dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/08/84)
-- From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig):
-- "Sorry, we cannot accept anything over a $20 bill without a picture ID"
--
-- Apparently these people are unaware of the concept of legal tender.
-- It is ILLEGAL to refuse to accept cash for any purchase. I suggest
-- that if you really want to make a scene, you buy $90 worth of books,
-- present them with a $100 bill, refuse to give identification, and,
-- if they refuse to accept the bill, call the police.
I don't know much about U.S. law, but it would surprise me to
find out that it is "illegal" to refuse to accept cash, or that
you could get anywhere by calling the police.
Under basic contract law, you go to the counter and offer to purchase
the books. The cashier accepts on behalf of the store, subject to the
clear posted sign that bills over $20 must be accompanied by photo ID.
Your contract is now: you will pay in cash of bills no larger than $20
(or whatever else the store accepts, such as a credit card), and the
store will, in consideration therefor, give you possession of and title
to the book. If you try to pay with a $100 bill, I don't think you're
honouring your part of the contract.
Even if there were no sign, I can't imagine that the police could/would
do anything. At worst, the store is in breach of contract, and you can
sue it. (Note the important distinction between a civil lawsuit and a
criminal prosecution. The police have nothing to do with lawsuits.)
Even then, I can't imagine what your damages would be.
We live in a free country, and anyone can sell whatever he wants to
whomever he wants. The only exceptions I can think of in the case of
something like a bookstore are human rights laws, which do make it a
*criminal* offense - the concern of the state - to refuse service to
someone on the grounds of race, colour, sex, age, physical handicaps,
etc.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davespear@ihuxm.UUCP (Steven Spearman) (01/09/84)
Heaven forbid that I should argue with a lawyer on a legal point, but I wanted to point out that the state DOES have a vested interest in insuring total acceptance of its legal tender, therefore some of the premises in Mr. Sherman's opinion may be invalid. He is right of course that the police would do nothing. The best approach is simply not to patronize such a place. Steve Spearman ihnp4!ihopb!spear
tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett) (01/10/84)
Every United States bill has printed on it "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." I think that says it all, but you have to watch the stink level when you complain or disorderly conduct might be charged. P.S. I believe there are laws regarding the use of currency as a nuisance, such as paying a large tab in pennies. Anybody know about it?
spear@ihuxm.UUCP (Steven Spearman) (01/11/84)
On the issue of using coins for nuisance payments in large quantities: I had once heard of a court ruling that a business need not accept more than 50 'pennies or nickels' as partial payment of any debt. Anyone out there able to confirm or refute this? Steve Spearman ihnp4!ihopb!spear
coltoff@burdvax.UUCP (01/11/84)
Point number 2
I believe that the limit on what can be paid in coin on any debt
is $25.00
Point number 1
I have a theory. Eh em. This theory is mine alone and nobody elses. Eh em
Any establishment has the right to set a policy for the conditions
under which it will conduct business with you. For example a
restaurant may refuse to serve fat Japanese midgets with one wooden
leg*. You don't have a debt with the store, gas station, etc. until you
use their service. They are telling you that to use their service you
must follow thier policy. Now the issue becomes where is the warning
sign posted. If I pump my gas and see the notice posted when I go
to pay I can put up a big stink. If the sign is posted by the pumps
then I'll have to go elsewhere.
* The reference to Japanese midgets comes from the book "Potatos
Cheaper" by Max (Dobie Gillis) Schulman. It is not meant to be
derogatory.
Could some one shed some light on this issue. I have seen signs
in stores that say there will be a $5.00 charge for any checks
returned form the bank for any reason. Who would be dumb enough
to pay this? Can the store collect from the bank? I ceratinly hope
not. I would say the store would be greatful to get the money
for the goods. After all you have both of these.
--
Joel Coltoff {presby,bpa,psuvax}!burdvax!coltoff (215)648-7258rtf@ihuxw.UUCP (sparrow) (01/11/84)
I once read that pennies in amounts greater than 50 are NOT legal tender unless they are accepted by the recipient. sparrow p.s. I don't remember the source.
ea@hogpc.UUCP (E.ARIAS) (01/11/84)
Re: ihuxm!spear's post on using coins for nuisance payments. I seem to recall that about 7-8 years ago an individual protesting the IRS tax system attempted to pay his/her tax obligation by shipping to the tax center his forms and his tax payment all in pennies. Well, needless to say, the IRS was not favorably impressed and I imagine they were not looking forward to accepting this trend. Consequently, the took the individual to court. Result: The court decided coins are not 'legal tender' for public & private debts. Ernie Arias AT&T Information Systems Lincroft, NJ
esac@ihuxp.UUCP (Bill Adams) (01/11/84)
I believe that paying large tabs in coins can be refused for the same
reason that 20s should be accepted. Coins do not have the notation
that they are legal tender for all debts.
I heard this years ago and don't know if it's true or not.
--
Bill Adams ==> AT&T Communications <==
ihnp4!ihuxp!esac
(312) 979-6267dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/11/84)
-- From: tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett)
-- Every United States bill has printed on it "This note is legal
-- tender for all debts, public and private." I think that says
-- it all, but you have to watch the stink level when you complain
-- or disorderly conduct might be charged.
I don't think that "says it all". Perhaps it says that if you have a
"debt", then you can pay off the debt with cash. The scenario under
discussion doesn't contain a "debt". Since the store's stated
policy is not to allow payment by $100 bill without photo ID, no
debt arises because no contract is concluded. The phrase quoted might
be more relevant if you bought the books on credit, and then tried to
pay off your *debt* with a $100 bill.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daverh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (01/12/84)
I believe the law regarding payment of large tabs with change is a state law in various states, undoubtedly another product of the mercantile conspiracy that has given us lots of extraneous holidays. As far as them having to accept your bills, I don't think there are any laws about that. The only reason that merchants don't kill you and eat you is not because they are nice people; it's because they want your business (sometimes), but not if it will cause them too much of a hassle. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
johnc@dartvax.UUCP (John Cabell) (01/12/84)
> Result: the courts decided that coins are not 'legal > tender' for debts, public or private. Does this mean that all the pennies I and other people have are useless? I can't use them in stores or anything? I can't believe that the government would think that inflation is that bad :-) and throw away all that money! -- Unix path: ...!decvax!dartvax!johnc Universal id: 50 USnail: 4 Ridge rd., Hanover, NH 037550248
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (01/12/84)
I don't know about nickels, dimes, quarters, halves or silver dollars; However, I do know that the Lincoln Cent was never made legal tender. Congress never got around to it. As far as the IRS goes, they do not have to accept large volumes of coinage in satisfaction of taxes owed to the Federal Gevernment because of the large administrative burden that would be imposed on the IRS. The correct idea is that the floodgates would be opened. At least as far as other taxpayers go. I do believe that anyone who would refuse large amounts of coinage in satis- faction of a debt need not worry. The debt would be still owed. However, any penalties that would accrue after the coins were tendered as payment would have to be forgone by the creditor.
mag@whuxle.UUCP (01/13/84)
Re the question on using pennies to pay a debt: I believe that pennies and nickels are NOT considered legal tender for debts over some small amount (such as $1). Mike Gray, BTL, WH
derek@sask.UUCP (01/13/84)
In Canada, coins are legal tender but there are limits... A long time
ago in my Grade XII Economics class, we were told what the limits were.
The values quoted below are approximate and probably wrong, but they
should give you the right idea.
Pennies - maximum of $ 0.25
Nickles - maximum of $ 5.00
Dimes - maximum of $10.00
Quarters- maximum of $25.00
Fifty - no limit
Dollars - no limit
Merchants are required to accept the coins to the maximum indicated amount.
You can pay Revenue Canada in silver dollars if you wish.
Derek Andrew, ACS, U of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
{ihnp4 | utah-cs | utcsrgv | alberta}!sask!derek 306-343-2638 0900-1630 CSTseifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (01/13/84)
I think I'll open one of these bookstores, with the following policy statement printed on a sign on a wall: _________________________________________ | | | The only acceptable payment | | for purchases at this store | | shall be the title to a | | shiny new BMW M1. Title | | to an Audi Quattro shall | | be acceptable in the case | | of paperbacks. No change | | is available since the | | presence of money would | | tempt robbers. All | | persons entering this | | store must make a purchase. | | (This is not a library!) | |_______________________________________| :-) -- _____ /_____\ from the flying doghouse of /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (01/14/84)
-------------------- Could some one shed some light on this issue. I have seen signs in stores that say there will be a $5.00 charge for any checks returned form the bank for any reason. Who would be dumb enough to pay this? Can the store collect from the bank? I ceratinly hope not. I would say the store would be greatful to get the money for the goods. After all you have both of these. -------------------- Most banks charge the account a fine when they have to return a check. My bank allows me to have a negative balance in my NOW account (I believe it is conditional on my having a sufficient balance in the associated savings account), but still fines me for overdrafts. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (01/17/84)
As explained to me by a lawyer friend, the situation can be viewed a little differently from the way Dave described it. The actual full description of "legal tender" bills is "this bill is legal tender for all debts, public and private". That is: If I owe you money, and offer you a $100 bill, you must accept it as a valid attempt to pay the debt. If you DON'T accept it, you are denying the existence of a debt, and I no longer owe you the money. A check is NOT legal tender: You are per- fectly within your rights to refuse to accept the check, and say "No, you still owe me the money, and I want it in legal tender". (There is an intermediate case, which has no specific statutory meaning, but is understood within the legal/business community: "Good funds" are funds "almost as good as cash" - for example, a certified check is usually "good funds" (assuming the certifying bank is trustworthy!)) Refusing to accept legal tender for a debt is not a crime; it simply cancels the debt. After you refuse to accept my $100 bill, you are still out the money; if you take me to court, and I can show that you refused the legal tender, the court will refuse to act to collect for you. (You can argue about whether the debt "still exists" in some abstract sense, but in practice it doesn't; the courts won't collect it for you, and if you try and collect it yourself by taking my car, you will be found guilty of theft.) To cast the bookstore case in a similar light, what you should do is take your $90 of books to the counter and offer your $100 bill. When the clerk refuses to accept it, simply walk out of the store. He will call the police, you will be arrested, and eventually you will argue in court that you didn't steal anything: The store offered the books to the public for sale; you took them up on their offer, incurring a debt; you offered to settle the debt with legal tender, but they refused; ergo, the debt was disolved and the books are yours. The prosecuter, if it's a criminal case, or the lawyer for the store, if it's a civil case trying to get the books and/or damages from you, will present Dave's argument: The store, in posting the sign, limited the offer of a contract to sell books to those willing to present small bills. Since you are not in that class, your appropriation of the books did not create a contract between you and the store, and was simply theft. (Notice that, if the store wins the civil case, they CANNOT at this point refuse payment in $100 bills! - any money you owe them as a result of the case is just an ordinary debt.) Who prevails? Who knows? Most law is based on precedent, not statute; you'd have to search for a similar case in the past to see what the courts had done. It is quite possible that you would find no precedent; on the other hand, various organizations have been making restrictions like this for years. For example, many bus lines require exact change. This situation is a little different, however: You have to pay BEFORE you are allowed on the bus, so the bus company can probably make a very strong argument that no debt exists, it's just a matter of non-creation of a contract. (In Boston, where you sometimes pay part of your fare when you get on the bus or trolley and part when you get off, you might conceivably get dif- ferent results depending on when you tried to pay in non-exact change!) If there is no precedent, the argument is likely to come down to one of rational public policy. My (the $100 bill tender's) argument is that Congress has made public policy on this issue quite clear by creating the entire concept of legal tender: There is a need for SOMETHING to be the final unit of measure for all debts, since otherwise arguments about payment will go on indefinitely. Further, Congress has been quite explicit in making cash that final measure (except for pennies and nickels in quanti- ties worth more than $5, BTW). Your counter-argument, of course, is that it is absurd to require merchants to accept the whole risk of dealing with counterfeit money. Suppose someone insists on paying for a newspaper with a $1000 bill? Will you require every newstand to be able to give change for such a bill? (Fortunately, there are no longer any larger bills in circulation!) Counterfeiting in general raises typical "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. In general, if you accept a counterfeit bill, you are stuck with it, unless you can prove a particular person gave it to you - in which case they now owe you the value of that bill. You can carry insurance against such eventualities, but otherwise no one will reimburse you for the fake $100 found in your day's receipts. Hence, you will probably want to be very careful about what you are willing to accept. The problem is, if people become TOO picky, commerce breaks down entirely, because money becomes unspendable...obviously not a desired result. BTW, be VERY careful about accusing someone of giving you a bad bill. If you turn out to be wrong, he will be able to sue you for slander to credit and other wrongs, and, especially if anyone else heard your accusation - but even if it just interfered with his getting his business done - he is likely to win a big judgement. Just for interest's sake, here is the one case on this sort of issue I've ever heard of: X sued Y for something or other, and one a judgement for (say) $1000. Y was very pissed, and payed the amount in dimes dropped into a barrel of mollasses [sp?]. Held: This was not a good-faith tender of the amount owed. (This is a real case...there is no thing so crazy that it hasn't come up sometime in the history of the common law.) Y had to try again, and may have had to pay an additional penalty (most likely, but I don't remember for certain). If anyone would like to make a test case out of these policies...well, I'd love to learn the results. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (01/17/84)
Joel Coltoff claims that stores can refuse to deal with "short Japanese" (or something like that), for example. Things are more complicated: There were TONS of arguments about this sort of issue back when the civil rights laws were first passed back in the '60's. "It's my store, I don't have to sell to them nigra's, I don't have to let them in the door - that's why I have this-here axe-handle..." Congress passed laws saying that, once you deal with "the public" - which you are able to do in a reasonable way only because of the organization and structure society provides for you - society has the right to defined what "public" you must deal with. In particular, society has decided that you cannot choose who you deal with, based on race, religion, national background... As a general rule, you CAN decide who you are willing to deal with EXCEPT where Congress or the courts, acting to implement a matter of public policy, disallow a certain type of distinction. (Private clubs CAN discriminate on the basis of race, as can people who rent to less than some number - 5? - of tenants. A recent NY case established that a landlord of a large building MAY refuse to renew the lease of an activist tenant lawyer who was perceived as a "troublemaker" (by the landlord); there is no special protection defined in such a case.) Now, the question is: Is it a matter of public policy not to allow distinctions based on whether you have a bill larger than a twenty, and no picture ID? As I stated in my previous note, you'd have to fight it out in court... -- Jerry
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (01/17/84)
According to an article in the Oregonian sometime early last year, the 1-cent coin is minted solely for use as small change. The law does not require that anyone, with the possible exception of a banking institution, must accept more than some small number of pennies. I don't recall exactly but I think it is in the range of 12 to 25 cents.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (01/18/84)
(A nonlegal, but rational opinion): I don't quite agree with Jerry Leichter's friend. If you offer to pay a $100 bill for $90 worth of books in a book store and your offer is refused, you owe the bookstore no debt, yes. But, I don't see that you have acquired title to the books! If you carry them out of the store, it looks very much like you are stealing them. How could you own the books? You have not given the store a consideration, you have only cancelled a non-existent debt, which is no benefit to the store. - Toby Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or: allegra!eosp1!robison (maybe: princeton!eosp1!robison)