Is it a crime to offer other currency as payment.

[mazinger_z]

@Big Whistle

The words “legal tender” have a specific meaning, sir. They mean that the money inquestion must be accepted. If they mean that, then the law of the land requires that they be accepted. N’est-ce pas?

Again, since I do not have access to the case at hand, and I don’t feel like driving out to the law library, and, since I know (mostly) my UCC, legal tender does not have the meaning you think it to mean.

“Legal tender” in this case, particularly well read with the law you cited, is construed that it CAN be legally offered in exchange for goods, service, and debt. Note, you say MUST be accepted.

To see what really is going on, you must understand the complexities of “offer and acceptance.” I’m not going to get into it, b/c it will just open a huge can of worms, and I don’t want to hijack this thread. I will simply state that the Merchant is offering his goods for sale, and the Buyer is offering tender (or tendering an offer) to buy those goods. Implicit within the transaction is that the medium to which this transaction will be carried out is via cold, hard cash. But, that is not necessarily so. A buyer can be explicit about his offer and condition his offer that payment must be in bearer bonds only, for example.

A debt is similar, but it has an additional nuance to it, in that there is a bit more negotiation between the parties going on, even if it is implicit. Again, I don’t want to delve too much into this, because I don’t want to hijack this thread. Anyway, here is a direct quote from the case “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 law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.” (emphasis mine). If you want to take issue with this, find something to the contrary.

You are reading into the cited law a means of transaction/procedure between the two parties wishing to exchange goods and services that just isn’t there. Do you really think lawmakers write the law so that they can needle their way into every component of one’s life? Some people would like it that way, but it’s far more efficient to let people contract their own transactions.

Good day, sir.

[Big_Whistle]

@mazinger_z

Again, since I do not have access to the case at hand, and I don’t feel like driving out to the law library, and, since I know (mostly) my UCC, legal tender does not have the meaning you think it to mean.

“Legal tender” in this case, particularly well read with the law you cited, is construed that it CAN be legally offered in exchange for goods, service, and debt. Note, you say MUST be accepted.

To see what really is going on, you must understand the complexities of “offer and acceptance.” I’m not going to get into it, b/c it will just open a huge can of worms, and I don’t want to hijack this thread. I will simply state that the Merchant is offering his goods for sale, and the Buyer is offering tender (or tendering an offer) to buy those goods. Implicit within the transaction is that the medium to which this transaction will be carried out is via cold, hard cash. But, that is not necessarily so. A buyer can be explicit about his offer and condition his offer that payment must be in bearer bonds only, for example.

A debt is similar, but it has an additional nuance to it, in that there is a bit more negotiation between the parties going on, even if it is implicit. Again, I don’t want to delve too much into this, because I don’t want to hijack this thread. Anyway, here is a direct quote from the case “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 law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.” (emphasis mine). If you want to take issue with this, find something to the contrary.

You are reading into the cited law a means of transaction/procedure between the two parties wishing to exchange goods and services that just isn’t there. Do you really think lawmakers write the law so that they can needle their way into every component of one’s life? Some people would like it that way, but it’s far more efficient to let people contract their own transactions.

Good day, sir.

Before you get all stupidly patronizing, you might consider that I’m also an attorney, that I understand the meaning of the words as well or better than you do, having researched the issue before, and that the best way to address specific legal questions isn’t to adopt patronizing tones combined with veiled insults.

There are plenty of federal laws that do precisely what you say; penetrate into every aspect of our daily life. The case you cite is inconclusive, since you don’t even bother to name the court, or the issue before it. Judges can be wrong; from time to time they actually are.

Legal tender laws go quite a ways back. If you research them, you will find that they were originally intended for precisely the purpose I stated: to force shopkeepers to accept certain coinage in an attempt to stabilize currency concerns. In contract parlance, the shopkeeper offers the item for sale at a price; the tender of the proper coin is an acceptance of the offer. Contract, of binding nature, entered into at that point.

If you wish to address these issues, I recommend something other than the tone of the last post, please.

[mks57]

@mazinger_z

“Legal tender” in this case, particularly well read with the law you cited, is construed that it CAN be legally offered in exchange for goods, service, and debt. Note, you say MUST be accepted.

I thought that many legal tender laws, like the Legal Tender Act of 1862, were intended to force creditors to accept currency at face value, that they would otherwise reject or only accept at a substantial discount. The creditor might want $1000 in gold or silver coin, but legally had to accept $1000 in “Greenbacks”.

[DrDeth]

Well, the law is rarely enforced and there is no penalty anyway- but the purpose of it is to say that you can’t refuse to accept greenbacks - you’ll only take gold or silver coins. If you said you won’t take cash but only credit cards (and there was a case on this once) there would likely be nothing said.

Back before fiat currency was so commonly accepted, I imagine that if some huge company or State began insisting on “hard currency”, something would have been done. In fact, if I remember right, there was an issue with California and gold vs greenbacks once upon a time… However- other than the CA issue back in the Gold-rush days, I don’t think there has ever been a problem with it.

I remember asking a freind of mine who was a Secret Service agent year ago about a sign “no bills larger than $20 accepted” and would they not be required to accept “legal tender”?- he said there was no real penalty involved and in any case- even if they *were *required to accept a $100 bill, they weren’t required to keep change on hand for it.

[Saint_Cad]

@Big Whistle

In general, under 31 USC 5103, coins and folding money issued by the United States are “legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues.” Presumably, this makes it the law of the land that US coins and paper money must be accepted in those cases; I don’t see that there is any penalty, however, for a failure to accept them as such.

The assessment is horribly incorrect. Nothing in that law requires vendors to accept this “legal tender” for a transaction. It is simply a law that makes greenbacks an official currency of the United States along side the hard currency of gold and silver certificate.

Here is where the confusion lies - while it is true that “legal tender” by definition must be accepted for any debt, a transaction does not incure a debt. If I offer to sell you an item for $100 or 100 mini-marshmallows a debt is not created. The famous cases of people using (or abusing) the legal tender status of coin and currency always involve a true debt for an outstanding bill.

If you think about it, this makes sense. Let’s say I buy a house from you. Part of the negotiation is how to make the payment. You obviously don’t want 100,000 one-dollar bills or worse 10,000,000 one-cent pieces, so you refuse to sell me the house unless I give you a check or an electronic bank transfer. So far, so good. We agree to the terms and I get a loan from the only bank in town (the Ninth National Bank of Podunk) with the house as collatoral (standard procedure). I go into the bank next month with fifteen $100 bills to make the mortgage payment. Since this is legal tender used to discharge a debt, the bank cannot refuse it an then turn around and foreclose since I never made a payment.
Look at http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q1

[QUOTE=United States Department of the Treasury]

Q) I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn’t this illegal?

A) The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled “Legal tender,” which states: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

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.

QUOTE]

[mazinger_z]

@Big Whistle

Before you get all stupidly patronizing, you might consider that I’m also an attorney, that I understand the meaning of the words as well or better than you do, having researched the issue before, and that the best way to address specific legal questions isn’t to adopt patronizing tones combined with veiled insults.

Researched? You cite a law unclear on the method of transactions. I, at least, made an attempt to cite the UCC. I have also cited a case on point, granted, it is a state decision, but here is the full Westlaw cite: Ohio v. Carroll, (Ohio App. 4 Dist., Mar. 13, 1997), 1997 WL 118064. I even had my intern go summarize the case (because he’s free labor), and while the court didn’t go to the UCC like I would have, they did at least cite the notion for abuse, and the implicit understanding that the Vendor can accept payment in the form he so desires.

@Big Whistle

There are plenty of federal laws that do precisely what you say; penetrate into every aspect of our daily life. The case you cite is inconclusive, since you don’t even bother to name the court, or the issue before it. Judges can be wrong; from time to time they actually are.

I have, and I did, and it’s on point. Lawmakers can be wrong, too. Anyway, SaintCad even has a cire more on point, and it’s federal. While they may not have the same authority as a court, I think it’s safe to assume that they did their research.

@Big Whistle

If you wish to address these issues, I recommend something other than the tone of the last post, please.

Uhh…whatever, dude.

@Mazinger_Z

Good day, sir.

I said, “Good day, sir!”