From: SMS on
BigDog811 wrote:

> When a merchant (in this case a restaurateur) posts a sign in such a
> manner and in such language that any reasonable person would be able
> to see and understand it, that he accepts only credit/debit cards he
> hasn't violated any law.

You're right, posting that sign did not constitute a violation of the
law. He can put up any sign he wants about anything. He can put up a
sign that he accepts only Euros, Canadian currency, credit cards etc..

> By entering the establishment and ordering
> your meal, you've agreed to his terms.

Nope. Don't bother looking for a cite, they're aren't any.

> If at the end of your meal,
> you don't have a credit/debit card to pay with you've breached your
> agreement.

Nope, no agreement was ever made.

> You've subjected yourself to possible civil, and depending
> on the the laws of the state you're in, possible criminal
> liabilities.

Nope, if you offer cash, you're offering currency that the merchant is
required to accept for a debt.

> An admittedly picky example, but it makes the point.

The only point it makes is that you have absolutely no idea what you're
talking about.

> As I said before, the manager will take your cash rather than jump
> through hoops, but you won't be served there again.

As long as you're being turned away for a reason other than insisting on
settling your debt with currency that the management is legally required
to accept, they can refuse you service.

Again, the key issue is whether or not the meal is paid for before it is
consumed or not. If it's paid for in advance, there is no debt, and the
merchant is free to refuse to sell the meal to a customer that wants to
pay cash.

If the customer eats the meal, and then presents cash to pay for the
meal, the restaurant is required to accept it. It doesn't matter what
signs the restaurant has posted.

What part of "This means that all U.S. money, as identified above, when
tendered to a creditor legally satisfies a debt to the extent of the
amount (face value) tendered" don't you understand? The merchant has no
power to change the requirement to accept currency for the debt.

> The idea that a purveyor of goods or services is required to take
> payment in legal tender in any form or amount offered by the customer
> is just wrong.

Cite? Don't bother, they're aren't any.

> It only takes an agreement to require otherwise, and
> the posting of a sign is considered adequate to constitute an
> agreement.

Nope, a sign doesn't mean a damn thing. They could post a sign that they
only accept gold bullion for payment of debts, but it has no relevance.
U.S. currency is legal tender for

> If you don't like the terms, take your business elsewhere.

How about the merchant abide by the law instead? If he doesn't want to
take cash, he can require payment in advance.

> There's a sandwich shop down the block from me. It's run by an old
> curmudgeon who reminds me of the soup nazi in the old Seinfeld
> episode. He refuses to deal with pennies. He doesn't take checks or
> cards. There's a sign on the menu board on his back wall, as well as
> his cash register that says all sales are rounded to the nearest
> nickel. There have been complaints filed about his practice
> everywhere from the local police, to the DA's office, to the state
> AG's office. Long story short, his terms are posted, and if you don't
> like them you don't to do business with him. He makes dynamite
> sandwiches, and I'll gladly give up a penny or two in my change to eat
> them.

Totally different situation than a merchant that refuses cash for debts
already incurred.
From: sarge137 on
On Sep 2, 6:19 pm, RickMerrill <Rick0.merr...(a)gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> sarge137 wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 3:51 pm, RickMerrill <Rick0.merr...(a)gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> >> BigDog811 wrote:
> >>> On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, "OhioGuy" <n...(a)none.net> wrote:
> >>>>   I've noticed a disturbing trend over the past few months - more and more
> >>>> places are putting up signs saying "we do not accept any bills larger than
> >>>> $20".
> >>>>   As someone who has switched over to using a cash budget to help control
> >>>> spending, this is making life difficult.
> >>>>   I saw the new sign yesterday at a gas station I fuel up at occasionally -
> >>>> now $20 is the largest bill they accept.  With current gas prices, it costs
> >>>> about $40 or so to fill up - 80% of that $50 bill they won't accept.
> >>>>   50 years ago, there were $500 and $1,000 bills in circulation.  With
> >>>> inflation, that $50 bill they won't take any more only buys what $8.50
> >>>> bought in 1969.  In other words, you already have to carry around 6 times as
> >>>> much money to buy the same things.
> >>>>   I don't understand why stores are legally able to get away with refusing
> >>>> to accept legal tender dollars.  It says right on the bills that they are to
> >>>> be accepted as legal tender for all debts, public and private.
> >>>>     Any thoughts?
> >>> And just to put a final point on it go to this Snopes page a read a
> >>> concisely and simply written article on the issue:
> >>>http://www.snopes.com/business/money/pennies.asp
> >>> They've even got links to both the U.S. Codes and U.S. Treasury pages
> >>> which address the issue.
> >>> Point, set, match.
> >> "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. Foreign gold or
> >> silver coins are not legal tender for debts."
>
> >> Store are not allowed to accept anything ELSE. If they refuse to sell
> >> for your $50 + $1 for a $50.50 debt, Tell them they have to or you will
> >> report their attempt at money laundering.
>
> > Good luck finding someone to take that report.
>
> It's a matter of scale: multiply the above by 1000 ...

Point taken. But we're discussing more common retail transactions
here.
From: sarge137 on
On Sep 2, 8:18 pm, "JRWeiss" <j...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
> >    The US hasnt even had enough of a clue to give up on
> > 1c and 2c pieces.
>
> rodless doesn't have enough of a clue to know the US hasn't had 2c
> pieces for 50+ years!

There are very few certainties in life, but one of them is that Rod
doesn't have a clue.

The US Mint struck 2 cent coins from 1864 to 1873. And in the last
year it there were only about 1,000 struck, all proofs. They're
actually quite valuable these days.
From: The Real Bev on
JRWeiss wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> The US hasnt even had enough of a clue to give up on
>> 1c and 2c pieces.
>
> rodless doesn't have enough of a clue to know the US hasn't had 2c
> pieces for 50+ years!

Must be longer than that, I don't remember them at all. Are you perhaps
thinking of the Brit tuppence?

--
Cheers, Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo
From: SMS on
sarge137 wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:18 pm, "JRWeiss" <j...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> The US hasnt even had enough of a clue to give up on
>>> 1c and 2c pieces.
>> rodless doesn't have enough of a clue to know the US hasn't had 2c
>> pieces for 50+ years!
>
> There are very few certainties in life, but one of them is that Rod
> doesn't have a clue.

LOL, very true, but you have to realize that he really knows that the
U.S. hasn't had 2� coins for a long time.