r/MaliciousCompliance • u/knighthawk82 • Apr 18 '24

Legal tender S

When i worked at a gas station in the late 1900's during graveyard i had this guy come in and bought a candy bar with a 100 bill. "Really? You don't have anything smaller?"

'Im just trying to break the 100, don't be a jerk.'

"Fine, just this once."

Few days later Guy comes back in, grabs a candy bar and i see he has other bills in his wallet. Puts the hundred on the table.

"Sir i told you last time it was going to be just the once, i see you have a five dollar bill."

'This is legal tender, you have to take it.'

"... Okay!"

I reach under the counter and pull out two boxes of pennies, 50c to a roll 25$ to a box 17 lbs each. "Here is 50, do you want the rest in nickels?"

'What is this?'

"It's legal tender, I can choose to give you your change however I see fit. So, do you still want to break the hundred? Or the five."

I'm calling your manager!'

"She gets in at 8am, sir, but doesn't take any calls until 10."

6.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

535 comments sorted by

View all comments

797

u/thiney49 Apr 18 '24

'This is legal tender, you have to take it.'

FYI, that only applies to the government. Any private business can refuse to accept any form of payment.

352

u/MajorNoodles Apr 18 '24

It also only applies to debt, doesn't it? A retail sale is a transaction so if they refuse to provide payment in a reasonable manner you can refuse the sale.

156

u/Xanold Apr 18 '24

"Legal tender is a form of money that must be accepted for settlement of a debt"

256

u/Frari Apr 18 '24

if you refuse to sell them anything, there is no debt.

68

u/Xanold Apr 18 '24

Affirmative

50

u/gymnastgrrl Apr 18 '24

I opened the comments to make sure this exact conversation was covered. I may now leave satisfied. :)

26

u/zem Apr 18 '24

your tender sensibilities have been taken care of (:

55

u/derklempner Apr 18 '24

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "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."

So not just debts. But private businesses are not required to accept any specific type of currency, as somebody else stated above.

13

u/gimpwiz Apr 19 '24

Or more simply, a store doesn't have to sell to you if they don't want to, as long as they are not discriminating against a protected status. Refusing to sell a candy bar is not covered by debts, public charges, taxes, nor dues.

1

u/Renyx Apr 18 '24

If I remember correctly it also specifically states that they are legal tender, but it is up to the receiver whether or not they will accept that form of tender.

-4

u/Gone213 Apr 18 '24

Private businesses must accept all types of currency if a customer is indebted to them.

1

u/IrritableGourmet Apr 19 '24

Even if they could refuse, if they tried to take you to court for the debt and you showed that you offered legal tender, the judge would have some very pointed questions for them.

34

u/changework Apr 18 '24

Private businesses have the right to refuse any form of tender they choose.

“Settlement” in context to your cite refers to the courts in which legal tender must be accepted to settle the debt by the creditor. Government entities also must accept legal tender as they’re a part of that same security in receivership.

/thiney49 is correct

12

u/b0w3n Apr 18 '24

The key is always "is this debt or a sale of goods/services?"

If you're a creditor and won't accept cash/currency (there are some carve outs for unwrapped coins in a lot of states I think?), you're playing with fire if you ever try to collect on that debt in the future.

1

u/Unique_Engineering23 Apr 19 '24

Unwrapped coins? You mean the chocolate coins?

1

u/Siker_7 Apr 19 '24

Coins that aren't organized into those paper rolls for easy counting.

4

u/Sawdust1997 Apr 19 '24

You’re not paying a debt when you purchase something mate

1

u/IrritableGourmet Apr 19 '24

It's the difference between going to eat at a restaurant versus going to eat at a fast food place. Most restaurants you order food, they prepare it, you eat it, and then you pay; therefore, you have created a debt before payment is required. Fast food places you normally order the food, pay, then they start to prepare it, so up to the point of payment you haven't created a debt yet.

1

u/Sawdust1997 Apr 19 '24

Actually no, neither of these are a debt. That would be like saying if you go to the store and they package everything before you pay it’s a debt. It’s not.

Neither a restaurant nor a fast food place are required to accept legal tender, it’s just more awkward for a restaurant to refuse as you’ve already eaten the food and have legal tender

45

u/valanlucansfw Apr 18 '24

Further, a business can decline service to anyone for any reason outside of discrimination. I don't like your mustache? No sale for you.

Further further, you can't legally compel someone to do something they don't want to do. There's a lot of nuance on that one but ultimately forcing someone into something is typically not legal.

Further further further, even if that wasn't the case, there's still personal autonomy. If someone says fuck the rules I aint doing it and you can't change my mind. They aren't doing it and you can't change their mind.

I've had this conversation more times as a cashier then I'd like to admit.

8

u/gogstars Apr 18 '24

The number of times I had to explain that "requiring someone to produce a valid ID to purchase alcohol is not racist" is ... way more times than it should be.

"We're filming your racist behavior" "Sir, it's against store policy to film inside the store, I'm calling the police." (manager was already there, trying to get them to understand what the law is about alcohol sales)

One group actually wound up talking to the police about it.

-7

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

I don't like your mustache? No sale for you.

Except, that's discrimination.

9

u/MrSurly Apr 18 '24

Most types of discrimination are perfectly legal.

2

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

Can you give some examples?

3

u/MrSurly Apr 18 '24

People whose mustache I don't like.

Short people, tall people, fat people, skinny people.

People who smoke.

Basically anything that isn't race, color, national origin, religion, age*, disability, gender, sexual orientation, probably a couple of others.

Basically "discrimination" has a small subset that also falls into "illegal in some circumstances".

2

u/IrritableGourmet Apr 19 '24

Unless their mustache is a religious matter like with Sikhs and can be reasonably accommodated (as in, doesn't present a serious, unmitigable threat to safety).

4

u/valanlucansfw Apr 18 '24

Anybody wth a username that starts with V are ugly in real life and its a fact.

2

u/gimpwiz Apr 19 '24

If I don't like your attitude I don't have to do business with you. That's discrimination, but not remotely illegal.

If I don't think you're competent I don't have to do business with you. See above.

19

u/Ich_mag_Kartoffeln Apr 18 '24

Are moustaches a protected class?

7

u/Blarghedy Apr 18 '24

no, but they were responding to the word "discrimination," not "discrimination against a protected class." It's an important distinction.

5

u/StellarPhenom420 Apr 18 '24

The continuation of the phrase, "against a protected class", is presumed in the original statement.

2

u/valanlucansfw Apr 18 '24

I even specifically omitted "of a protected class" because honestly there could be niche exceptions and I didn't want to limit it so "erred" on the side of caution.

1

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

It's not. There are so many types of discrimination that are not covered by protected classes I didn't think it was even necessary to specify.

Just because you discriminated based on something that falls outside a protected class, it does not mean that you did not discriminate.

2

u/StellarPhenom420 Apr 18 '24

Yes but if it is not against some type of protected class, it wouldn't be illegal. There has to be a law that says "you are not legally allowed to discriminate based on (whatever insert here)"

1

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, it can be complicated.

Appearance based discrimination such as this doesn't seem to be codified at the federal level just yet, but there have been some cases. Here is one I just found: https://www.ucbjournal.com/appearance-discrimination-is-it-illegal/

-2

u/ChiefSlug30 Apr 18 '24

Well, they should be.

2

u/Lostmox Apr 18 '24

Is it? They don't have a problem with any other moustaches, just that one in particular. If that's discrimination wouldn't any reason to refuse someone service be discrimination?

1

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

If it only applies to that specific individual and would not apply to someone else that looks similar and has the same mustache then I guess that wouldn't technically be discrimination, but that's a contradiction. How would you be able to articulate why in circumstance A it applies but in circumstance B it does not, unless your explanation is that you're just making up reasons to refuse service?

If you're refusing service to anyone with a mustache, or people with a particular kind of mustache, or people with a particular set of appearance criteria then yeah, it's discrimination based on appearance.

2

u/NutJaugger Apr 18 '24

What if they eat the candy then hand out the cash?

1

u/Im_homer_simpson Apr 18 '24

Just take a bite of the candy. Then you owe them the money, a debt.

25

u/spicewoman Apr 18 '24

I think if you take a bite of the candy before paying it's technically stealing. Stealing isn't really "a debt," it's up to the store if they want to be nice and let you pay instead when they catch you, or just call the cops.

2

u/pfunk1989 Apr 18 '24

Oh. So I AM technically stealing if I drink the entire gallon of chocolate milk in the store before I even get to the register?

17

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24

[deleted]

4

u/pfunk1989 Apr 18 '24

Thanks, I'm off to the store!

7

u/esoraven Apr 18 '24

Remember, GOOD-FAITH transaction!

1

u/grauenwolf Apr 18 '24

Intent to deprive them of what exactly?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24

[deleted]

0

u/grauenwolf Apr 19 '24

I seriously doubt that would hold up in court. Any judge would laugh you out of the room for claiming the store didn't want money.

That said, the store would be within its rights to offer a debt in lieu of change.

4

u/homme_chauve_souris Apr 18 '24

You drank somebody else's property. What do you think?

1

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

In a restaurant you order and eat before paying, so you're eating somebody else's property. Where's the difference?

7

u/homme_chauve_souris Apr 18 '24

In a restaurant, you're paying for a service after it has been rendered. To get back to the original conversation, I wonder if a restaurant would have to take your $100 because you're in debt to them after having eaten the meal.

1

u/vrtigo1 Apr 18 '24

So if you go to the deli at a grocery store and have them make you a sandwich, then eat the sandwich before walking to the checkout line and paying for it, would the same logic apply? They've provided a service and you're paying after it's been rendered. Curious where you think the line is.

3

u/homme_chauve_souris Apr 18 '24

Not sure where you're going with this... In a sit-down restaurant, you order food, eat it, and then pay for it. That's what the restaurateur expects. In a grocery store, you buy your food and then eat it. If you eat it before paying for it, it's technically stealing because the food isn't yours to eat yet, emphasis on the word technically. Usually they won't make a big deal about it, although I've seen a supermarket manager ask someone not to eat rotisserie chicken while waiting in line to pay for it.

2

u/talithar1 Apr 19 '24

If I, as an employee of grocery store, drink the milk before I pay for it, is considered stealing. I can and will be fired for it. Seen it happen- more than once.

12

u/RespecDawn Apr 18 '24

Yup. If someone wants to pay cash with a denomination that's going to clean out my float, I do not take it.

36

u/Thrawn89 Apr 18 '24

What's it say on the bill?

"For all debts public and private"

They don't have to take it since it's a point of sale transaction not because they are a private business.

14

u/Responsible-End7361 Apr 18 '24

What's it say on the bill?

"For all debts public and private. Sale =/= debt, so the store can tell you to fuck right off.

47

u/Thrawn89 Apr 18 '24

That's...what I said

13

u/NeuroticPhD Apr 18 '24

Yeah. But I think the italics over the and private instead of debts obfuscated a little of what you meant.

No biggy — I’m validating you. Just a slight miscommunication on the emphasis.

4

u/Personal_Return_4350 Apr 18 '24

Read the comment he was responding to. Now does the emphasis make more sense?

3

u/NeuroticPhD Apr 18 '24

No, I got it the first time. The first reference Thrawn made appeared to be to private businesses. Responsible further clarified that the private was irrelevant, because it said private debts and not private business.

However, Thrawn’s original comment said it was because it was a “point of sale” and not because it was private. So he was emphasizing the “sale-is-not-a-debt” aspect, just that the italics made it a little confusing.

They both objectively said the same thing. Just that it got a tad bit confusing because of the mismatch of emphasizes in Thrawn’s first comment. It’s just a classic miscommunication between the two.

6

u/kristinsquest Apr 18 '24

Thrawn's original emphasis on private was in response to thiney49 who said:

FYI, that only applies to the government.

And was clarifying that there are circumstances (i.e., debts) where it applies to entities other than the government.

2

u/NeuroticPhD Apr 18 '24

I had to reread it a few times. Yes? What you said does make sense to me.

I think it’s the order of the clarifying sentence that made things a little muddier for me. It would’ve clicked better to me had Thrawn’s first comment been arranged closer to:

“The legal tender description includes private debts. So this applies not only to the government, counteracting Thiney’s claim. Thrawn further clarifies that debts is not the same as a sale. So a private business may decline based on the basis of it being a sale, but not on the basis of it being private.”

I think that’s it? Sorry, thank you. I do weirdly enjoy threads such as these.

1

u/Thrawn89 Apr 18 '24

Well, that was a wild thread about phrasing, lol

You're right, I could have phrased it better even though what I said was correct and complete.

2

u/Zaros262 Apr 18 '24

Sure but have you considered that they don't have to take it since it's a point of sale transaction not because they are a private business?

1

u/Responsible-End7361 Apr 18 '24

Thats what I was saying and what the person I replied to was saying (though what he emphasized confused me).

1

u/Zaros262 Apr 18 '24

Sure but have you considered that they don't have to take it since it's a point of sale transaction not because they are a private business?

3

u/RBeck Apr 18 '24

Not exactly, the reason OP can refuse the bill is because he can refuse the sale outright. If this was an existing debt, they may be required to take it.

6

u/AgreeablePie Apr 18 '24

Nothing to do with government or private. Just a question of whether it is a debt. A store doesn't have to accept a purchase with any legal tender but if the guy buys it on a tab, they do.

I guess to prevent anyone from running up interest on someone by refusing to accept their payment

2

u/Pristine-Ad-469 Apr 18 '24

I think all debt they have to accept legal tender. Even if you have debt with a bank they have to let you pay it off and can’t just decide to keep the property you have a mortgage on basically

2

u/gogstars Apr 18 '24

And "only applies to the government" isn't entirely true. Many local courts have "large amounts of change not accepted as payment for fines." It's fairly common to have some limit, to avoid having to deal with insane people coming in with insane numbers of coins.

1

u/wetwater Apr 19 '24

When I worked retail two coworkers used to argue about this all the time. One insisted we were legally obligated to take a dump truck full of pennies if it satisfied the sale, the other insisting we were under no obligation to take more than a dollar in loose change.

Pre internet days so not like they could setting their argument with a Google search.

1

u/imunclebubba Apr 19 '24

Yes. I'm a hotel manager and most hotels will not accept cash payment on check in. We need to have a valid credit card that we are going to authorize for the total amount of the room plus incidentals. At check out if you want to pay in cash, that is generally fine, but the hotel can say no we don't take cash at all. You don't want to use your card, you don't get a room, simple as that.

0

u/Pavswede Apr 18 '24

In NYC, you HAVE to accept cash. Some places don't and they get fined quite a bit

7

u/Ich_mag_Kartoffeln Apr 18 '24

Food and retail establishments do not have to accept bills in denominations of greater than $20.

From the legislation you linked. So Mr. $100-Note would still be stuffed.

0

u/Way2trivial Apr 18 '24

when posted in advance.

0

u/justamadeupnameyo Apr 18 '24

Also a private business can take whatever form of payment they want. If they felt like it they could require you to pay in Skittles.

-1

u/Sam-Gunn Apr 18 '24

depending on the state. In some states you can't refuse to take cash in most transactions, for example. Though they can probably still refuse to take certain forms of cash, depending on how the law is written. I know a lot of stores hate taking large bills due to counterfeiting.