In a reasonably commonly used joke situation, (I’ve seen several variants), 2 characters are together, when a robbery occurs. One character takes this opportunity to pay off the debt that he has to the other. Later on, assuming character B(oris) wanted to press the debt, and character A(ndy) claimed he was now debt free as he payed it off with legal tender how would the judgement come down? As a pure theoretical any and all jurisdictions are fine.
I doubt that there is a precedent, but my reasoning would be that if Boris accepted the cash, the debt was void. If Andy just shoved it in his pocket, that would be a different story.
Suppose the debt was paid before the robbery started - most people would accept that.
In normal circumstances though you *can’t *just refuse to accept cash when offered as repayment to a debt ,right? That’s assuming there were no special clauses when Andy lent the money.
More of debate or IMHO than a question of fact…
A debt “paid” under the circumstances you describe should not be considered a legitimate repayment since the outcome is predictable and it is therefore clear that the debtor is making a repayment with valueless currency.
Why does a predictable outcome render the currency valueless? The criminal certainly doesn’t feel that way.
Suppose the debt was for 100 Zimbabwe dollars; the creditor can’t claim the debt isn’t paid just because the agreed upon currency has no value.
Not true. Explained many times in these forums. US currency is valid form of paying debts but there is no legal requirement that it must be accepted.
This reminds me of an old joke.
Two men have a bet over which of them will die first, each betting that he himself will be the first to shuffle off this mortal coil. They agree that the loser of the bet will pay $10,000 to the ‘winner’ by putting the amount into the coffin with the body. One man dies, and the other fulfils his obligation. Into the coffin, under his friend’s hands, he put a $10,000 check.
Maybe you don’t have to accept it, but it still counts as paying the debt. What you’re thinking of is that you don’t have to accept it as payment in cases other than debt. If I’m at the supermarket and want to buy a pack of gum with a $100 bill, the cashier is allowed to refuse it, and if that’s the only money I have on me, there’s no sale. There’s no debt because I haven’t actually bought the gum yet, and the store can just put it back on the shelves. If, however, my electric bill for the month comes, that’s a debt, because I have already used the electricity… And so the electric company is legally required to accept cash, if that’s how I choose to pay.
The way I heard the joke, three friends each agree to put some amount, say $1,000, into the coffin. Two do so, and the other (of whatever ethnicity makes the joke work) puts in a check for $3,000, and takes the $2,000 cash in change.
That’s not the way I heard it, but it’s even better. 
You obviously weren’t paying very good attention during those many times.
There’s an old vaudeville bit in which A borrows a dollar from B. At another time B borrows a dollar from C. C had already borrowed a dollar from A.
When they all get together A repays B, B repays C, C repays A, and A has his dollar back. Sometimes two dollars is owed and the dollar goes around the circle twice.
Rob, Buddy, and Sally did this bit on The Dick van Dyke Show. It’s all in the timing.
It is the responsibility of a person settling a debt to obtain a receipt for payment. Without a receipt, there is no payment and the debt is still in force.
If you pay your rent in cash and do not get a receipt, and the landlord evicts you for non-payment of rent, there is only one thing the judge will want to see: Receipts.
I think a receipt is only needed if one party is claiming events happened differnetly to the other: in this case Andy and Boris both agree which events took place, just like a landord can’t evict me because I don’t have a receipt, if he acknowledes I did indeed give him the money.
Cite please.
Legally speaking, this is nonsense.
Right, but these aren’t normal circumstances. Just because I offer to repay you in legal tender does not mean that you must immediately and unconditionally accept the cash or else the debt is void. The UCC requires that payment for goods be delivered in a “commercially reasonable manner” and the common law requires a duty of good faith and fair dealing in service contracts.
The robbery example is a perfect illustration of how the law will (try to) do justice instead of following rigid rules. Imagine if instead of a friend, I was with my banker and we both get robbed. Could I start writing checks and pay off my house and my car?
Larry, Moe, and Curly did this bit too (at least) once – the dollar went twice around.
Personal experience. Illinois (which by itself might account for the nonsense). Not gonna give you the case number.
There’s another old joke which is even more on point, in fact it’s exactly the premise of the thread. Two men, good friends, have a longstanding business deal between them where one borrowed some money from the other. After many years the friend finally got together the money to pay off the debt. As they were celebrating together, a bandit announced he was robbing everyone in the restaurant. The man stuck the money in his friend’s pocket and said, “Remember, we’re even now!”
Ascenray is essentially correct. Receipts are not required.
If you pay your rent in cash, then the problem that now faces you is proving that you paid. There’s no legal rule that requires a receipt. We could imagine that the landlord testifies he was never given the money, and then you show a video of yourself handing him the money and him replying, “Thanks - I don’t have blank receipts; can I give you one later?”
In that circumstance, jtur88, how do you think the judge will rule?
Now, obviously, if you have no evidence at all, proving the payment will be difficult. But the judge sits as a finder of fact – he is perfectly entitled to listen to both you and the landlord make your claims and find that your claim of having paid is credible.
It’s not likely, but it’s not impossible.