As I recall, after the end of the war, many Axis prisoners of war of were keep in the UK and USSR for a fair amount of time. Sort of a you broke it, now you fix it deal.
I am not a lawyer, either, but I do know that the store has a legal right to refuse a sale. I also have seen disruptive customers perp-walked out the door in cuffs by the local police. Where exactly the lines are drawn I don’t know - like I said, I’m not a lawyer.
We have to do that all day anyway because of people changing their minds at the last minute, leaving stuff behind, and so on - we have a cooler behind the service desk to stash items until one of the designated peons doing that job can get to them.
I believe the technical situation for creating a contract is that the buyer makes an offer and the seller accepts it, a contract is created then the buyer pays and takes the goods. Much lawyerly hot air has been expended on exactly what steps constitute creating the offer - it’s logical to assume in an automated system, the actual offer occurs when person scans the item and the machine says “that will be $14.99”. at that point the only question is “will you pay up before you leave, please?”
Having created that debt as the seller, you cannot refuse legal tender (the local currency) for the purchase once that debt has been created. Much lawyerly hot air has been expended proving that principle too. I presume creating a disturbance, or violating implicit rules about the purchase (i.e. we won’t serve the intoxicated) may be justified. But refusing to accept cash money for a debt is not allowed - by doing so, the debt is cancelled. (And generally I assume once the transaction is under way and particularly once it has been concluded, is too late to back out. Once a customer has legitimately paid for their goods, taking them back is theft. )
This goes back to the good old days, when some people refused to accept money printed by the new American government. The government - like every other government that issues currency - made it mandatory that their currency be the medium to settle debts, so as to ensure confidence in their money. You can agree to another means only if both sides of the contract agree. When the customer sees “This machine will not accept cash, debit or credit only. Press OK to proceed” the customer is agreeing that they won’t insist on paying cash.
I have a Mr. Bezos on line 2 for you, he’d like a word.
This has been discussed to death on the Dope.
The Master speaks (1981) (This wasn’t his best work)
All I got is a $100 (2002)
Legal tender and businesses refusing large bills (2003)
Legal Tender (2004) (which itself cited another bunch of threads on that topic, but the links are broken)
Tow truck company must accept 8800 pennies? (2008)
How can government offices refuse cash? (2006)
That last one cites a Web page from the U.S. Treasury, which is no longer accessible as of 2022 :
(…)
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Note : IANAL, or, to put it another way,
I am not Legal, and rarely Tender in Public, though often in Private.
Then how do you explain the continued existence of places of business that do NOT accept cash at all? Because they certainly do exist and are getting more common.
If someone at the check out dropped their trousers and wiped their asshole with a bill I don’t think anyone would argue we have to accept it. Why should we be forced to accept a bill wiped on the orifice on the other end of a person?
Meanwhile, back on topic, it appears that one attempt to mobilise additional labour to overcome a shortage has come a (predictable?) cropper;
A number of cities and states have passed laws requiring merchants to accept cash payments.
Going cashless? If you do in these cities, you’re breaking the law (usatoday.com)
As I understand… the issue is not whether a business accepts cash. The question is whether, when someone owes a debt, that the creditor can refuse to accept legal tender as payment.
So the key issue, which again helps pay for lawyers’ country club memberships, is at what point is a contract established? Basically, from what I read here there and everywhere, a contract consists of offer and acceptance. (IANAL, but I read a lot on the internet…) This is followed by fulfilling the terms of the contract -i.e. payment and transfer of goods or services.
A legal beagle boy will argue the process of running a self checkout and allowing customers to use it could be construed as offer and the buyer’s action acceptance.
So the question at a self-checkout is whether it constitutes a contract.
If it does, then when the transaction takes place, a debt is created.
The merchant cannot refuse legal tender for that debt - unless the buyer has agreed in advance.
(You can agree to almost anything as part of the contract, if both sides agree.)
So the warning on the screen, and the requirement to press “OK”, means the buyer has agreed not to offer cash. That becomes part of the contract. The same goes for the little sign beside a cash register, “credit and debit only”. By using that cashier, you agree to that contract condition.
Again, IANAL, nothing in law is cut and dried, possibly this is just CYA just in case… but it is notable that this use of the warning screen, requiring agreement before the meat of the transaction proceeds, is pretty much universal.
Our company lawyers say otherwise. That’s why the store reserves the right to refuse a sale. Ringing up the sale does not create a debt. The customer is, after all, free to walk away at any point up until handing over payment without consequence. Likewise, the store can refuse up until the point payment is accepted. By that reasoning, legal tender can be refused because there isn’t a debt there, just an offer.
Who is right? I don’t know. I hope to not be in a position where cops and lawyers get involved in such a question.
Cops do not generally get involved in contract disputes.
No, especially on a historical basis:
While less common in the present in the US, police forces are used to break up unions and demonstrations throughout the world.
We most certainly have had the cops arrest and take away members of the public who simply refuse to behave in a legal manner. It is one thing to dispute a transaction, it is entirely different to resort to threats of bodily harm or actual physical violence but it does happen. About every 3-4 months we have to call the police. I have had co-workers suffer physical assaults, up to and including broken bones, from disgruntled, asshole customers.
In which case yes, the cops WILL get involved if we call them.
@md-2000
IANAL either, but I don’t think the store creates a debt when they ring up your groceries. All they are doing is calculating their offer.
Once the groceries have been rung up, thats the offer. You can either accept it by handing over payment in a form they accept - if they don’t accept a common form of payment, such as cash, it would be both polite and good policy for the store to tell the customer before calculating the cost of the potential sale, but the store is not obligated to do so. If the cashier forgets to tell you “no cash” and you don’t have anything but cash, that would suck on many levels but it would not legally obligate the store to accept your cash.
From your end, you aren’t obligated to accept the grocery order once it’s been totaled. Legally, you can walk away - you aren’t abandoning your property and you won’t be charged with theft. The groceries are not yours until the payment you hand the cashier is accepted.
While most people don’t walk away after the store makes their offer, it sometimes happens, they may have forgotten their wallet or they might have a problem with their credit card. They don’t have to sell the groceries back to the store or anything, the store just keeps their groceries and they leave. It might be embarrassing and the store might not like it, but it’s not criminal. They never owned the groceries. Because they didn’t, they were never in debt to the store. Ringing up the order doesn’t create a debt.
Of course. Because physical harm, and threats of harm, are police matters. Contract disputes are not.
For example, If I were to dispute payment with a home improvement contractor over shoddy workmanship and/or materials, the cops would tell me to take it to court. Again, absent violence or threats of violence.
People can and do get arrested for abusing 911 if they call the cops to report they don’t like their sandwich at a fast food joint.
But that proves my point - when the seller makes an offer, the buyer accepts it. “Yes, I will buy those goods for that amount.”
Once that contract is established, the store cannot refuse to accept cash - that’s the basis of the legal tender law. They can make it difficult, “please follow me to the service desk and wait while we call the manager…” or some such tactic.
And most people when they hear “sorry, we don’t take cahs” will either use credit/debit of walk away. One in a thousand will call their lawyer and try to walk out with the goods. (IF the merchant then refused cash, the debt is cancelled… the effect of legal tender)
And they can make it all so simple by saying/signage before the sale is rung up “No cash”.
WeANAL, this is getting sidetracked, so unless a real lawyer is going to chime in with definitive Contract Law 101 - let’s settle on “there is a legal/financial risk to not notifying the customer of the no-cash policy ahead of time…” Depends what the judge says.
I would still argue that the seller does not have to accept cash dipped in biohazard, like spit, snot, mucus, sweat, blood, etc.
Someone should pose the question to that Legal Eagle guy on the internet and see what he says. Including whether or not a store is obliged to accept cash with bodily fluids on it.
My answer to that is that a contract requires an offer and acceptance and the contract isn’t fully executed until the moment the payment is accepted, the register dings, and your money becomes the store’s money and the store’s groceries belong to you. At that moment, all sorts of stuff kicks in, the UCC, the store warranties - but until then, either party can walk away. The store can withdraw its offer if they don’t like the color of your money, you can walk away if you forgot your wallet, no one’s executing a contract until the payment is accepted. The agreement might be drafted a few minutes earlier, but the execution, the equivalent of signing the contract, doesn’t happen until your payment goes through.
Now a restaurant is different. A grocery transaction doesn’t involve you going into debt as the groceries are rung up then settling the debt by paying, but a restaurant transaction works that way, the contract is executed when the food is delivered to your table. As such, it’s handled differently. You can’t order a meal, leave it on the table untouched, and walk out without paying without committing a crime.
And I bet that the restaurant couldn’t have you arrested for theft if you offered to pay cash, even if they had signs up about not accepting cash. Because when you pay your restaurant bill you are, indeed, settling a debt. But you never go into debt at the grocery, and you aren’t settling a debt at the register.
Pay workers at or above market rate. Use government subsidies if necessary. Use immigration and subsidized job training to expand the labor pool.
According to capital holders, this is the most drastic and unthinkable policy imaginable, so we prefer to do less drastic things like send the Army or private mercenaries to force workers to work at the preferred company rate. (Because state violence against workers is somehow not seen as “drastic”).
But really, the most radical possible approach is paying workers what they demand, and this is too drastic to contemplate (at least at the policy level). As evidence, I’m sure this post will attract many replies stating “that’s unreasonable” or “aren’t there any other options” or “this would lead to bad outcomes.” Yes, that’s what “drastic” means.
It’s interesting how it’s so uncomfortable to consider paying workers at rates we find unjustified, but we all sort of shrug at sending goons to crack heads to prevent workers from asking for what they’re worth.
I think that’s backwards under contract law.
IANAL (again) but as I understand, it goes like this - The store offers to sell, and you as the customer accept that offer.
This is similar to say, buying a car or a property or an antique. Once the seller says “I will sell for $XX” and the buyer says “I accept” then the contract is established, and absent an agreement “no cash” then the seller must accept cash. Otherwise, the debt is cancelled (but not the transaction that led to the debt… the buyer walks away with the goods.)
the question is, with an automated checkout, or a vending machine, where the seller has let a machine take on his role, is that still an offer? Why would it not be?
Obviously, money adulterated with biohazard materials is not legal tender, if it is repugnant or dangerous. it’s been altered. But that’s avoiding the crux of this discussion.
More often, this aspect of contract law pops up when Joe owes Bob $500, and Joe says “here’s $200 and I will bring you the rest on payday…” If Bob says “no, I’m not taking the $200, it’s the full $500 only” then the debt is cancelled, since Bob refused to accept a bona fide offer to pay some of the debt with legal tender.
Somehow I doubt that would hold up in court, otherwise people would be constantly getting out of paying their debts by offering a small portion instead of the whole of what they owe.
In this thread we’re all a bunch of non-lawyers arguing law. I’m not sure I’d side with any of us on this question.