I don’t know, I’m a little skeptical. I’m no fan of insurance brokerages, but assaulting a 70+ year old man and then settling the lawsuit with a literal half-ton of quarters in Homer buckets? I mean, you never know, but it sure seems like a lot more effort than it’s worth, even for someone that REALLY pissed you off.
1 Like
tangentially, does anyone know how the court ensures that you’ve settled a lawsuit? is it just evidence, or do you have an official state witness for the event? while this case is just an insult, there are lawsuits which are legitimately settled in something other than a payment. does anyone know how this is verified? i’d imagine there’s some official way, similar to a process server.
1 Like
[quote=“da_Bird, post:21, topic:38751, full:true”][…] assaulting a 70+ year old man and then settling the lawsuit with a literal half-ton of quarters in Homer buckets?[/quote]The 70+ year old man alleged that he was assaulted. A small difference, but an important one.
I think it’s probably best to wait for the rest of the story to emerge (assuming it ever does) before anyone leaps to the defense of either side here.
I DEMAND your response be in the form of jellybeans.
2 Likes
There was an article from an insurance-industry rag about this case that gives a few more details.
The East Los Angeles man alleged that during an argument over why the company had cancelled his auto insurance, an agent assaulted him by physically removing him from the office.
No allegations that he was injured in any way (and you’d think that if he was, it’d be referenced in great detail in every one of these articles).
That seems at least somewhat plausible; his policy was cancelled, he goes to the office to complain, gets into an argument, gets escorted out of the building and then sues. A lot more plausible than what’s implied in the original article, which is that he went to buy an insurance policy and one of the agents beat him up for no apparent reason.
EDIT: And it doesn’t really matter for these purposes, but the company (Adriana’s Insurance Services) is an insurance broker, not an insurer. They wouldn’t have been the ones who cancelled his policy.
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure if they don’t hold up their end of the settlement you take them to court.
2 Likes
Asymmetrical warfare.
1 Like
I remember hearing a law that one can refuse payment in large quantity of coins. Something like pennies are legal tender only up to $2. Is it just in certain states? Maybe it’s a UK thing?
It’s not just to prevent prank, but coins are expensive to produce, this should be discouraged.
If I was correct, the old man can keep all those coins and still sue for non-payment.
1 Like
Delivers payment response in the form of barf, skunk spray, and rotten egg jelly beans
I actually kinda like the skunk ones
1 Like
It’s entirely possible.
But he’s still a guy, and they’re still a company.
1 Like
That’s not quite right, and you’d do better to be more interested in the law if you really want to refer to it as something to back you up.
Actually, it’s up to the person accepting the currency to determine what form payment must take. So, a bus or a toll booth can insist that you only pay in coins, even if you owe over a dollar. A store can refuse bills larger than $20. An individual collecting a debt is allowed to require that the coinage being given to them be rolled - they can also refuse the buckets entirely.
It really doesn’t matter what the behavior of the individual receiving the payment was. In another story, a man disputed a medical bill, and (thinking the doctor was in the wrong) showed up and paid the bill in pennies all over the counter. That got him a disorderly conduct charge.
A man in Vernal, Utah, has been charged with disorderly conduct after attempting to pay a disputed medical bill with 2,500 pennies, police say.
You never have the legal right to “up the stakes” when you disagree with someone else’s behavior. You’re supposed to keep a level head, and deal with it. If the insurance company was going to pay at all, they should have just paid.
2 Likes
No. And in many cases prohibited, since the bank must run them through the coin counter to verify the amount. My bank, for one, requires they be unrolled.
Your own link refutes that. Your mistake is that payment for a good or service is different than payment to a creditor for a debt.
If I owe you money, I can pay you in any form of legal tender, or in any other agreed upon way.
If you and I are conducting a transaction, we have to agree to any form of payment, and the government doesn’t step in and say that any particular form must be accepted (even legal tender–we can agree to pay in pocket lint if we so choose.) This is where the choice to accept only checks comes into play.
Imagine if you legally owed me money and I insisted that you only pay me in 1987 quarters minted in Denver. That wouldn’t be very fair, would it?
Not sure where you got that from. You even agreed with me in your own comment.
Note: “or in any other agreed upon way.”
That’s what I just said. You can’t - as a person paying a debt - unilaterally choose to pay however you like. Coinage IS legal tender, but it isn’t automatically acceptable as payment for a debt.
From my previously issued source (the U.S. Treasury):
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.
(My bold)
Yes. We can agree upon another way to settle the debt, such as with lampshades. However if we can’t come to another agreed upon way, legal tender is always sufficient. Again, this is only for debts.
No, that’s exactly what it means.
Yes. Your bold means that if I go into Best Buy to buy a TV, Best Buy and I have to agree upon a form of payment. Because I’m not paying a debt, I’m paying for a good. There is no federal mandate that Best Buy accept any particular form of payment.
However if I owe Best Buy money (say they loaned it to me in the form of a credit card) and the agreements didn’t stipulate a particular form of payment, I can pay in any denominations of legal tender I wish.
2 Likes
Go back and re-read the link you linked to. Let me quote the relevant bit:
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.
Notice the distinction:
- For debts, as a creditor, you must accept any legal tender
- For goods and/or services there is no statute requiring you accept a particular form of payment
A point which Erik made…
If there’s a debt (if he owes you money) he can pay you in legal tender OR any other agreed upon way (such as a wire transfer, a credit card, a check, bitcoin, whatever, so long as the parties agree).
But he still has the option of just turning over to you the entire debt in legal tender, even if it’s the smallest possible denomination.
As for the guy being charged with disorderly conduct.
- You can be charged with just about anything. Was he convicted of such? And if so, was it because he “paid in pennies” or because he threw 2,500 pennies around the room. A point, by the way, which the article brought up and which you conveniently forgot to mention:
It’s likely that the disorderly conduct charge had more to do with the
dumping and strewing of the pennies and less to do with the currency
itself.
1 Like
Not if it won’t be accepted by the payee. The payment has to be able to fulfill the debt. A legal “debt” is an obligated contract just as much as a “purchase” is.
You’re ignoring that the same sentence says “a person” as in “an individual” - the law applies to them as well as businesses. A person isn’t required by law to accept currency or coins - they can happily take lampshades (oooh, you just drip sarcasm) if both parties agree they fulfill the debt in value. They also can say what form they want a payment to take. They can demand a check - even in a personal debt. For example, people may require personal debts be paid by check or money order to provide a paper trail. A person who has no checking account can still get a money order.
The man in this instance was offered what might be considered an unacceptable form of payment, because it would be hard for an individual to count, bring to a bank, or ensure that he was paid in full. Because the payment to him wasn’t a standard form of payment, it’s the insurance company that would have had to make the request to pay in that format in advance (the reverse of your “1987 quarters minted in Denver” example). They’re the ones who acted outrageously, and tried to pay in a way that wasn’t standard for the number of coins being traded.
Nice choice - a place that accepts bill over $20, and that you might own more than $20 to - so you’re really not trying to make much of a point here. Also, they don’t have a great track record on accepting odd payment.
Just to be absolutely, sparklingly clear on the issue, I took the liberty of calling my local Best Buy and asked what they would accept as payment in store: it’s a maximum of $0.50 in pennies at my local store. It isn’t posted anywhere - and it doesn’t have to be.
Seriously? You really still don’t get this.
Here is Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 in full:
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. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
Honestly! “payment for goods and/or services” are “private debts” and those debts may be paid as chosen by the business or individual. Don’t try to rewrite law.
Which I stated.
[quote=“catgrin, post:31, topic:38751”]
It really doesn’t matter what the behavior of the individual receiving the payment was. In another story, a man disputed a medical bill, and (thinking the doctor was in the wrong) showed up and paid the bill in pennies all over the counter. That got him a disorderly conduct charge.
[/quote] (italics and bold for emphasis)
A court does not know if there was a settlement exactly. What happens is that a private contractual arrangement is made, settling the matter. The parties then drop their claims with regards to each other in court. From the court’s perspective, it’s anyone’s guess as to why. If one party attempts to sue, the other can bring the written (this is important!) contract back as an affirmative defense and have it dismissed, unless there was a failure to perform under the agreement.
2 Likes
Point to where in the law it says precisely that. There are other principles in law (UCC, doctrines of impracticability/impossibility, etc.) that say that you can’t spontaneously demand payment be in 1987 quarters as payment for a debt, but form of payment is usually specified in contracts (such as contracts for debts) for good reasons. To say that coinage shall be “valid” is not to declare that it be obligatorily accepted.
1 Like
