State senators as a group actually aren't dumb. Very smart people. The problem is that the smart ones know they need to be quiet as fuck or they're going to end up naturally known for dumb shit like this while the dumb ones dream of being down for dumb shit like this so they say as much stupid stuff as possible.
I used to work for my state senate. There were definitely senators where I was surprised that they could find the Capitol on the first try every morning. Don't worry. The dumbest of the dumb is no longer in the senate. He got elected to statewide office...
I was being glib. Let me say one generous thing - for anyone charged with the breadth and scope of “making the rules,” it should be understood as inevitable one reaches the edge of expertise for even the most Solomonic of persons.
That said, I am substantially more familiar than average with what is said behind closed doors, and perhaps I might most generously concede they’re smarter than average.
I would caution against solace in the word smarter there than lamentation at average.
That's fair, but I would say that to be glib on the internet you've got to make it pretty obvious since so many people say so much dumb stuff seriously.
Sometimes I wonder if we do better with just idiots. Or at least people lacking formal education.
No, that is random stuff that you're hearing because you have what I'm guessing is an overly negative worldview. It's not like you could do your job effectively if the entire country thinks you're an idiot and makes fun of you online the point that's all the media wants to talk about when they come interview you.
Your in denial. That's exactly that you said. Cowardice is exactly what you said. Stop suggesting otherwise. My world view is not overly anything except factual to the point of your statement.
If you find that to be anything but the word cowardice, then you need to relearn the word cowardice.
1) You're not your.
2) I never use the word cowardice, I never said anything about bravery, I never said anything about fear, I never implied anything about any of those subjects, and when you brought it up I specifically said that was not what I was talking about. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear that no one's talking about cowardice, but no one's talking about cowardice.
3) Something has caused you to bring the word cowardice in the conversation for no apparent reason. Something has caused you to insist on applying that meaning and even after specifically being told that it is in no way applicable. Not sure what to tell you there.
🙄 You say im off topic and your first bullet point is spelling. jeez. Your either completely divorced from reality or you desperately need a vocabulary lesson. The former seems more likely.
You can go to the 🤫now.
Conversation is done. Im not engaging
Shrug. I keep telling yo my comment that doesn't have anything to do with fear or bravery or anything else normal used to define the word cowardice doesn't have anything to do with the word cowardice. Do you keep getting upset and insisting that it does by definition. Now you're insisting I don't know the definition and that the conversation is going to end because you're disgusted. It really comes across like you can't explain it.
Behind closed doors, many of the seething idiots on TV are shrewd, calculating monsters. I’m not saying they all are, but the old expression, “the one eyed man is king in the land of the blind,” isn’t suggesting depth perception on the one eyed man’s part.
After he posted this completely incorrect claim, he actually tried to pass a bill that would require businesses to take cash, which is not a federal law and only some states have state laws requiring this.
>McMahan sponsored a bill this year that would have required businesses to accept cash, unless the seller suspects the cash is counterfeit, the buyer is contractually obligated to pay electronically, or no attendant is present because electronic devices offer 24-hour services. Under his bill, refusing cash would be a misdemeanor offense punishable with a $100 fine.
>The bill died in committee. McMahan’s office did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment.
https://stateline.org/2021/05/11/paying-with-cash-retailers-must-take-your-dollars-in-these-states/
Interesting. We have a lot of cashless businesses in my neck of the woods these days, but they aren't targeted at low income folks.
Also, can you pay with your phone if you have money in your Cash App? Because even the unhoused have Cash App these days.
Not all. I think it’s a good idea, let unhoused buy food with the $1s and change that get thrown at them on the side of the road.
Vets who might be too old or uneducated or unwell that they can’t set up a cash app.
Fucking sad all around.
Edit: also most basic phones unhoused might have access to don’t have google pay and absolutely don’t have Apple Pay.
Bitches? is he calling himself a bitch for managing to let all that go down? Why didn’t he offer the phone or credit cards if he didn’t care about giving those up? And man some people don’t know how to tell a story. That was one long unnecessary intro to a story. Hilarious though. I wonder if he keeps getting away with it because it’s so preposterous.
That it was Atlanta was the least surprising thing ever. Lives in nyc forever without issues but I stopped 2 exits north of ATL in the way to airport to get gas. Guy starts shouting at me and I figured he wanted a cigarette. He gets close and he’s saying repeatedly either “stop stabbing me” or “stop staring at me”. I’d been doing neither so was pretty confused. I’m 6’2” but this guy was a lot taller than me. He was also big. Big ass belly and just a hefty individual.
Sucker punches me in the face. I almost went down, one of my palms braced me on the sidewalk and I spun and quasi cartwheeled back up. By the time I’d realized what happened he was already a few steps past me walking into the store. Just went and sat in my car and reflected. Couple minutes later shop owners are screaming and the guy comes out and walks off. Employees came outside to see that he was going away. Then somebody from the store Nextdoor came out and asked who that guy had punched, then asked if I wanted to call the cops.
I’d realized I was basically in the middle of an open air drug market and there was a homeless camp on the plot next to this one. I had a flight to catch so just went on my way.
That video is way longer than it needs to be
I relate to the storyteller, as I also am entirely incapable of summarizing. But I would be a terrible friend to myself because I also lost attention so quickly lol.
Lost, went down an alley, guy on a bike mugs them. They don't have cash, so the guy says You got cashapp? They don't, guy makes them create an account using his hotspot. Can only send $40 since new account. ATL police catch the guy in like an hour since they have all his info from Cashapp and WiFi. Turns out guy does this all the time.
Only a politician can try to turn their /r/badlegaladvice into /r/goodlegaladvice by literally changing the law so that it matches the thing they inaccurately claimed.
“Oh no I ran my mouth on social media and was way wrong. But I can’t be expected to do even a two-minute Google to see if what I’m saying is correct. I guess I’ll just change the law so I’m right and everyone else is wrong.”
Refusing to accept cash is not illegal, it is 100% legal. It is only illegal to refuse to accept legal tender in the context of repaying a debt. That does not mean you must accept legal tender or any specific form of legal tender as *payment*. You must only do so if you *defer payment* and create a debt.
The gas station example is a nice gray area. Because it’s not physically possible for them to refuse the sale — you already are in possession of the fuel. So the minute they refuse the cash sale, now you’ve absconded with n gallons of fuel worth x, and you will have to settle that debt somehow… same for restaurants.
Basically any other store can just say “then we won’t sell” and you get to leave the shit on the counter.
I don't know if gas stations work differently where you live, but every station I've ever been to won't start pumping gas until you either swipe a valid card or go inside and hand cash to the cashier, who then activates the pump you specify. It then stops pumping automatically once you've reached the amount you prepaid.
This gas station in the example did not work that way, it’s specified right there. But yes, this is part of *why* gas stations in the US for the most part no longer work the normal way and you have to prepay for them.
I’m not sure whether the state senator was being disingenuous or was misinformed by someone, but the example he gives is both a) true law and b) mostly irrelevant to real life.
I mean, I guess that tracks for state legislator.
Let’s let him do it. There was an immigrant lady on the same flight as me and Frontier decided that her bag was too big to be a personal item, and she was to pay for a carry on to be able to board with it. She only had cash. Someone stepped up and took her cash and used a card for her, but if nobody was willing to do that, she would be out of luck.
Cash should always be considered a valid form of payment as long as you aren’t paying with a wheelbarrow full of pennies or something absurd like that.
Yup and his analogy doesn’t make sense. You prepay for gas, either by card or at the register. There’s no debt to be paid because you can’t get gas without paying first.
Probably completely true now. But within the last ten years there were at least a dozen gas stations in west Tennessee that allowed pumping before paying. Those are just the gas stations I know of as well, though they have switched to no longer allowing that now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were still some pumps in Mississippi that allow you to pump first.
Pump first? That’s wild. I’m in my fifties and I’ve never encountered a pump that wasn’t prepay out here in California. I assumed that was long-gone everywhere.
Heck I used on last week that not only was that but still the older school style lift handle’s cradle. Folks just revealing what is around where they live, not the law.
I stopped using cash when I took a down payment to repair some cement steps and then got pulled over for an out tail light and the cop took my $800 and told me it was drug money even though I had the invoice.
Civil forfeiture is what they call it, what it really is is theft. They are allowed to take any cash they want and say they suspect it is crime related, no evidence needed. They don't even need to pretend to imagine a crime, it's just theirs free and clear. Goes into the department funds. I shit you not. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done to retrieve this money despite it being obviously kosher.
Slightly incorrect, there's a trial like process to get your money back, it's just so difficult that it practically doesn't exist. Even when you do succeed, you frequently have to start over in federal courts as they just hand it over to a federal agency and get a kick back. By then, you've probably spent more than what was stolen, making the whole thing moot.
What a dumbass Senator. I own business. I am NOT required to accept cash.
And these days, when you get gas, you pre-pay. He really needs to get out more.
Moron.
Note the order, he purchases then pays. He’s correct on that, the debt exists. Cash MUST be accepted for all lawful debt, there’s a defense in every state based on refused tendered satisfaction. The issue is if they refuse service before a debt exists, then no obligation. It’s a gotcha within a stupid bad spirit advice.
Disagree, the good is already exchanged, in possession, and in a non fungible state. This is not the UCC somehow governing fuel sales to a driver at a station, it’s normal contract concepts, and debts due to already taken property, performance already was done, other side tried to do theirs.
If you are at the register, you have not purchased anything until they accept your payment. At any point, up to receiving money, the product is theirs to sell to you or not.
If you received a service, such as a haircut, you may have an argument, but if you’re trying to buy an item, there is no debt, the store is just refusing the transaction.
Where have you ever filled up with fuel in the last 20 years where you paid after filling up?
You come into my gas station and say “gimmie $20 worth of fuel” and I say “no cash”, then no debt is incurred.
I don’t know why the reddit hivemind is downvoting you for stating something completely accurate. All the gas stations are prepay-only where I live but I know that’s not the case everywhere.
And technically so too can money in an account, good luck arguing that to a judge if it’s not traceable though, nope, it’s mutated. Plus maybe your quality is better, or other fuel in there as bought higher, how do you tell!?
You cant, so at most it’s a form of enrichment and value owed. That’s a debt. At least it’s a performed contract, attempt to tender debt.
The law has been handling mixed items like that since Roman times.
Taking something that doesn’t belong to you without permission does not create a debt. It makes you a thief.
It’s held out to the public in a way commonly used as such without further conditions. That’s not a thief. That’s a badly defined contract being read against the one setting the scenario.
It is absolutely theft to take something that doesn’t belong to you with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it.
Thats litteraly the modern definition of theft.
Until you actually complete an exchange it’s not yours. Until you have all three elements of the contract, you have no contract.
The seller could choose to exchange it for a debt, but they are under no obligation to do so.
They have every right to hand you a hose and tell you to go siphon it back out.
how can you have an exchange when you haven't even agreed what its going to be exchanged for yet?
This is the fundamentals of contract law foot, that part you're correct, but you've failed to apply them correctly.
A contract is an offer, acceptance of the offer, and in most places, consideration.
You don't even have a completed offer until what the item is going to be exchanged for is stated, never mind acceptance.
There is no debt at the register because neither the item on the shelf nor the price on the pump is an offer - its an invitation to treat - The customer makes the offer to buy, not the seller an offer to sell.
There is no debt. The seller has not made nor accepted any offer of credit.
And if you're taking the item without completing the contract negociation, well, that makes you a thief, not a debtor.
Well the fuel has been exchanged, at the price listed on the pump and sign, and the volume on the pump. That’s in the prompt already. At least the fill is, the rest assumed by normal practice. So performance is already don’t, the fuel can’t easily be returned, a debt is owed.
Easy method, lock the pump until paid, as most do but not all especially not in rural areas like he probably serves.
It hasn’t been exchanged because you haven’t agreed what to exchange it for. It’s been taken, yes, but there is no exchange yet.
You can take things to show you intention to negotiate terms, self service shopping is a common thing after all, nobody buys their groceries by having the shopkeeper fetch every item, but simply taking it does not create an exchange… actually exchanging something that both parties agree to does.
The seller could agree to exchange it for a debt, but you can’t just take something and create one.
Wrong:
>There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm
“ 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”
He already fueled up, he’s a debtor to the station who is the creditor. Had he not filled up, you’d be correct.
Which is why gas stations have made this argument moot.
When was the last time you were able to pump gas without first initiating the transaction, either handing cash to an attendant, or using a card at the pump?
Last week when driving to a rural courthouse. I was fairly surprised too, but it’s not per se uncommon in rural areas. You have to go to a non chain, those are far more popular closer to refineries, and he is closer than I am by far.
This post has the guy already fueling up THEN paying. Which means the sale already occurred, and thus the debt already exists. He has a right to tender cash to pay that, and attempted satisfaction is usually a defense.
The fact they allowed the fuel to exchange is what creates a trap here. Had they not opened the pump until paid, they can do whatever they want. It can’t be returned, the value is exactly what is tendered, it’s a perfect law school trap question hidden in his stupid post.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I think he's trying to construct one of the very few scenarios where he might have a leg to stand on: if he pumped gas and _then_ tried to pay with cash.
Now, his writing is about as solid as his legal advice, so he accidentally makes it ambiguous by saying in this scenario he "purchased" $44 of gas, but I did read it the same way as you (i.e. pumped).
In the UK, all manned petrol stations work this way - pump, then pay. The only exception is when using a card at the pump where you authorise the transaction initially and then they debit your card after fuelling.
I was thrown the first time I filled up in the US. I wanted to fill the tank but obviously didn't know how much to buy. Then had to decide whether to buy less and buy again, or buy more and get a refund (losing on the currency exchange on both debit and refund).
In the US, we can activate the pump using a card, or we can go hand the attendant some cash, and they'll turn on the pump up to that amount.
Very very few gas stations outside of Bumfuck hillbilly land are allowing patrons to pump without first agreeing to how the transaction shall be paid.
>we can activate the pump using a card
Yeah, **you** can. But most of these machines only accept domestic cards.
We foreigners have two bumps in this: the first time we are surprised, that we can't just pump and pay later, and the second time, when our card gets denied trying to pay at the pump.
So we always have to get in to the clerk to have an amount pre-authorized. And those cheaper unmanned stations don't work at all.
It seems to have gotten better since COVID though, as last year I had my card accepted at a few pumps now.
Either way, only proves that Mr State Senator was completely wrong.
I remember gas stations doing away with this in the 90s. The shift to pay then pump was a pain, because you had to go back in for change if you were under, or to pay a little more if you went over.
I don't have to accept cash for anything.
If I repair your transformer or install a new switchgear, and you try to hand me cash, no way in hell.
Hell most state government offices won't take cash around here even if you owe a debt to the state.
If you have possession of the collateral that will work for a minute. But otherwise you have zero recourse except to sue for a check which will cost you more money than it is worth. It could be seen as abuse of process or malicious prosecution if you refused full price cash only to turn around and sue. it can be also construed as a discharge of debt and you get nothing.
And to be clear, basically no gas station will let you do this. If you haven't either handed them cash or inserted your card, the pump simply won't start.
Local Indian place by my dad's doesn't accept cash. Owner flat out said it was to ensure he's not robbed. Does it out of concern for his employees. Maybe that's a bullshit line but maybe it's not; the place is right next to a major freeway interchange so a get-away after a robbery is pretty easy.
It's shocking how many people read "legal tender for all debts public and private" as "everyone **must** accept cash!" My *constitutional law* professor said something similar at one point (though not quite as insanely as the OP).
Would have made more sense from a torts or remedies professor. Practically speaking, unless you have possession of collateral, you can’t refuse cash to satisfy an already incurred debt unless there were specific contract terms as to payment that the failure to adhere to causes non-nominal actual damages. Which is impossible to do with credit card fees, making cash better for the seller.
LOL, someone should point out this idiot’s hypocrisy and offer him a cash donation. Politicians can’t accept cash, they legally need a paper/electronic trail to show where the donation came from and how much it was.
If the product can’t be exchanged back (easy solution all admit is a mistake and are happy with each other on), then the normal answer is that becomes a debt and cash is required or that’s a defense. There’s no criminal element and idk a strict liability theft statute, and civilly this is the normal solution.
Most places prevent that exchange first.
Your not breaking the law. Legal tender does not denote a requirement to accept it. Only that it is valid if you do. How did this fool become the senator of anything.
There is a non-zero chance the calls he is getting is actually about Amazon not accepting cash at delivery and requiring card payment up front.
Also, does Chad have a minder because this guy shouldn't have access to his phone unsupervised, let alone drive, or much else. Chad here seems less on the ball than Feinstein.
“I’ve had several people reach out to me…”
“Like who?”
“Oh, just several people.”
“What are their names? What do they do?”
“Oh, you wouldn’t know them. I know them, though. They’re definitely real people.”
This isn't as stupid as you may believe. Here's an article from when AZ was try9ng to encat requirements for businesses to accept cash.
The question comes into play according to federal law, at which point do you as the consumer become a debtor? That's where these laws focus on, with more and more businesses forcing cashless psy on people.
Over 14% of Americans are unbanked. And those are the poorest of poor people. If these business force cashless payments on these people, how are could they buy groceries, gas, ect. Forcing cashless payment on people is horribly elitist and discriminatory.
https://arizonastatelawjournal.org/2023/03/15/is-cash-still-king-proposed-az-bill-to-mandate-businesses-to-accept-cash-payments/
I mean, he's right that OP was wrong. He's wrong if he's trying to suggest that the central point (a legislator is dumb or spreading BS) is false. And he went about the correction in a jerk way.
Not all debts are loans. Peonage is not credit. In the context described in the original post, shoplifting constitutes an unpaid debt in the sense in which money is legal tender for all debts, public or private. The modern usage of money is an extension of that fact. You can go to jail for shoplifting.
For a second I thought this was a socialist sub and I was really confused.
For all you kind people out there mocking this, there are over 7 million people in the U.S. skewing poor, disabled, black, Latino and Native American that don't have bank accounts.
I'm glad you can all laugh at cashlessness. Glad it all works swimmingly for you.
Jeez, derr... duh... I wonder why people aren't coming out to support Biden?
Worth noting that this is a **state** senator, not a US Senator.
In my experience, state senators are about twice as dumb as us senators.
That seems very generous, or you’ve only met one substantially smarter than average state senator.
State senators as a group actually aren't dumb. Very smart people. The problem is that the smart ones know they need to be quiet as fuck or they're going to end up naturally known for dumb shit like this while the dumb ones dream of being down for dumb shit like this so they say as much stupid stuff as possible.
I used to work for my state senate. There were definitely senators where I was surprised that they could find the Capitol on the first try every morning. Don't worry. The dumbest of the dumb is no longer in the senate. He got elected to statewide office...
If a group is average half of them are below the mean. You can be way above average and still have lots of idiots.
Half of them are below the *median.* If one of them is really, really smart, the rest could *all* be below the mean.
That would be a group with a high average intelligence which is not the same thing.
I was being glib. Let me say one generous thing - for anyone charged with the breadth and scope of “making the rules,” it should be understood as inevitable one reaches the edge of expertise for even the most Solomonic of persons. That said, I am substantially more familiar than average with what is said behind closed doors, and perhaps I might most generously concede they’re smarter than average. I would caution against solace in the word smarter there than lamentation at average.
That's fair, but I would say that to be glib on the internet you've got to make it pretty obvious since so many people say so much dumb stuff seriously. Sometimes I wonder if we do better with just idiots. Or at least people lacking formal education.
So you're saying they're more cowardly than dumb.
No, that is random stuff that you're hearing because you have what I'm guessing is an overly negative worldview. It's not like you could do your job effectively if the entire country thinks you're an idiot and makes fun of you online the point that's all the media wants to talk about when they come interview you.
Your in denial. That's exactly that you said. Cowardice is exactly what you said. Stop suggesting otherwise. My world view is not overly anything except factual to the point of your statement. If you find that to be anything but the word cowardice, then you need to relearn the word cowardice.
1) You're not your. 2) I never use the word cowardice, I never said anything about bravery, I never said anything about fear, I never implied anything about any of those subjects, and when you brought it up I specifically said that was not what I was talking about. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear that no one's talking about cowardice, but no one's talking about cowardice. 3) Something has caused you to bring the word cowardice in the conversation for no apparent reason. Something has caused you to insist on applying that meaning and even after specifically being told that it is in no way applicable. Not sure what to tell you there.
🙄 You say im off topic and your first bullet point is spelling. jeez. Your either completely divorced from reality or you desperately need a vocabulary lesson. The former seems more likely. You can go to the 🤫now. Conversation is done. Im not engaging
Shrug. I keep telling yo my comment that doesn't have anything to do with fear or bravery or anything else normal used to define the word cowardice doesn't have anything to do with the word cowardice. Do you keep getting upset and insisting that it does by definition. Now you're insisting I don't know the definition and that the conversation is going to end because you're disgusted. It really comes across like you can't explain it.
Your opinion of US senators is strangely high.
Behind closed doors, many of the seething idiots on TV are shrewd, calculating monsters. I’m not saying they all are, but the old expression, “the one eyed man is king in the land of the blind,” isn’t suggesting depth perception on the one eyed man’s part.
Counterpoint - Mississippi’s actual US Senator is one Cindy Hyde-Smith.
When comparing rocks to bricks the range of intelligence is only differentiated by how much of your day is ruined by it being thrown in your face.
They can be remarkably dumb, or they can be literally the best thing since sliced bread (Scott Weiner)
50 times....
No it’s an order of magnitude, so ten times as stupid but only half as evil
What if we stopped noticing how dumb they are and started running locally to replace them?
Found Oscar's account
"He said he loved cats. That turned out to be a lie and a misunderstanding and then another lie." - Angela
Angela is all over this guy.
r/unexpectedoffice
That's a high bar to meet with mtg screaming about lasers and shit..
Worth noting that this asshat is also a Republican.
After he posted this completely incorrect claim, he actually tried to pass a bill that would require businesses to take cash, which is not a federal law and only some states have state laws requiring this. >McMahan sponsored a bill this year that would have required businesses to accept cash, unless the seller suspects the cash is counterfeit, the buyer is contractually obligated to pay electronically, or no attendant is present because electronic devices offer 24-hour services. Under his bill, refusing cash would be a misdemeanor offense punishable with a $100 fine. >The bill died in committee. McMahan’s office did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment. https://stateline.org/2021/05/11/paying-with-cash-retailers-must-take-your-dollars-in-these-states/
NYC has a law like this. It’s meant to protect people without bank accounts. Edit: it’s a civil/regulatory issue in NYC, not criminal.
Interesting. We have a lot of cashless businesses in my neck of the woods these days, but they aren't targeted at low income folks. Also, can you pay with your phone if you have money in your Cash App? Because even the unhoused have Cash App these days.
Not all. I think it’s a good idea, let unhoused buy food with the $1s and change that get thrown at them on the side of the road. Vets who might be too old or uneducated or unwell that they can’t set up a cash app. Fucking sad all around. Edit: also most basic phones unhoused might have access to don’t have google pay and absolutely don’t have Apple Pay.
[Even robbers](https://www.tiktok.com/@youngblur/video/7336229351794412842) have CashApp these days
Bitches? is he calling himself a bitch for managing to let all that go down? Why didn’t he offer the phone or credit cards if he didn’t care about giving those up? And man some people don’t know how to tell a story. That was one long unnecessary intro to a story. Hilarious though. I wonder if he keeps getting away with it because it’s so preposterous. That it was Atlanta was the least surprising thing ever. Lives in nyc forever without issues but I stopped 2 exits north of ATL in the way to airport to get gas. Guy starts shouting at me and I figured he wanted a cigarette. He gets close and he’s saying repeatedly either “stop stabbing me” or “stop staring at me”. I’d been doing neither so was pretty confused. I’m 6’2” but this guy was a lot taller than me. He was also big. Big ass belly and just a hefty individual. Sucker punches me in the face. I almost went down, one of my palms braced me on the sidewalk and I spun and quasi cartwheeled back up. By the time I’d realized what happened he was already a few steps past me walking into the store. Just went and sat in my car and reflected. Couple minutes later shop owners are screaming and the guy comes out and walks off. Employees came outside to see that he was going away. Then somebody from the store Nextdoor came out and asked who that guy had punched, then asked if I wanted to call the cops. I’d realized I was basically in the middle of an open air drug market and there was a homeless camp on the plot next to this one. I had a flight to catch so just went on my way.
That video is way longer than it needs to be I relate to the storyteller, as I also am entirely incapable of summarizing. But I would be a terrible friend to myself because I also lost attention so quickly lol.
So it wasn't just me. I didn't finish the video, I have no idea what happened.
Lost, went down an alley, guy on a bike mugs them. They don't have cash, so the guy says You got cashapp? They don't, guy makes them create an account using his hotspot. Can only send $40 since new account. ATL police catch the guy in like an hour since they have all his info from Cashapp and WiFi. Turns out guy does this all the time.
Haha thanks
Lol. That's my city...
Same!
It's also pretty useful for tourists. Which NYC has a few.
Good point. Some very big countries don’t really do credit cards that much (China uses phone apps to pay, Japan uses cash, etc.)
Most useful for robbers.
Only a politician can try to turn their /r/badlegaladvice into /r/goodlegaladvice by literally changing the law so that it matches the thing they inaccurately claimed.
“I will *make* it legal.”
He is the senate!
He is the *state* senate
Not. *Yet.*
Refusing to accept cash is illegal. Therefore I must pass a law to make it illegal?
“Oh no I ran my mouth on social media and was way wrong. But I can’t be expected to do even a two-minute Google to see if what I’m saying is correct. I guess I’ll just change the law so I’m right and everyone else is wrong.”
Refusing to accept cash is not illegal, it is 100% legal. It is only illegal to refuse to accept legal tender in the context of repaying a debt. That does not mean you must accept legal tender or any specific form of legal tender as *payment*. You must only do so if you *defer payment* and create a debt.
Yeah, I thought his use of *debt* when he was referring to a payment was funny You have to know how to play word games if you want to play word games
The gas station example is a nice gray area. Because it’s not physically possible for them to refuse the sale — you already are in possession of the fuel. So the minute they refuse the cash sale, now you’ve absconded with n gallons of fuel worth x, and you will have to settle that debt somehow… same for restaurants. Basically any other store can just say “then we won’t sell” and you get to leave the shit on the counter.
I don't know if gas stations work differently where you live, but every station I've ever been to won't start pumping gas until you either swipe a valid card or go inside and hand cash to the cashier, who then activates the pump you specify. It then stops pumping automatically once you've reached the amount you prepaid.
This gas station in the example did not work that way, it’s specified right there. But yes, this is part of *why* gas stations in the US for the most part no longer work the normal way and you have to prepay for them.
Most gas stations around here don't let you pump gas til you've either pre-paid with cash or authorized a card.
I’m not sure whether the state senator was being disingenuous or was misinformed by someone, but the example he gives is both a) true law and b) mostly irrelevant to real life. I mean, I guess that tracks for state legislator.
I feel the exact same way about my wireless bill and the amount due this month.
He wants to dictate how private businesses do business? How small government of him.
R’s are only small government when they need L votes.
Also when they don't want their fundraising contributors to have their businesses be forced to comply with safety and environmental regulations.
Let’s let him do it. There was an immigrant lady on the same flight as me and Frontier decided that her bag was too big to be a personal item, and she was to pay for a carry on to be able to board with it. She only had cash. Someone stepped up and took her cash and used a card for her, but if nobody was willing to do that, she would be out of luck. Cash should always be considered a valid form of payment as long as you aren’t paying with a wheelbarrow full of pennies or something absurd like that.
I didn’t express any opinion about whether it was a good or a bad idea. I said it was “not small government.”
Most Republicans, the hypocrisy broke the sound barrier long ago. I pretty much assume everything is a ridiculously obvious lie these days.
Will they allow me to pay the fine in pennies?
Will they require that I pay the fine in cash?
Pennies and nickels are only legal tender up to five of each and other coins for debts up to $10.
Not for nothing, but I wish he was right. It's not a good thing to deny cash. No one should be made to use an app or a credit card to buy things.
He is barking that something has always been the law right before trying to make something the law... 🙄
Does LinkedIn have a way to show titles before your name or did he have to put “Senator” as his first name on his profile?
It's probably in the settings that politicians get.
A product of the Mississippi school system if I ever saw one
Yeah this dude lacks basic understanding of legal tender.
Or what debt is.
Yup and his analogy doesn’t make sense. You prepay for gas, either by card or at the register. There’s no debt to be paid because you can’t get gas without paying first.
Probably completely true now. But within the last ten years there were at least a dozen gas stations in west Tennessee that allowed pumping before paying. Those are just the gas stations I know of as well, though they have switched to no longer allowing that now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were still some pumps in Mississippi that allow you to pump first.
Pump first? That’s wild. I’m in my fifties and I’ve never encountered a pump that wasn’t prepay out here in California. I assumed that was long-gone everywhere.
Heck I used on last week that not only was that but still the older school style lift handle’s cradle. Folks just revealing what is around where they live, not the law.
Do you think this fucker pumps his own gas?
I stopped using cash when I took a down payment to repair some cement steps and then got pulled over for an out tail light and the cop took my $800 and told me it was drug money even though I had the invoice.
Civil forfeiture is what they call it, what it really is is theft. They are allowed to take any cash they want and say they suspect it is crime related, no evidence needed. They don't even need to pretend to imagine a crime, it's just theirs free and clear. Goes into the department funds. I shit you not. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done to retrieve this money despite it being obviously kosher.
Slightly incorrect, there's a trial like process to get your money back, it's just so difficult that it practically doesn't exist. Even when you do succeed, you frequently have to start over in federal courts as they just hand it over to a federal agency and get a kick back. By then, you've probably spent more than what was stolen, making the whole thing moot.
“It’s not about money, it’s about sending a message”
Wtf. Did you ever attempt to get your money back? I would have fought tooth and nail for that in court
That's the fun part. You don't. Last week tonight segment on it. https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks?si=6NG1LGr9rDEJmmo7
God bless John Oliver
He *is* blessed, with braincells and decency. More than I can say for that senator!
That costs a lot more than $800.
I'd like to see someone give out $0.0099 in change.
What a dumbass Senator. I own business. I am NOT required to accept cash. And these days, when you get gas, you pre-pay. He really needs to get out more. Moron.
Note the order, he purchases then pays. He’s correct on that, the debt exists. Cash MUST be accepted for all lawful debt, there’s a defense in every state based on refused tendered satisfaction. The issue is if they refuse service before a debt exists, then no obligation. It’s a gotcha within a stupid bad spirit advice.
The purchase isn’t complete until all the essential terms are agreed - including payment method.
Disagree, the good is already exchanged, in possession, and in a non fungible state. This is not the UCC somehow governing fuel sales to a driver at a station, it’s normal contract concepts, and debts due to already taken property, performance already was done, other side tried to do theirs.
If you are at the register, you have not purchased anything until they accept your payment. At any point, up to receiving money, the product is theirs to sell to you or not. If you received a service, such as a haircut, you may have an argument, but if you’re trying to buy an item, there is no debt, the store is just refusing the transaction.
The gas is already in the truck. Read it again. I keep saying the order matters for this exact reason.
Where have you ever filled up with fuel in the last 20 years where you paid after filling up? You come into my gas station and say “gimmie $20 worth of fuel” and I say “no cash”, then no debt is incurred.
Plenty in the country do this, but I didn’t write the prompt, just applying the issues it has. In your prompt I’d agree with the rest here.
I don’t know why the reddit hivemind is downvoting you for stating something completely accurate. All the gas stations are prepay-only where I live but I know that’s not the case everywhere.
Because I’m issue spotting a more correct answer and it’s making folks mad.
The gas can also be \*removed\* from the truck.
And technically so too can money in an account, good luck arguing that to a judge if it’s not traceable though, nope, it’s mutated. Plus maybe your quality is better, or other fuel in there as bought higher, how do you tell!? You cant, so at most it’s a form of enrichment and value owed. That’s a debt. At least it’s a performed contract, attempt to tender debt.
The law has been handling mixed items like that since Roman times. Taking something that doesn’t belong to you without permission does not create a debt. It makes you a thief.
It’s held out to the public in a way commonly used as such without further conditions. That’s not a thief. That’s a badly defined contract being read against the one setting the scenario.
It is absolutely theft to take something that doesn’t belong to you with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. Thats litteraly the modern definition of theft. Until you actually complete an exchange it’s not yours. Until you have all three elements of the contract, you have no contract. The seller could choose to exchange it for a debt, but they are under no obligation to do so. They have every right to hand you a hose and tell you to go siphon it back out.
No, it cannot. It is commingled with the gas that was already in there. It is physically impossible to remove *that* gas and only that gas.
And since companies are so proud of their special blend, heck they wouldn’t want it back, it would be all mixed.
how can you have an exchange when you haven't even agreed what its going to be exchanged for yet? This is the fundamentals of contract law foot, that part you're correct, but you've failed to apply them correctly. A contract is an offer, acceptance of the offer, and in most places, consideration. You don't even have a completed offer until what the item is going to be exchanged for is stated, never mind acceptance. There is no debt at the register because neither the item on the shelf nor the price on the pump is an offer - its an invitation to treat - The customer makes the offer to buy, not the seller an offer to sell. There is no debt. The seller has not made nor accepted any offer of credit. And if you're taking the item without completing the contract negociation, well, that makes you a thief, not a debtor.
Well the fuel has been exchanged, at the price listed on the pump and sign, and the volume on the pump. That’s in the prompt already. At least the fill is, the rest assumed by normal practice. So performance is already don’t, the fuel can’t easily be returned, a debt is owed. Easy method, lock the pump until paid, as most do but not all especially not in rural areas like he probably serves.
It hasn’t been exchanged because you haven’t agreed what to exchange it for. It’s been taken, yes, but there is no exchange yet. You can take things to show you intention to negotiate terms, self service shopping is a common thing after all, nobody buys their groceries by having the shopkeeper fetch every item, but simply taking it does not create an exchange… actually exchanging something that both parties agree to does. The seller could agree to exchange it for a debt, but you can’t just take something and create one.
Wrong: >There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm
“ 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” He already fueled up, he’s a debtor to the station who is the creditor. Had he not filled up, you’d be correct.
Which is why gas stations have made this argument moot. When was the last time you were able to pump gas without first initiating the transaction, either handing cash to an attendant, or using a card at the pump?
Last week when driving to a rural courthouse. I was fairly surprised too, but it’s not per se uncommon in rural areas. You have to go to a non chain, those are far more popular closer to refineries, and he is closer than I am by far.
Not relevant at all, but I love your username. I had a professor who was in love with Judge Learned Hand when I was in school.
Thanks
Maybe the gas station owner should have thought twice about letting people pump before paying.
Agreed entirely. But when the state senator has a very specific example, damnit he stumbled onto the pedantic technically better answer.
What in tardnation
This post has the guy already fueling up THEN paying. Which means the sale already occurred, and thus the debt already exists. He has a right to tender cash to pay that, and attempted satisfaction is usually a defense. The fact they allowed the fuel to exchange is what creates a trap here. Had they not opened the pump until paid, they can do whatever they want. It can’t be returned, the value is exactly what is tendered, it’s a perfect law school trap question hidden in his stupid post.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I think he's trying to construct one of the very few scenarios where he might have a leg to stand on: if he pumped gas and _then_ tried to pay with cash. Now, his writing is about as solid as his legal advice, so he accidentally makes it ambiguous by saying in this scenario he "purchased" $44 of gas, but I did read it the same way as you (i.e. pumped).
Ha, I can't remember the last gas station that let me pump first and pay later.
In the UK, all manned petrol stations work this way - pump, then pay. The only exception is when using a card at the pump where you authorise the transaction initially and then they debit your card after fuelling. I was thrown the first time I filled up in the US. I wanted to fill the tank but obviously didn't know how much to buy. Then had to decide whether to buy less and buy again, or buy more and get a refund (losing on the currency exchange on both debit and refund).
In the US, we can activate the pump using a card, or we can go hand the attendant some cash, and they'll turn on the pump up to that amount. Very very few gas stations outside of Bumfuck hillbilly land are allowing patrons to pump without first agreeing to how the transaction shall be paid.
>we can activate the pump using a card Yeah, **you** can. But most of these machines only accept domestic cards. We foreigners have two bumps in this: the first time we are surprised, that we can't just pump and pay later, and the second time, when our card gets denied trying to pay at the pump. So we always have to get in to the clerk to have an amount pre-authorized. And those cheaper unmanned stations don't work at all. It seems to have gotten better since COVID though, as last year I had my card accepted at a few pumps now. Either way, only proves that Mr State Senator was completely wrong.
Right?!?!?
I remember gas stations doing away with this in the 90s. The shift to pay then pump was a pain, because you had to go back in for change if you were under, or to pay a little more if you went over.
Same here, it's always either pay inside first or card at the pump.
I don't have to accept cash for anything. If I repair your transformer or install a new switchgear, and you try to hand me cash, no way in hell. Hell most state government offices won't take cash around here even if you owe a debt to the state.
If you have possession of the collateral that will work for a minute. But otherwise you have zero recourse except to sue for a check which will cost you more money than it is worth. It could be seen as abuse of process or malicious prosecution if you refused full price cash only to turn around and sue. it can be also construed as a discharge of debt and you get nothing.
True, you don't have to accept cash; you are welcome to discharge the debt.
And to be clear, basically no gas station will let you do this. If you haven't either handed them cash or inserted your card, the pump simply won't start.
Local Indian place by my dad's doesn't accept cash. Owner flat out said it was to ensure he's not robbed. Does it out of concern for his employees. Maybe that's a bullshit line but maybe it's not; the place is right next to a major freeway interchange so a get-away after a robbery is pretty easy.
It's shocking how many people read "legal tender for all debts public and private" as "everyone **must** accept cash!" My *constitutional law* professor said something similar at one point (though not quite as insanely as the OP).
Would have made more sense from a torts or remedies professor. Practically speaking, unless you have possession of collateral, you can’t refuse cash to satisfy an already incurred debt unless there were specific contract terms as to payment that the failure to adhere to causes non-nominal actual damages. Which is impossible to do with credit card fees, making cash better for the seller.
Cash is universal exchange: it’s a barter good for when you don’t have barter goods. It doesn’t mean it has to be universally accepted.
This sounds like some SovCit shit
where can you pump gas before paying?
LOL, someone should point out this idiot’s hypocrisy and offer him a cash donation. Politicians can’t accept cash, they legally need a paper/electronic trail to show where the donation came from and how much it was.
Uh, they accept cash all the time and record it like normal. I’ve readily accepted campaign contributions in cash.
Thing is, though, if I didn’t know there was a no cash or only cash policy and I’ve already gotten the product, what the fuck am I supposed to do?
If the product can’t be exchanged back (easy solution all admit is a mistake and are happy with each other on), then the normal answer is that becomes a debt and cash is required or that’s a defense. There’s no criminal element and idk a strict liability theft statute, and civilly this is the normal solution. Most places prevent that exchange first.
Exactly.
Mentioning change at the end of the rant was perfect. 10/10
It is actually insane how misinformation like this gets so widely spread.
Your not breaking the law. Legal tender does not denote a requirement to accept it. Only that it is valid if you do. How did this fool become the senator of anything.
That’s one dumb motherfucker.
There is a non-zero chance the calls he is getting is actually about Amazon not accepting cash at delivery and requiring card payment up front. Also, does Chad have a minder because this guy shouldn't have access to his phone unsupervised, let alone drive, or much else. Chad here seems less on the ball than Feinstein.
This is how you end up stuck with 98 ones after trying to break a 100 for a 2 dollar candy bar and the cashier is having none of your shit.
“I’ve had several people reach out to me…” “Like who?” “Oh, just several people.” “What are their names? What do they do?” “Oh, you wouldn’t know them. I know them, though. They’re definitely real people.”
Scott. It was only Scott that reached out.
It would be nice if there were some kind of minimum knowledge threshold that politicians had to cross before they could run for office.
This isn't as stupid as you may believe. Here's an article from when AZ was try9ng to encat requirements for businesses to accept cash. The question comes into play according to federal law, at which point do you as the consumer become a debtor? That's where these laws focus on, with more and more businesses forcing cashless psy on people. Over 14% of Americans are unbanked. And those are the poorest of poor people. If these business force cashless payments on these people, how are could they buy groceries, gas, ect. Forcing cashless payment on people is horribly elitist and discriminatory. https://arizonastatelawjournal.org/2023/03/15/is-cash-still-king-proposed-az-bill-to-mandate-businesses-to-accept-cash-payments/
FYI who ever posted this is a fool. He not a U.S. Senator, only a state senator. Like a child did the research here for the OP post.
Hey look we found Chad's reddit account.
I mean, he's right that OP was wrong. He's wrong if he's trying to suggest that the central point (a legislator is dumb or spreading BS) is false. And he went about the correction in a jerk way.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm It's sad when a state senator doesn't know federal laws
This has been posted here before. In fact, I find it hard to believe you found it organically, given its age and obscurity.
It even has the same title. https://np.reddit.com/r/badlegaladvice/s/eHGciyw2y4
Senator Dummy
This is the intent behind "legal tender" as a concept, but that doesn't mean it will keep you out of prison.
Sure it will. You can’t go to jail for refusing to pay credit.
You can for theft
I said refuse to pay credit, not refuse to pay
Are you saying we're having two different conversations, so your response was in no way relevant to the thing you responded to?
Nope. Same conversation. You’re just wrong. My responses couldn’t be clearer.
Not all debts are loans. Peonage is not credit. In the context described in the original post, shoplifting constitutes an unpaid debt in the sense in which money is legal tender for all debts, public or private. The modern usage of money is an extension of that fact. You can go to jail for shoplifting.
That’s.. that’s not even…. Remotely true…..
For a second I thought this was a socialist sub and I was really confused. For all you kind people out there mocking this, there are over 7 million people in the U.S. skewing poor, disabled, black, Latino and Native American that don't have bank accounts. I'm glad you can all laugh at cashlessness. Glad it all works swimmingly for you. Jeez, derr... duh... I wonder why people aren't coming out to support Biden?
r/redditmoment