A very interesting article I came across.....especially in the replies about legal tender.....http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ut-form?page=1
-
-
Since there is no money - only debt notes - it makes good sense for people to try and gather information about debtors. An interesting conversation could happen between the restaurant and someone using redeemed lawful money. I'd love to be there, if it happens. -
Originally posted by sam charles View Post
That just means my dinner is free to me. As soon as the cashier sees that I am sure they would accept my bill.
Of course you are not required to fill out the form.
Thanks for showing us the article and comment by Tyler there. I think that Tyler's head is a little cluttered by conditioning on this particular issue. The obligations to perform are on the bills. There is no obligation for me to perform. However I do keep a Treasury Pen - so I call it. I process my $100 bills when people pay me. That way I do not pass any counterfeit bills.
That was in the back of my mind while writing above.Since there is no money - only debt notes - it makes good sense for people to try and gather information about debtors. An interesting conversation could happen between the restaurant and someone using redeemed lawful money. I'd love to be there, if it happens.
Having the bills stamped might help explain that the obligations to perform are solely with the US Treasurer and Secretary. The only possible obligation to perform would be if there is a NOTICE somewhere for customers to be expected to read on the way in before being seated or on the menu.Comment
-
My first question is, "Can they do that"?Originally posted by sam charles View Post
Can they legally do that?
We'd have to take such a case through probation to see if they can do that.
Now, I believe a place of business can limit what denominations of legal tender are accepted.
As far as demanding the personal info from the payor, that's a question in need of answering.
Most are going to quietly acquiesce to the demand.
Hopefully, someone with some guts will take up the question
.
Comment
-
My feeling is sure they can do that! They can do that for pennies if they like. There is nothing to enforce it with. Possibly if they put up a Notice they will be requiring it they could enforce the contract a little... But even then?Originally posted by shikamaru View PostMy first question is, "Can they do that"?
Can they legally do that?
We'd have to take such a case through probation to see if they can do that.
Now, I believe a place of business can limit what denominations of legal tender are accepted.
As far as demanding the personal info from the payor, that's a question in need of answering.
Most are going to quietly acquiesce to the demand.
Hopefully, someone with some guts will take up the question.Comment
-
I'm with you. Of course they can do that. They can enforce it too, simply by requiring prepayment. But talk about a public relations nightmare.Comment
-
Taco Bell just puts up a Notice that you cannot pay with anything larger than $20 bills.Comment
-
The difference with Taco bell is you have to pay before you get your food. (if you call taco bell food)Originally posted by David Merrill View Post
Legal tender can not be refused for payment of debt.
Legal tender can be refused for consideration pre debt contract/order.
If the restaurant stated before you ordered that they would not be accepting legal tender then they have the law on their side.
If they tell you after you ate the food, then the law states they have to accept legal tender.
A place of business does not have to give change to legal tender.
Meaning they give change to be nice and get return business.
When paying a debt with legal tender you have the responsibility to pay with the correct amount and make change yourself.
The shop does not have that responsibility by law.
So if you had eaten a meal that cost $55 at the restaurant and go to pay with a one hundred dollar bill, and the shop did not post that they do not accept them as payment before you ate the meal, the shop has to accept your one hundred dollar bill as payment. But they do not have to give change.Comment
-
-
One also has the right to pay once they are able to obtain change. Just be sure to express your intent to pay. ;-)Comment
-
folks, you are amazing. I learn each time I am able to visit here.
Yesterday I bought gas for my car. i have taken to paying in cash, lawful money, for several reasons,but mostly
because I am given a 5 cent per gallon discount for said cash.
While my small car doesn't take all that much, the $100 bill i used to pay really threw the attendant a curve.
They clearly state they don't accept checks, so it was that or nothing.
Glad Walter hadn't made been there to voice the knowledge regarding making change.
I had never been told that before.
Its special to have a place where I can be pretty much assured I will learn something new with each visit.Comment
-
I took it with a grain of salt originally. Something is disturbingly familiar about the precepts Walter brings though - inherent in the nature of legal tender, rather than money of value. Maybe that disturbance emotionally is the blatant recognition that the value in fiat/elastic stock in the Fed is completely mental, and completely neurotic.Comment
-
No.Originally posted by David Merrill View Post
I came across this before with a plumbing store that did not accept any cash period.
So I thought they were wrong and looked up the acts and statues to prove they were.
I found the opposite.
This is from the Bank of Canada web site:
This brings up another great point.
"both parties must agree on the payment method"
In court they want legal tender for fine/debt payment.
Well both parties have to agree on the payment method.
I have seen lawyers refuse Promissory Notes in court and they expressed to the judge that the "judge would refuse this payment to is he saw what was tendered."
So we the people should refuse using legal tender as a payment method for their fines/debts as a payment method.
After all, both parties have to agree on the payment method.Comment
-
I don't know about Canada, but the US money of account is the Dollar as defined in 1792 Coinage Act:Originally posted by walter View PostNo.
I came across this before with a plumbing store that did not accept any cash period.
So I thought they were wrong and looked up the acts and statues to prove they were.
I found the opposite.
This is from the Bank of Canada web site:
This brings up another great point.
"both parties must agree on the payment method"
In court they want legal tender for fine/debt payment.
Well both parties have to agree on the payment method.
I have seen lawyers refuse Promissory Notes in court and they expressed to the judge that the "judge would refuse this payment to is he saw what was tendered."
So we the people should refuse using legal tender as a payment method for their fines/debts as a payment method.
After all, both parties have to agree on the payment method.
So now we see that in court proceedings, the money of account is the Dollar as defined by this act. What if - in a controversy with the gov't - you agreed to pay any charges incurred on the condition that the lawful money of account be used?Section 20. And be if further enacted, That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars, or units, dismes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and the milles or thousandths, a disme being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mille the thousandth part of a dollar, and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.
Seems to me the only response gov't could have would be to go silent.
Comment
-
On receipt of the commercial presentment of charges, the offer is accepted upon the following conditions:Originally posted by Keith Alan View Post
1. That proof and presentment of a valid, verified, and bona fide claim, obligating the payment of the charges be made; and
2. That in light of the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, the dollar as defined being the lawful money of account be received so as to pay, settle and close the matter.
--- I'm curious what you all think about this. This erases the controversy, and forces them to either refuse, counter offer, accept or go silent. If they refuse, it is with dishonor, since the offer to pay in the lawful money of account is good. The payment will be deemed as made. If they counter offer, they would be admitting they're in the private, so that will never happen. There is no money, so they can't accept. Silent is ther only viable option, which also is dishonor.Comment
Comment