homeless hippies are moving away from cash.
Which are usually shady off-brand machines with a $5 service charge, so we’re back to 5% on a $100 withdrawal.
I have a friend who owns a small but profitable restaurant and accepts almost all forms of payment. He complains about having to handle cash for the same reasons already mentioned. I asked him why he still took cash, and he said some people only use cash, and he doesn’t want them to walk away pissed because cash was inconvenient for him. I understand his thinking, but sooner or later, the cost of handling cash will outweigh the downside of accepting it. Time is not on his side.
Not in the way you describe. The Fed has already been linked to, and so we know that businesses “are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.” Unless you can show otherwise, we can reasonably assume the Fed would tell us if there was a law stating that this had to be posted in the store.
Later on that same link, it says the ‘legal tender’ 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.”
The grocery store in your example is not your creditor. They haven’t extended an offer of a loan. They have made a very simple offer: “We will sell you groceries in exchange for a non-cash payment.” By refusing to pay in the way they want, you have not accepted their offer to sell you stuff and they certainly haven’t become your creditor.
I don’t think they care too much about U.S. money or federal law in Canada.
That said, I am not aware there is some sneaky loophole in any country where they are obligated to give you free groceries even though you did not pay. I absolutely have occasionally seen somebody at the bodega be a few cents short or whatever and told to not worry about it, or take care of it next time, but I assume that is at the store’s discretion.
Oh, my fault. I hadn’t realized we were talking about Canada.
It’s usually my Friday lunch, and I try to always have at least $20 cash on me. If I don’t have cash (although I’m carrying more now because I’m actually using it - $20 used to last me a couple of months), I’ll pay the surcharge - support local businesses and all that.
What about those services that let you basically treat the check as a debit card, where it either take the money out immediately or at least puts a hold in? Have those died out?
There are a lot of places around here that still accept checks, and yet I never hear of people pushing hot checks anymore. So I thought that they were using some service like that.
Walmart was doing it with specialized equipment back in the late 90s and early 00s. And banks started having that “deposit check by photo” feature. So I am surprised that they don’t also let businesses at least put a hold on accounts in a similar manner.
Though it wouldn’t surprise me if that feature costs money and it wasn’t worth it for you.
This was my point exactly - stores have the warning - either at the door for that coffee shop, or at the scanner for grocery stores - precisely because it is necessary to prevent someone from falling back on the legal tender argument and offering cash.
A debt does not imply a loan. A debt is incurred during a transaction. There is a point in every transaction where one party owe the other money, and that is a debt. I’m sure you are aware the law can be a complex and nit-picky thing. This is one of those instances.
The interesting situation is one with self-scanning, because there is no seller present to remind the person of the condition - hence the need to make it impossible to proceed without agreeing on the screen. By posting the “no cash” policy explicitly, it has become a condition of the transaction and the buyer cannot fall back on the legal tender argument.
Contract law - i.e. what constitutes a transaction and what each party’s obligations are, when a debt is created - is a field that has been hammered flat by centuries of litigation and laws.
I’m not sure how you two keep talking past me, as I said pretty much exactly what you said, and your objections have been to things that I didn’t actually say.
Well, debt was created when the court ordered payment.
Look, all I was saying here, is that if you really really want to force someone to accept cash, there are ways, it’s just that you have to do things that will get you ordered by a court to pay restitution. It’s certainly not a good idea in any way, and you will not profit, or even get to keep what you end up having to pay for.
But if your only goal is to see the look of defeat on someone’s face as they have no choice but to accept the cash you are ordered to pay them, probably right before you are carted off to jail, then you can arrange that to happen.
The would do the same thing that they would do if you forgot your wallet, ask you to leave the groceries behind and come back when you are able to pay appropriately.
Not having a sign is a bit of poor customer service, but a sign wouldn’t be legally necessary. You don’t own the groceries till you pay for them, so you haven’t created a debt simply by picking them off the shelf and bringing them to the front and scanning them.
If you then choose to leave with your groceries anyway, that’s when you have broken the law. You haven’t at this point created a debt that can be discharged by cash, but once the court orders you to pay restitution, you now do have a debt that can be settled by cash.
The store probably won’t want the groceries back, but that doesn’t mean you get to keep them either, so anything you didn’t manage to eat before you were arrested will be taken from you. You will be charged with a crime, you will probably have to pay a fine to the court, maybe do some community service or even spend some time in jail. But, you do get to give cash to the store that you stole from, as they will have to take it to settle the debt that was created when the court ordered restitution, at that point, they can’t demand you pay by venmo.
Yeah, I looked into the different ways to guarantee checks and the amount of money I was taking in via checks made it a losing proposition.
Fifteen years ago I wanted to buy something for my son that was around $200. For some reason I wanted to pay by check. The check was declined by the check guarantee service, because I rarely paid by check. I was pissed off. Took my business elsewhere.
I understand you think you are making a narrow technical point, but, to also be pedantic, this part is still wrong.
The court ordered payment isn’t a debt for the item. You aren’t paying for the ‘thing’. You are paying for violating the law and for the damages/loss to the owner for what you have stolen. It doesn’t matter if it’s a cup of coffee or a car.
The debt incurred is for the hassle not the stolen item and also, in some sense, a debt to society at large for violating the law.
So, this comes back around to my point, which is, yes, the owner is being forced to accept cash. But, no, the cash is not being accepted for the item but for the loss and as a punitive measure for breaking the law. Otherwise, court decisions greatly in excess of the value of stolen property and lost time would make no sense.
I have not been down to the city in a few years. I wonder if the panhandlers are only accepting venmo now.
But the cost of handling cash isn’t all that great. For me it means stopping by the ATM on my way home to deposit it, along with any checks I get.
It’s more convenient to hit the button on the credit card machine that settles the day’s transactions, but it’s free to deposit checks and cash.
I accept checks, and very occasionally, one will bounce. In all cases but one, when the client was contacted, they made good on the payment as quickly as they could.
Part of this is that it used to take a few days to tell if a check clears. Now if you have the service, you can tell instantly if it does, and even if you don’t, you will know at the latest the morning after you try to deposit it.
Everything costs money. The reason I take checks to the ATM rather than use the service to deposit them remotely is because that’s not free, and the ATM is.
Not necessarily. You don’t gain ownership of an avocado because you scanned it on the register. You gain ownership when the store gives up ownership, which is when you pay for it. There no time when you own anything you haven’t paid for, and therefore have incurred a debt that can be settled with cash.
As I said, it would certainly be very poor customer service, and it would cause all manner of headache for them not to be very clear and explicit before you even enter the store what the terms of sales were, but it wouldn’t have any bearing on the legal obligations of the store.
OTOH, a better example would be that you have gone out to eat, and when they bring you the bill at the end of the meal, they refuse cash. At that point, a much better case could be made that you have incurred a debt, as you physically are possessing the meal in question, and there is no way to give it back. At that point, when they call the cops to report you for dining and dashing, and you are sitting there offering the cash to cover your meal, I’d think that the cops would be pretty likely to tell the restaurant to accept the cash and not call them for that situation again.
This happened to a friend. He is an American, and was on a boat between Germany and Denmark. He say down and ate lunch, fully intending to pay for it. Come time to pay, he handed them his credit card. But being an American, his card didn’t have a PIN back then. And their hardware was incapable of dealing with a card that didn’t have a PIN. After a few attempts, they gave him the meal, as it wasn’t worth their effort to pursue the money any further, and he had obviously intended to pay.
It’s only wrong because you quoted me out of context and cut off the part that negates that statement. I specifically said that you don’t get to keep what you end up having to pay for. Your quoting makes it look like I said the opposite of what I actually did say.
FTR, what I said was, "you will not profit, or even get to keep… ", and your removal of the previous phrase entirely changes the meaning of what I said.
I assume that this was simply a mistake on your part, and your intent was not to change the meaning of my words, even though your post was entirely in response to this misunderstanding of yours.
I didn’t say that it was. I said that the court ordered payment is a debt that you now owe the aggrieved party.
I don’t see how your point differs from what I said at all. If you really want to make a point of forcing the store to accept cash, you can break the law, get the court to order you to pay restitution, and then bask as they are forced to accept cash to pay the debt that you have acquired. You don’t have to steal groceries if you don’t want to, you could do some vandalism or something, too. That’s all I’ve said here, and nothing you’ve said has contradicted it, the only things you have contradicted are things that I have not said.