“Legal tender” means only that the Federal Reserve must accept it. Private businesses can specify any form of payment they please, including refusing to accept $100 bills or pennies (even if it is a “debt incurred”). Granted, unless they specify in advance, contract law assumes that legal tender will be acceptable.
However, as I said, the concept of “legal tender” rarely plays an actual role in real life situations, and certainly is not relevant here.
As another site pointed out the fine is $140 or 14,000 pennies when he pays it.
Considering that a good portion of pennies in circulation are copper dated 1982 or older and those pennies are now worth about 2.7 cents each for their metal value, it seems like a good deal to me. (Of course the government has conveniently made melting of old copper pennies illegal for now.)
From the link:
If I worked there I’d be tempted to count up to one cent, stop, and then ask the man if he wanted a receipt for his one cent payment. If he bitched I would explain that I’m not too good at counting, but if it would please him I would certainly try one more time. And then count up to one cent again.
yep, thats the one, many thanks
Can you cite this?
I wonder how Mr. West would have felt had his next paycheck been made in the form of pennies.
Hey, it’s legal tender!
Psst . . . Take out a dollar bill and read it.
It seems to me the key word in his post is the word must. Saying the bill is legal is not the same as saying every business must accept it. Otherwise every local market and convenience store in the country would be breaking the law when they say they won’t accept bills greater than $20 or $50.
It’s legal tender for all debts, not for all offers of payment.
Is there actually a difference between the two things in this context?
All that means is that the government considers this a valid form of payment. It doesn’t mean that any particular provider of goods and services must accept it.
When purchasing goods or services from a private party, I know of no such distinction in the law. As I said before, contract law assumes that legal tender will be acceptable as payment, but the parties are allowed to alter that assumption.
No. It means that anyone, public or private, must accept it as discharge of a previously incurred debt, in the absence of any prior contractual provision to the contrary.
Black’s Law Dictionary, on legal tender: “Legal tender is that kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.”
The United States Code on legal tender: "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. "
Note the footnote: The word “debts” is substituted for “debts, public and private” to eliminate unnecessary words.
The Supreme Court, in Juilliard v. Greenman, one of the “legal tender cases” which explored this power: "(W)e are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that impressing upon the Treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore within the meaning of that instrument, “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”
Let’s ask the U.S. Department of the Treasury:
The man in this story accepted services (apparently) in the form of health care. The health care services provider is not obligated to accept payment in pennies in exchange for this service.
I’m surprised so many of you are judging this man based on the journalist’s choice of the words ‘dumped’ and ‘demanded’ - those aren’t indisputable facts but the writer’s spin on things. The staff would have had to count the money whether he ‘demanded’ they do so or not. And who knows if he intended for the pennies to fall on the floor or it was an accident?
It’s the sort of thing lots of people fantasise about doing when they dispute a debt, and they only don’t do it because it would be more hassle than it’s worth. It’s a bit shit to dispute a debt, pay for it in legal tender then get fined for doing so.
There must be something else going on, because the staff would have to be real dicks to report someone to the police just because they had to pick some pennies off the floor. But you’d think the journalist would mention it if the man had been throwing the pennies at the staff’s heads.
It’s actually the writer’s paraphrase of comments by the chief of police, who presumably would be in a position to know.
And also because it’s a dick thing to do. Most people have developed sufficient character to avoid being dicks, even when they wish to.
… in the most dickish way possible. Any reasonable person knows that if you’re going to pay in pennies, you count and roll them yourself, unless you’re trying to be a dick. This guy didn’t even deliver them in a jar. He fucking dumped them on a desk. Two-thousand, five-hundred pennies that someone is going to have to gather up, count, and roll.
For a measly $25 dispute, this guy decided to be a major tool. Fuck him.
If this clinic worked like most, it was service first, payment afterward, which sounds like a debt to me. But I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer, and in any case the news story gives only a bare-bones summary of the payment issue. (Quite naturally, since the focus of the story is disorderly conduct, not bill delinquency or refusal to accept payment).
But regardless of the facts of this particular case, legal tender means a great deal more than “the Federal Reserve must accept it”, and I want to make that clear.
My insurance company can insist on payment in two dollar bills? Somehow I doubt that. Please educate me.