3 ms·

IANAL. This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a med

IANAL. This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Legal tender doctrine is not a universal edict applied to every transaction. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-a-legal-tender-law-and-is-it-a-problem/?sh=6bad28a625da https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-...

vorpalhex 5y ago
> This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Provided a contract or agreement doesn't stipulate otherwise. A way to think about this is that while the constitution recognizes freedom of speech, signing an NDA results in the exchanges of one's right to disclose certain information in exchange for the privileges and benefits of employment.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    You can't typically seek court help for a debt and not accept cash, reasonableness permiting. The law typically allows you to charge a penalty for accepting cash - everyone recognizes handling large amounts of cash incurs issues.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      What about bankruptcy courts? Repossession? Liquidation auctions? The seizure of assets as compensation for debts incurred is not in and of itself unreasonable or particularly atypical, even when the option of cash exists. Although, depending on legislation and jurisdiction, there may be prescribed limits (e.g. homestead exemptions and limited liability) With all that said, none of what you've stated proves that the law requires all debts to be accepted in cash in every case regardless of circumstances. What you've offered so far is an asserted reading of the text without any arguments backing up the claim.
traceroute66 5y ago
> This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Yes. I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter, i.e. the moment that reasonable alternative(s) have been offered then the whole "cash is legal tender" thing (basically) goes out the window. There was an interesting ruling in Europe[1] in relation to Euro cash where it was even ruled that European government bodies are not obliged to accept cash. The ruling basically said exactly what @Dracopheonix pointed out: "Limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with the status of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts are available" [1] https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-delivers-judgment-cash-acceptance-case https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-deli...

vorpalhex 5y ago

> This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Provided a contract or agreement doesn't stipulate otherwise. A way to think about this is that while the constitution recognizes freedom of speech, signing an NDA results in the exchanges of one's right to disclose certain information in exchange for the privileges and benefits of employment.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You can't typically seek court help for a debt and not accept cash, reasonableness permiting. The law typically allows you to charge a penalty for accepting cash - everyone recognizes handling large amounts of cash incurs issues.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    What about bankruptcy courts? Repossession? Liquidation auctions? The seizure of assets as compensation for debts incurred is not in and of itself unreasonable or particularly atypical, even when the option of cash exists. Although, depending on legislation and jurisdiction, there may be prescribed limits (e.g. homestead exemptions and limited liability) With all that said, none of what you've stated proves that the law requires all debts to be accepted in cash in every case regardless of circumstances. What you've offered so far is an asserted reading of the text without any arguments backing up the claim.

traceroute66 5y ago

> This law establishes a default position in case no prior arrangement for a medium of exchange had been agreed to or requested in a contract or such a medium of transaction could not be reasonably accommodated. Yes. I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter, i.e. the moment that reasonable alternative(s) have been offered then the whole "cash is legal tender" thing (basically) goes out the window. There was an interesting ruling in Europe[1] in relation to Euro cash where it was even ruled that European government bodies are not obliged to accept cash. The ruling basically said exactly what @Dracopheonix pointed out: "Limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with the status of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts are available" [1] https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-delivers-judgment-cash-acceptance-case https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-court-justice-deli...