Legal tender??

From: Danny

a guy was trying to pay at a fast food store with Sac dollar coins and the
cashier said "I don't think we take those here". Are they legally obligated to
take them?

No.

I had out some late 1880's Morgan dollars and one of my kids asked "Could I
take that to a store and use it?". I said yes but then got thinking would the
store have to take it?

Have to? No.

Is any money made by a US Mint legal tender as long as everything on it is
legible?

Yes.

8-/


Coin Saver

"Scottishmoney" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
Nonsense. From the Bureau of Engraving and Printing web site.

http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/110



Legal Tender: A Definition

Section 102 of the Coinage Act of 1965 (Title 31 United States Code,
Section
392) provides in part:

" All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when
coined
or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private,
public
charges, taxes, duties and dues."


When the gold coins were issued they were not legal tender.

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Which gold coins are
you referring to? The 1933 $20 gold. They were never issued by the gov't
so questions about their legal tender status is moot. Those that did make
it out of the mint were shown to have been stolen by some definition of the
gov't and therefore were the property of the government and therefore could
be confiscated. There has never been a time when gold coins issued weren't
legal to own. In fact, even in Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 of 5 April
1933, exceptions were made for "Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount
not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold
coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual
coins."

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-go...fiscation.html

Shortly after this Executive Order, Roosevelt set the price of gold at $35
per ounce or so from its pevious $20 per ounce. So the issue of legal
tender also became moot since if you paid for something with a $20 gold
piece, you were really paying with a coin worth $35.

In 1965 when
this act was passed it was not technically legal to own a so called
non-numismatic value gold coin.

But it was technically legal to own gold coin for numismatic purposes plus
$100.

The question was The federales could have taken
non-numismatic coins until the 1970's when the ban on bullion type gold
was
lifted.

Has nothing to do with whether someone has to accept cash in payment for
something.


Govt acts that counteract one another, something old, nothing new.

By your argument the 1933 $20 piece was always legal to own.

Are you really this ignorant or do you have to work at it? The 1933 $20
gold coins were stolen from the mint and therefore remained the property of
the mint. It was never legal to own them since they were stolen property.
But this has nothing to do with whether they were legal tender or not. You
use one stupid argument after another to cover up that you were wrong about
what legal tender means.

But this gets off the legal tender issue. Which part of this didn't you
understand?

"This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment of
your debt when you tender United States currency to your creditor. However,
there is no Federal statute which mandates that private businesses must
accept cash as a form of payment. 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."

(Danny) wrote in message om...
I have some questions I was hoping you guys could answer for me. In
reading thru the posts here I came across a situation where a guy was
trying to pay at a fast food store with Sac dollar coins and the
cashier said "I don't think we take those here". Are they legally
obligated to take them? Or can a store just make up policies against
certain denominations?
Also a couple of days ago I had out some late 1880's Morgan dollars
showing my kids and one of them asked "Could I take that to a store
and use it?". I said yes but then got thinking would the store have to
take it? Is any money made by a US Mint legal tender as long as
everything on it is legible?
Any thoughts or answeres to these questions would be appreciated.
Thanks, Danny

Basically, it is up to the individuals involved in a transaction to
mutually agree on the form of payment.

The legal tender statutes only refer to payment of debts. They do not
apply when a transaction has not been made yet.

Not being a lawyer, I would not construe this as legal advice, but
just my understanding of the situation.

Although it is stated here that the $20 gold pieces were stolen from
the Mint, this was
never proven by the government. In point of fact the Mint was authorized
to pay out
gold in March 1933 under certain circumstances, a fact carefully
concealed by the
government when seizing the coins from rightful owners.

The statement about the $100 gold exemption is technically correct but
only for 1933. I
think that this was changed in 1934.

RW Julian



Dr. Richard L. Hall wrote:


Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Which gold coins are
you referring to? The 1933 $20 gold. They were never issued by the gov't
so questions about their legal tender status is moot. Those that did make
it out of the mint were shown to have been stolen by some definition of the
gov't and therefore were the property of the government and therefore could
be confiscated. There has never been a time when gold coins issued weren't
legal to own. In fact, even in Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 of 5 April
1933, exceptions were made for "Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount
not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold
coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual
coins."

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-go...fiscation.html

Shortly after this Executive Order, Roosevelt set the price of gold at $35
per ounce or so from its pevious $20 per ounce. So the issue of legal
tender also became moot since if you paid for something with a $20 gold
piece, you were really paying with a coin worth $35.


Are you really this ignorant or do you have to work at it? The 1933 $20
gold coins were stolen from the mint and therefore remained the property of
the mint. It was never legal to own them since they were stolen property.
But this has nothing to do with whether they were legal tender or not. You
use one stupid argument after another to cover up that you were wrong about
what legal tender means.

But this gets off the legal tender issue. Which part of this didn't you
understand?

"This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment of
your debt when you tender United States currency to your creditor. However,
there is no Federal statute which mandates that private businesses must
accept cash as a form of payment. 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."

On 31 Oct 2003 18:35:13 GMT, ojunk (Coin Saver)
wrote:

From: Danny

a guy was trying to pay at a fast food store with Sac dollar coins and the
cashier said "I don't think we take those here". Are they legally obligated to
take them?

No.

Correct. This has been discussed before. Basically, the only people
legally obligated to accept cash are those who are _owed a debt_.
Buying a Big Mac does not incur a debt, as you do not actually take
posession of the Big Mac until you've ponied up for it. Merchants and
organisations are therefore free to devise their own policies about
what forms of payment will be accepted, ranging from an implicit "any
denomination in any quantity" to "no bills over $20" to "no cash
accepted".

On the other hand, something like a car or a house or a tax bill are
debt. If you are owed an actual debt, you must accept cash.

I had out some late 1880's Morgan dollars and one of my kids asked "Could I
take that to a store and use it?". I said yes but then got thinking would the
store have to take it?

Have to? No.

Stupid not to? Yes!

Is any money made by a US Mint legal tender as long as everything on it is
legible?

Yes.

Ever tried to spend a US Commonwealth five centavo piece? Bet no one
apart from a coin collector will take that, including the Fed.

Padraic.

la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.

"Christian Feldhaus" wrote in message
news:1g3pifr.ol6rknev3172N%
Basically the same in Germany. I am not a lawyer but what a store does
by presenting the merchandise is called an "invitatio ad offerendum":
Potential customers are invited to make an offer - the merchant may then
agree, and sell you the product(s) that you are interested in, or not
sell them.

Christian

In times past the courts seemed to side with people paying debts with say
$500 worth of pennies etc. But in more recent times, there has been some
belief in their rulings that payment should be in a reasonably and generally
acceptable form ie 5 $100 bills instead of $500 in pennies. The application
of the law here in the US is applied more to people tendering large amounts
of coins instead of banknotes. There have been some legal challenges to
Federal Reserve notes, but they are usually by some fringe group promoting
NorFed type stuff.

Dave


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 10/22/03

Barney wrote:

snip

They don't have to take any type of money if they don't want to. From what
I have learned by reading in this newsgroup, legal tender only applies to
paying off a debt. Buying something at a fast food place does not fall
into that catagory.

I'm not of the legal community as I have morals and a conscience,
however I'd assume that if you placed the order, and they accepted it
that you are in fact indebted to them in the sense that you owe then for
the product, be it a McNastys burger or otherwise. Seems like there is
a mutual agreement there to conduct the transaction.

"RW Julian" wrote in message
...
Although it is stated here that the $20 gold pieces were stolen from
the Mint, this was
never proven by the government. In point of fact the Mint was authorized
to pay out
gold in March 1933 under certain circumstances, a fact carefully
concealed by the
government when seizing the coins from rightful owners.

That's right. Which is why I said "stolen by some definition of the gov't."
If they weren't stolen, what right would the government have to confiscate
them?

According to the timeline of events that was included with the recent Sale
of the 1933 $20 gold

"March 30, 1944

Leland Howard, Acting director of US Mint sent memo to Chief of United
States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export
License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double
Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of
such coins that had been placed *in circulation."

Acting Mint Director recounts first realization that no 1933 Double Eagles
had ever been placed into circulation. Mint understood situation only after
the export license had been issued

April 6, 1944

Chief of United States Secret Service receives written confirmation from the
Treasury Department that their records 'do not show that any payments of
1933 Double Eagles were authorized to be made by the United States Mint,
Philadelphia, to any Federal Reserve Bank or Branch.' "

Of course, these are 10 years after the fact.

Now I was always under the impression, from some things I read long ago,
that mint employees would purchase newly minted coins from the mint simply
by paying for them usually with an equivalent coin. And this would be done
through proper channels. And I got the impression that this was especially
true when there was a run of "new" coins. And we know that in the early
days of the mint, one could bring bullion to the mint and have it struck
into coins although I would guess that by 1933 this practice wasn't in
effect anymore. I'm not sure the former practice was in effect either or if
it had ever been. So I have always been puzzled by what actually happened.
Of course, all 9 coins ended up in the hands of one person named Israel
Switt, who later sold them. Switt "told agents he had sold 5 to James
Macallister; 2 to Ira Reed; 2 to Abe Kosoff. Switt professed no recollection
of his source for the coins; but admitted [he] had been to Philadelphia Mint
frequently in [his] capacity as gold dealer." I guess he didn't impress the
agents.




The statement about the $100 gold exemption is technically correct but
only for 1933. I
think that this was changed in 1934.

RW Julian



Dr. Richard L. Hall wrote:


Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Which gold coins
are
you referring to? The 1933 $20 gold. They were never issued by the
gov't
so questions about their legal tender status is moot. Those that did
make
it out of the mint were shown to have been stolen by some definition of
the
gov't and therefore were the property of the government and therefore
could
be confiscated. There has never been a time when gold coins issued
weren't
legal to own. In fact, even in Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 of 5
April
1933, exceptions were made for "Gold coin and gold certificates in an
amount
not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and
gold
coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual
coins."

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-go...fiscation.html

Shortly after this Executive Order, Roosevelt set the price of gold at
$35
per ounce or so from its pevious $20 per ounce. So the issue of legal
tender also became moot since if you paid for something with a $20 gold
piece, you were really paying with a coin worth $35.


Are you really this ignorant or do you have to work at it? The 1933 $20
gold coins were stolen from the mint and therefore remained the property
of
the mint. It was never legal to own them since they were stolen
property.
But this has nothing to do with whether they were legal tender or not.
You
use one stupid argument after another to cover up that you were wrong
about
what legal tender means.

But this gets off the legal tender issue. Which part of this didn't you
understand?

"This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment
of
your debt when you tender United States currency to your creditor.
However,
there is no Federal statute which mandates that private businesses must
accept cash as a form of payment. 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."

I came across a situation where a guy was
trying to pay at a fast food store with Sac dollar coins and the
cashier said "I don't think we take those here". Are they legally
obligated to take them? Or can a store just make up policies against
certain denominations? BRBR

They have to take them. If they refuse to take cash money, then, at least here
in New York, you can walk away with the item for free, as the refusal to take
the cash money makes the item legally a GIFT.

Inform them of this, then take the item and head for the door. If they call the
cops, tell them you GENUINELY TRIED to pay and the you would be happy to pay
again for the item using the same coins.

eric l.

Would it not be very likely that you would be shot in the back of the
head as you left without paying? Billy


ELurio wrote:

I came across a situation where a guy was
trying to pay at a fast food store with Sac dollar coins and the
cashier said "I don't think we take those here". Are they legally
obligated to take them? Or can a store just make up policies against
certain denominations? BRBR

They have to take them. If they refuse to take cash money, then, at least here
in New York, you can walk away with the item for free, as the refusal to take
the cash money makes the item legally a GIFT.

Inform them of this, then take the item and head for the door. If they call the
cops, tell them you GENUINELY TRIED to pay and the you would be happy to pay
again for the item using the same coins.

eric l.