Legal tender is, by definition, considered “reasonable payment”, and you’ve already stipulated that the lender isn’t willing to accept it. If the lender isn’t willing to accept the most reasonable form of payment there is, what recourse does the debtor have?
There is still a question I have wondered about. You go into Barstuck’s for a cup of coffee, drink it and then offer a $50 bill in payment. They say, sorry we cannot accept 50s. Now what? What if there were a sign posted that they accept no bill over $20? (I realize that in most coffee bars you pay first and then drink, but not in Barstuck’s).
Just because legal tender is involved, it doesn’t make a payment offer ‘reasonable’. Would you consider trying to pay a $10,000 debt in pennies to be “reasonable”? Courts don’t have to always be stupid, especially when there’s a word like ‘reasonable’ in there.
In other words, I think the ‘legal tender’ business might be a red herring in this case. I mean, the debtor can’t say “I’ll pay you with US bills, but you have to retrieve them from my toilet”, or “I’ll pay you in US bills, but only if you meet me in Somalia at exactly 3:42 AM tomorrow morning”, or some other method of payment that is unreasonable (even though it involves clearly legal tender).
But, sticking with legal tender, your average lender might not particularly care what’s on the bill, as long as their bank (and/or the lender’s clients/customers) accepts it. Obviously, if it’s so defaced the bank doesn’t accept it, it’s not legal tender. If the bank accepts it, who cares?
Now, there might be cause for a private lawsuit for libel if the words on the bill are untrue and defamatory (or even if true, in Britain!), of course, whether or not the bills are offered for payment.
I think that the very essence of “legal tender” laws is that you CAN’T reject such a payment without seriously jeopardizing your ability to collect in the future. Now, if the creditor has clear and palpable evidence that the cash offered was, say, drug money, they MIGHT be able to refuse, but I don’t know.
Since when does Starbucks serve coffee without securing payment in advance?
In this instance, seems it would be their problem. I suppose you could return the coffee to them. Public health laws would require them to throw it in the trash anyway.
Is there some legal requirement beyond qazwart’s uncited assertion that payments are required to be reasonable? (This same assertion that contradicts the whole "Legal tender for all debts, public & private) Is there a statutory definition of reasonable? Can you show it to me?
These are not generally accepted means of settling a debt. Showing up at a cashier’s window is generally accepted.
OK, I don’t actually know anything about debt law; I was going on the previous poster’s assertion that ‘reasonable’ is a meaningful word (either because of statute, or case law).
But if it is, of course there won’t be any statutory definition; the whole point of a word like ‘reasonable’ is that you can’t define every situation perfectly in advance, and on occasion, the person in charge of a court will have to, you know, judge, and decide whether the facts indicate a ‘reasonable’ situation or not. (ANAL, but I do work with them. )
If you saw the sign and passed it anyway, my WAG is that a legal contract was formed and you are now obligated to pay the debt in the manner you agreed to (i.e. other than with bills over $20).
In the opposite direction, there’s the case of the guy who was so angry at his bank that he legally changed his name to “Yorkshire Bank PLC Are Fascist Bastards” and demanded that his balance be paid out to him by check with his new name.
They would have to do it up in the Kehlsteinhaus.
I would suggest that if someone tried to pay a debt in small, marked bills that were patently offensive - then it would be up to the judge to decide “reasonable”.
As for how the tender is tendered - it would seem to me that it has to be tendered. The bedt-holder is not at your beck and call. You show up to the normal place of business at business hours time holding legal tender, and he cannot refuse.
If there’s some dispute over why or how this would not be a proper way to pay a debt, then the judge will decide; or the appeals court; etc. I suspect if message defacing a bill sufficiently large and obnoxious that the average “reasonable person” would not accept it, then the judge will not rule that it should have been accepted, even if the cash is legal tender. Admitting you put the message there yourself (or if it’s obvious) may not help the case. OTOH, if there’s an open bank just next door and the merchant could run in right away and exchange it for clean cash, maybe the judge will see tihngs your way.
As the comment above states about “magical law”, the judge does not have to give a rote answer. He has a lot of leeway to enforce “reasonable” and the only people who can slap him down are the appeal court judges - who have to consider whatever THEY say is a precedent.
I once refused to accept a bill stamped with ‘Queer Money’ in my change from a business. Not because I’m anti-gay-rights, heavens no, but because that stamp proclaimed: ‘this bill is counterfeit’. I told them to take that one to the bank.
Who said Starbucks? I specified a different place with a different practice. Think, if you will, of a lunch counter where you eat and then pay. Maybe if you had a sign, but suppose you just missed it.
Yo momma’s so dumb that when they said it was chilly out, she got a bowl etc.
Why in the world would gay activists add “this bill is counterfeit” to their stamps?
I think the stamp actually said “Queer Money”, but but in currency, ‘queer’ is often a synonym for counterfeit.
This may be relevant - I presume the principles here would also apply to defaced currency (i.e. a company may develop their own local policy regarding scribbled-on
The OP referred to debts specifically so this may not be directly applicable.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
Here is my question: Does either a state agency, or more importantly, “an agency that has been semi or fully privatized” have the legal requirement to discharge surcharges as is granted under the law of the State of NJ, if failing to do so prevents an individual from obtaining a “legal” drivers license? Allow me to somewhat clarify;
The successful outcome of filing for bankruptcy is having ones debts “legally” discharged. In NJ, as I can not speak for other states, but here that “requires” DMV to discharge said surcharges upon being presented with the “Discharge Order” signed by the Judge.
in NJ if one is behind in Surcharge payments the license usually is in a state of “suspension” which mine was.
I received my Discharge Order, went to DMV and presented it to the representative. I was told that there was “nothing” that they could do with that there and that I would have to have my attorney take care of it through Trenton. This was not what I was told by my attorney…but I found out later that he had graduated law school at night when he was 50 and had NO experience. Great huh?
ANyway… I tried on 2 separate occasions to go in and present my order and pay the “restoration fee” And it was refused twice… to make a long story short, I got pulled over and issued tickets for Unlicensed driver…
I used to be a fireman. I have a motorcycle endorsement, and I was entrusted with f]driving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fire equipment, and now because my DL was expired for more than a certain time they want to force me to re test, road test …etc,. etc. Now, if I was 80 years old and just “mailed in the money” I never would have been tested…or any more or extra fees…
QUESTION 2:
Are fees made by a beurocrat and not by the lawmakers, that do not “equally require” the same testing by everyone based on the same principles of safety rather than a hidden tax or penalty for …"not paying regularly for something that was not needed as I was out to sea.
in other words if they do not base their system on the Aviation method of requiring testing every certain amount of time, how can they justify testing only the ones who did not keep a valid DL for that time? If we both passed the test the written and road…and NEVER have been required to test again, then how is it that they have the authority to levy a tax, or a "penalty’ and hide it by demanding a full retest? they justify the fees because of the cost to DMV for having to have someone issue both the written and road tests…but what has gone straight passed everyone is that the demand is both unfair, unreasonable, does NOT promote public safety in any calculable way, and is not required of everyone equally, as they require retesting of no one else other than those reported by someone to be unsafe, as it should be unless they switch to the AVIATION model, which would currently be overkill…so therefore it appears as though the requirement to force me to re-test is Un-Constitutional. Therefore, by and in exercising my right to travel, “until such differences can be remedied by the court”, I have no choice but to travel if necessary, by operating an automobile. As it is clearly stated in the Constitution, that the exercising of ones rights can NOT be converted into a crime. It does not say anywhere that I must be correct in my original argument…It merely says that if I am exercising my rights, which arguably traveling by the modern mode of travel for the day, and operating an automobile are one and the same, and that if there be a “clerical” issue, or an issue where the safety of others is simply NOT a factor, is it not prudent to err in the side of the protecting of ones rights than merely to revenue generation and collection?
Zombies don’t give a shit about what kind of legal tender you are carrying. They just want your bbbbbbbbbbrrrrrraaaaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnnsss.
Tom, you responded to an almost 12 year old thread. You might have better luck starting a new thread more specific to your questions.
The store has no obligation to sell you anything, thus no obligation to accept cash for a sale it refuses to make. However, if the store offered you a line of credit (such as a bar tab) to make purchases, the store could not refuse cash to settle the account.
I believe there are laws that protect a credit holder from having to accept obnoxious or burdensome amounts of small denominations, but they are free to do so if they wish to quickly settle an account.