Legal Tender and consumer contract law

unholyangel

The internet's a wonderful place

Federal law states that 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. However, federal law does not require acceptance of cash nor does it ban retailers from imposing restrictions or limitations on acceptance of cash, thereby leaving it up to states.
Massachusetts is currently the only state that requires “retail establishments” to accept cash as payment.. 

And note it is only retail establishments. 

So federal law pretty much the same as England then. Perhaps the grass isn't as green as OP first thought. Who would have guessed. 

KeithP

And here's another quote from that article that unholyangel mentioned:

 Furthermore, the Massachusetts statute does not impose any penalties for retail establishments that refuse to accept cash, making its actual enforceability dubious.

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

And it isn't just France, Massachusetts has a very similar law (because someone who understood what legal tender should mean clearly wrote it):

"Section 10A. No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services. All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

So you are saying that what you have quoted means that if I go and buy a packet of chewing gum in a shop in Massachusetts costing just $1, and I offer a £1000 bill in payment, the shop must accept it? 

Are you sure it doesn't just mean what it says: "No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services"?  I understand that to mean that they can't refuse to sell to a cash buyer by trying to make them take out an expensive loan or other finance/credit agreement.  It does not say that they have to accept "legal tender" offered in any or every denomination.

It states in BLACK AND WHITE: "All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

If you can't understand that then God help you.

New Jersey passed a similar law recently in response to businesses refusing legal tender (i.e cash). You can see it here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S3000/2785_R2.PDF or here: https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/new-jersey-bans-cashless-businesses/.

So again the strength and brilliance of your argument is such that you have to resort to being abusive.  How telling.     

First, that provision is intended to prevent retailers from selling only on credit and from refusing cash buyers.  It is consumer protection legislation because credit is more expensive.

Second, yes - it says that retailers must accept "legal tender", but as others have asked, what is the definition of legal tender in Massachusetts?  I've already pointed out earlier that in this country "offering to pay in legal tender" means offering to pay the precise amount owed* - that's part of what it means.  If you are trying to tell us that offering to pay for a $1 item with a $1000 bill would be offering to pay in legal tender in Massachusetts, please show us where it says that because I don't believe that is true.

*I note that the Chards website I think you linked to earlier makes this very point when discussing the chap trying to pay for his petrol at Tesco with one pound coins.  AIUI he was able to do that because he either offered the precise amount or he wasn't bothered about getting less than a quid's worth of change  Edit:  Or Tescos couldn't be bothered to argue

From their Attorney General:
"It’s illegal to refuse cash in Massachusetts"
It can't get much simpler. She or the bill doesn't say: it's illegal to refuse cash unless it's tendered in a higher amount than required. However, it is possible that there is another element of the law which would mean it would be possible to refuse it in some circumstances, I don't know where that is but feel free to research their laws.

trusaiyan

unholyangel said:

The internet's a wonderful place

Federal law states that 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. However, federal law does not require acceptance of cash nor does it ban retailers from imposing restrictions or limitations on acceptance of cash, thereby leaving it up to states.
Massachusetts is currently the only state that requires “retail establishments” to accept cash as payment.. 

And note it is only retail establishments. 

So federal law pretty much the same as England then. Perhaps the grass isn't as green as OP first thought. Who would have guessed. 

Which makes no difference if the individual states are passing laws to ban cash refusal, but that is why I mentioned the individual state and didn't just say 'USA'. But yes the majority of states do not have this provision yet.

However, the last sentence is false in your quote as New Jersey has banned it too (although only recently), and many cities have banned it such as Philadelphia, San Francisco, West Hollywood and New York City.

And as far as I'm aware, restaurants and other food outlets are included in that states law against the refusal of cash tender.

trusaiyan

KeithP said:

And here's another quote from that article that unholyangel mentioned:

 Furthermore, the Massachusetts statute does not impose any penalties for retail establishments that refuse to accept cash, making its actual enforceability dubious.

Yes, it was made in 1978 and it should have had a penalty with it (still makes it ILLEGAL though).

Fortunately, everywhere else that is banning it are placing hefty fines, such as the 'civil penalty of up to $2,500 would be imposed for a first violation of the bill’s provisions, and up to $5,000 for a second violation' in New Jersey.

Manxman_in_exile

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

And it isn't just France, Massachusetts has a very similar law (because someone who understood what legal tender should mean clearly wrote it):

"Section 10A. No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services. All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

So you are saying that what you have quoted means that if I go and buy a packet of chewing gum in a shop in Massachusetts costing just $1, and I offer a £1000 bill in payment, the shop must accept it? 

Are you sure it doesn't just mean what it says: "No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services"?  I understand that to mean that they can't refuse to sell to a cash buyer by trying to make them take out an expensive loan or other finance/credit agreement.  It does not say that they have to accept "legal tender" offered in any or every denomination.

It states in BLACK AND WHITE: "All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

If you can't understand that then God help you.

New Jersey passed a similar law recently in response to businesses refusing legal tender (i.e cash). You can see it here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S3000/2785_R2.PDF or here: https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/new-jersey-bans-cashless-businesses/.

So again the strength and brilliance of your argument is such that you have to resort to being abusive.  How telling.     

First, that provision is intended to prevent retailers from selling only on credit and from refusing cash buyers.  It is consumer protection legislation because credit is more expensive.

Second, yes - it says that retailers must accept "legal tender", but as others have asked, what is the definition of legal tender in Massachusetts?  I've already pointed out earlier that in this country "offering to pay in legal tender" means offering to pay the precise amount owed* - that's part of what it means.  If you are trying to tell us that offering to pay for a $1 item with a $1000 bill would be offering to pay in legal tender in Massachusetts, please show us where it says that because I don't believe that is true.

*I note that the Chards website I think you linked to earlier makes this very point when discussing the chap trying to pay for his petrol at Tesco with one pound coins.  AIUI he was able to do that because he either offered the precise amount or he wasn't bothered about getting less than a quid's worth of change  Edit:  Or Tescos couldn't be bothered to argue

From their Attorney General:
"It’s illegal to refuse cash in Massachusetts"
It can't get much simpler. She or the bill doesn't say: it's illegal to refuse cash unless it's tendered in a higher amount than required. However, it is possible that there is another element of the law which would mean it would be possible to refuse it in some circumstances, I don't know where that is but feel free to research their laws.

It's obvious that those links you give are about protecting poor people who can't afford credit but can tender appropriate amounts and denominations of cash.  They are not about people being allowed to pay in any denomination note they like.

A moment's thought will tell you it's not as simple and straightforward as you would like to believe.  Do you really believe that if ten people followed each other into a NJ shop, and each bought a $1 pack of chewing gum and then each offered a $1000 bill in payment, and the shop accepted the first two but rejected the next eight because they had no change, that the shop would be committing a criminal offence? A $2500 fine, then $5000?  I don't think so...

I don't feel any need to conduct any research into US laws because (1) I'm not the one proposing a totally unneccessary change to UK law so don't need to establish any "reason" for anything, and (2) everybody knows that all US laws are !!!!!!.

Either all this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding by you and your friend as to what "legal tender" means (ie that every retailer has to accept "legal tender" in any denomination), or you've got some strange fixation with what you think "legal tender" should be.  Not to mention an obsession with the "morality" and correctness of UK law. 

photome

bizarre
A thread about the non acceptance of a £50 note in the UK, to, It’s illegal to refuse cash in Massachusetts.

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

My 'argument' that there is a contradiction in the law is obviously correct (i.e the legal tender provision only applies to a court situation

On the contrary your argument is obviously incorrect because you still do not seem to understand that the very definition of "legal tender" means it only applies to a court situation. Just because you wish legal tender to be something that a shop has to accept doesn't make it so, however loud you scream and scream and stamp your feet! 

trusaiyan said:

 I am yet to see it other than in the vague definition on BofE or Royal Mint's site, does anyone know where it is?

"Vague definition"?!?! The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and one of their jobs is to provide ways to pay for things safely therefore any sane, rational person would think their definition of legal tender would be about as authoritative as you can get:

Bank of England What Is Legal Tender?

Please explain exactly which part of "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" is vague?

Please explain exactly which part of "Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay" is vague?

If you still cannot get your head around that then I truly feel sorry for you. I guarantee that your solicitors will get back to you with exactly the same answers as have been repeated ad nauseam on here.

DoaM

photome said:

bizarre
A thread about the non acceptance of a £50 note in the UK, to, It’s illegal to refuse cash in Massachusetts.

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

I'll be back with the full legal expositions for those interested,

We look forward to these "full legal expositions" but I suspect you won't be back once your solicitors confirm that most people here were correct and the only person not getting it was you. What exactly did you ask the solicitors?