You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Louisiana Law: No cash sales for used stuff
- Thread starter Hardcase
- Start date
Mike Irwin said:There is no law that requires any individual, governmental, or business entity to accept printed or coined money.
None.
Just to clarify, the Coinage Act appears to effectively do exactly that in the case of an existing debt. "...legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" means that is a legal offer to satisfy any of those debts." If you refuse legal tender and demand payment in the form of chocolate chip cookies instead, you may be estopped from asserting that debt in the future.
None of that means that any other party is required to become your creditor or enter any prospective transaction.
Mike38 said:They are telling you that it’s to help prevent sales of stolen items. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut the real reason is to be able to tax the income of the sale.
I can't tell whether you should win a doughnut or one of those chocolate chip cookies for that one.
Last edited:
From the US Treasury Frequently Asked Questions:
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which 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."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
"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."
To further clarify, we should ask why a government would enact such a law.
There was a time when it would have been unnecessary. If I owed you $100, the currency I gave you was worth $100 in gold or silver. When that changed, and $100 in coins might be worth only $20 in silver, you might imagine a merchant-creditor demanding $100 in silver in satisfaction of the existing debt. In other words, the new and less valuable currency might not be accepted for its face value. So that acceptance is mandated by law.
None of that would prohibit a prospective creditor from stating the future debt in gold, silver, corn or coffee. However, collection even then would be reducable to a dollar amount for judgment.
LA is doing something very different.
To further clarify, we should ask why a government would enact such a law.
There was a time when it would have been unnecessary. If I owed you $100, the currency I gave you was worth $100 in gold or silver. When that changed, and $100 in coins might be worth only $20 in silver, you might imagine a merchant-creditor demanding $100 in silver in satisfaction of the existing debt. In other words, the new and less valuable currency might not be accepted for its face value. So that acceptance is mandated by law.
None of that would prohibit a prospective creditor from stating the future debt in gold, silver, corn or coffee. However, collection even then would be reducable to a dollar amount for judgment.
LA is doing something very different.
Micropterus
New member
Incorrect.
NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity.
Rather semantical.
Nothwisthanding a dispute over the ownership of property, courts will always, without exception, resolve a dispute regarding an obligation of one party to another in monetary value. If one owes a service that he refuses to perform, he will be required to pay the value of the service in money. Damages in civil cases will be awarded in money.
Money will always be seen as a (really as the most) base form of debt satisfaction.
You are correct that there is no law requiring and entity to "accept" currency. But currency will always be seen as satisfactory and final way to absolve a debt. If the debtee refuses to accept it, then he does without. Money is the last recourse.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I doubt that part would hold up if tested, either. Suppose I bring in a family heirloom and sell it to a pawn shop or thrift store or something of that nature, and the store subsequently sells it for cash. Store owner gets arrested. He's been a friend for 50 years, which is why I sold it to him rather than the guy across town. His lawyer puts me on the witness stand, where I testify as to the origin and authenticity of the item. "Stolen? Hawgwarsh. Thet thar thang has been in my fambly fer two hunnert 'n fifty yars. T'wasn't stolen, no how no way."Hardcase said:What happens if the business doesn't maintain the record or doesn't produce it upon demand? The law states that failure to do so is prima facie evidence that the person who received the material knew that it was stolen.
So how can a law declaring something "prima facie" evidence of a crime alter facts? How can a law invent a theft that never occurred?
From what I heard today on a New Orleans station, the law was originally intended to adress the problem of stolen metals being sold to junk dealers for cash. Something similar has been proposed in the recent past here in Mobile, Al. The idea being that anyone buying junk metal would have to pay the seller by check and records kept.
Some interesting questions are being discussed, but PLEASE leave off ALL political comentatry, or this thread WILL be closed.
Discussion of candidates, who would be better, vote for XXXX, etc. are prohibited here. Those are politics. Discussions of law, civil rights, and such matters may briefly (briefly!) touch on politics because they are tangential to the discussion, but mentioning candidates, or parties and their stances as the main content of a post will not be condoned.
We've been there, done that, and know where it leads. And we are not going there again.
PLEASE read the sticky about what is to be discussed in L & CR, and stick to it.
Discussion of candidates, who would be better, vote for XXXX, etc. are prohibited here. Those are politics. Discussions of law, civil rights, and such matters may briefly (briefly!) touch on politics because they are tangential to the discussion, but mentioning candidates, or parties and their stances as the main content of a post will not be condoned.
We've been there, done that, and know where it leads. And we are not going there again.
PLEASE read the sticky about what is to be discussed in L & CR, and stick to it.
Lol thought it was interesting seeing a staffer getting into some political debates.
As for the OP, times are tough in this recession depression or what have you so I'm sure we will be seeing some new tactics by the gvt local state and fed to get more money in taxes. Dont even want to get into the VAT. I hope this measure by the fine people of LA will get squashed pretty quickly. I live in a tourist state, waiting for them to add a tourist tax and have to present my DL anytime i buy something to avoid an extra tax.
I don't think this is a direct affront to the 2A, but more of a way to collect more in taxes.
As for the OP, times are tough in this recession depression or what have you so I'm sure we will be seeing some new tactics by the gvt local state and fed to get more money in taxes. Dont even want to get into the VAT. I hope this measure by the fine people of LA will get squashed pretty quickly. I live in a tourist state, waiting for them to add a tourist tax and have to present my DL anytime i buy something to avoid an extra tax.
I don't think this is a direct affront to the 2A, but more of a way to collect more in taxes.
CountryHombre
Inactive
I recently moved near a big city. The other day I ran a red light and was spotted by a traffic camera. The ticket came in the mail. I took the $100 to the City Hall/Police Station. They do not accept cash; they only accept money orders or checks and they HAVE to be mailed. Or you can pay online by card, but they charge you an extra $4.
If they are going to force me to pay a fine for running a red light, do they have the right to refuse cash and make me mail in a check or money order or pay online with an extra $4?
From my understanding of the U.S. code, they do not have that right.
On a happier note, I shot skeet for the first time yesterday and loved it!
If they are going to force me to pay a fine for running a red light, do they have the right to refuse cash and make me mail in a check or money order or pay online with an extra $4?
From my understanding of the U.S. code, they do not have that right.
On a happier note, I shot skeet for the first time yesterday and loved it!
I would tell the police dept. that I pay all fines in us currency... My bank account transactions are reserved for actual, factual, agreed upon debt... Robbers do not get a check! Robbers do not get access to the brown swipey thingy on the back of my credit cards either...
Brent
Brent
CountryHombre
Inactive
I was told
A) pay how they want
B) get a lawyer
C) wait for my warrant
I picked A.
If it happens again, I'm picking B.
A) pay how they want
B) get a lawyer
C) wait for my warrant
I picked A.
If it happens again, I'm picking B.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Micro,
Actually, you're the one who's engaging in semantics that are really outside of this discussion.
A civil court action has no bearing on this discussion.
The reason any damages are fixed in US currency is because it's a standard, understood, recognized and generally accepted medium of exchange.
But, you're missing the point that the court is not saying "you MUST accept this settlement in US currency," it is saying "the court has determined that you are entitled to relief for cause in the sum of X dollars US currency."
But, no where in the court's judgement does it say that the winning party MUST accept printed money.
A check is not printed money, nor is a credit card, and judgments are often paid via that method with no US issued cash ever changing hands.
But there are also many court cases that end with the winning party being granted tangible property in lieu of cash, so your argument really doesn't hold water.
Actually, you're the one who's engaging in semantics that are really outside of this discussion.
A civil court action has no bearing on this discussion.
The reason any damages are fixed in US currency is because it's a standard, understood, recognized and generally accepted medium of exchange.
But, you're missing the point that the court is not saying "you MUST accept this settlement in US currency," it is saying "the court has determined that you are entitled to relief for cause in the sum of X dollars US currency."
But, no where in the court's judgement does it say that the winning party MUST accept printed money.
A check is not printed money, nor is a credit card, and judgments are often paid via that method with no US issued cash ever changing hands.
But there are also many court cases that end with the winning party being granted tangible property in lieu of cash, so your argument really doesn't hold water.
Micropterus
New member
First, my post clearly stated "Notwithstanding a dispute over the ownership of property..." Your final sentence was unnecessary and simply restates my own assertion.
Second, you stated there "NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity." "Currency" is not just cash. "Currency" is simply a medium of exchange by which individuals can transfer "value." Currency, in modern parlance, can be cash. But it can also be checks, debit cards, wire transactions, gold bars, etc. For instance, a check for $10 is just as valid a form of "currency" as a $10 dollar bill.
If you intended to say, "NO law requires that CASH be accepted by either any governmental or private entity," you would be correct. Otherwise, your statement is wrong. Debt (and fees and whatnot are debt) is ALWAYS denominated in currency. And in the US, it will be denominated in US currency.
And forgive my "example" wherein I referred to the denomination of debt in civil court cases. It was, after all, an example in this thread that went off on a tangent early on, perpetuated, in part, by yourself.
Second, you stated there "NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity." "Currency" is not just cash. "Currency" is simply a medium of exchange by which individuals can transfer "value." Currency, in modern parlance, can be cash. But it can also be checks, debit cards, wire transactions, gold bars, etc. For instance, a check for $10 is just as valid a form of "currency" as a $10 dollar bill.
If you intended to say, "NO law requires that CASH be accepted by either any governmental or private entity," you would be correct. Otherwise, your statement is wrong. Debt (and fees and whatnot are debt) is ALWAYS denominated in currency. And in the US, it will be denominated in US currency.
And forgive my "example" wherein I referred to the denomination of debt in civil court cases. It was, after all, an example in this thread that went off on a tangent early on, perpetuated, in part, by yourself.
Spats McGee
Administrator
As far as I can tell, this law does not say, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are required to accept cash." What it says is, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are prohibited from accepting cash." Now, I've been known to split a few hairs before, and some of you may think that I'm doing so again, but the issue is not whether a business or private entity is required to accept cash. The issue is whether the business or p.e. can be prohibited from accepting cash.
Now, if there were a federal statute that required all businesses to accept cash (which I don't believe there is), then we'd have an argument over whether a State could countermand a federal statute. It cannot. In the absence of such a statute, we're simply left with the question of whether the State (or a county, or a municipality) can dictate the manner of payment which a merchant is allowed to accept. I haven't researched every state, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my hunch is that every single state has statutes on acceptable and unacceptable business practices. However, I've never seen one that dictates how payment may be made.
Now, if there were a federal statute that required all businesses to accept cash (which I don't believe there is), then we'd have an argument over whether a State could countermand a federal statute. It cannot. In the absence of such a statute, we're simply left with the question of whether the State (or a county, or a municipality) can dictate the manner of payment which a merchant is allowed to accept. I haven't researched every state, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my hunch is that every single state has statutes on acceptable and unacceptable business practices. However, I've never seen one that dictates how payment may be made.
Spats said:As far as I can tell, this law does not say, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are required to accept cash." What it says is, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are prohibited from accepting cash." Now, I've been known to split a few hairs before, and some of you may think that I'm doing so again, but the issue is not whether a business or private entity is required to accept cash. The issue is whether the business or p.e. can be prohibited from accepting cash.
A merchant's price is an offer to sell at the stated price. Although we ordinarily don't go through the following steps, and simply assume them, a customer has to accept that price, creating a debt, and offer to pay.
To "tender" is to offer. The Coinage Act states that currency is "...legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" means that is a legal offer to satisfy any of those debts." In other words, currency is always a legal offer of payment in satisfaction of all debts.
While federal law will not always control over state law, in a matter genuinely involved in interstate commerce, it will legitimately control over state law. A state law that says US currency is not legal tender or "offer" to pay a debt, it should be pre-empted by the Coinage Act.
Last edited: