Insurance company pays lawsuit settlement in coins

[Daneyul]

Well, in DerekBalling’s defense, a laugh is not EXACTLY THE SAME as a chuckle.

[erikosterholm]

@ActionAbe

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.

I think you may have misunderstood me. If I wasn’t clear, I apologize.

As a creditor, I must take legal tender as payment for a debt. The law has been quoted here multiple times. I’ll do it again:

[quote]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.[/quote] (quoting catgrin’s quote earlier, so sic)

As a person or business engaged in a transaction, as opposed to a debt, I can demand payment in any form I wish. And the other party is free to walk away from the transaction if they don’t like my terms. So if I want those 1987 Denver Mint quarters, I can demand them. They have no obligation to continue the transaction if they don’t want to pay that way, and I cannot force the transaction to continue.

You’re right that I can’t spontaneously demand payment in the form of 1987 quarters for payment of a debt, and if my post implied that, it was unintended. I meant to say that I could require that as payment for a good or service.

[erikosterholm]

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.

So you’re conflating a debt with a good or service? They’re not the same. I do not become indebted to Best Buy when I go to the register with a DVD. They do not become my creditor. What happens is that we agree, then and there, to exchange two things. Those two things are usually money (in the form of a check, or cash perhaps) and some item that Best Buy owns (the DVD.) At the register, they can reject my 2000 pennies, because I’m not fulfilling a debt.

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.

I’m not saying they are restricted to only accepting currency or coins. Of course a creditor can dissolve a debt by agreeing to and accepting payment in some other item. What the law says is that the creditor must accept currency as an option. Another option, listed in the statute you quoted, is anything else agreed upon.

If this is still too hard, let’s try a small thought experiment. Pretend that you owe me $20. I decide that I don’t want to accept currency or coins. You offer a check–I don’t want that, either. We can’t agree on an accepted form of payment. What happens? Please cite the law in your answer.

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.

Payment in store for what? A good or service, or for a debt? And they can tell you whatever they like, but it doesn’t make it legal.

Also, the $2 bill incident is interesting:

1. They thought the bills were counterfeit.
2. Despite not wanting to take them, they took them anyway, despite your protestations that they don’t have to.
3. The police locked him up, but the secret service came around and said it was all legit.

So while that story illustrates that a person can be locked up even when they didn’t break the law, it isn’t a good example of a business being able to reject legal tender for payment of a debt.

[catgrin]

@erikosterholm

So you’re conflating a debt with a good or service? They’re not the same.

In this case, the entire paragraph is all about describing closure of a debt (and yes, when you buy something, until pay for it in full, you have a debt - that’s what a mortgage is). The paragraph is saying that all the types of federal monies listed in Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 are legal tender, and they are valid as payment (which hadn’t always been true), but THEY AREN’T REQUIRED to be accepted as payment. Go back and read it. The way you’re interpreting that paragraph - no one could ever even write a check or use a money order or credit card to pay a debt - because those aren’t legal tender.

That’s totally ridiculous.

@erikosterholm

What the law says is that the creditor must accept currency as an option. Another option, listed in the statute you quoted, is anything else agreed upon.

Nope, it isn’t. It’s only saying that American currency is legal tender, but that other forms of payment may be preferable to the payee. What you’ve been trying to say is that a debtor can pay however they choose (no matter the problems to the payee), and that just isn’t so - you only just tried to walk that back that statement after ActionAbe showed up.

@erikosterholm

If this is still too hard, let’s try a small thought experiment. Pretend that you owe me $20. I decide that I don’t want to accept currency or coins. You offer a check–I don’t want that, either. We can’t agree on an accepted form of payment. What happens? Please cite the law in your answer.

Simple: Small claims court eventually, because you’re breaking contract. That actually would be under the doctrine of impossibility. If you refuse to make it possible for me to close a debt with you - I’m suing you. If you also try to change a contract after the contract has been written, and you’re the one being difficult - you’ll lose in court.

@erikosterholm

Payment in store for what? A good or service, or for a debt? And they can tell you whatever they like, but it doesn’t make it legal.

I asked them specifically about paying for a credit card debt, and it is legal. They don’t have to take excessive amounts of change in their store from anyone. They can send you to a local bank or a CoinStar instead. You can’t make another person suffer because you feel like being a jerk, and most people won’t accept that kind of behavior.

Note: I included the $2 story just to let you know that Best Buy’s track record isn’t great on accepting odd payments. (I happened to find it when I was looking up their phone number.) I even said that in my comment. You really didn’t need to go to all the trouble of dissecting an aside that wasn’t making any more of a point.

[erikosterholm]

@catgrin

Simple: Small claims court eventually, because you’re breaking contract. That actually would be under the doctrine of impossibility. If you refuse to make it possible for me to close a debt with you - I’m suing you. If you also try to change a contract after the contract has been written, and you’re the one being difficult - you’ll lose in court.

No, in this scenario, you’re demanding something you have no right to demand. You’d lose. Unless you can show me where in the law it allows a creditor to demand payment by some means other than legal tender.

Sure, if we agree to another method, that’s fine. I’m talking about a situation where we don’t agree.

And:

[quote]What you’ve been trying to say is that a debtor can pay however they choose (no matter the problems to the payee), and that just isn’t so - you only just tried to walk that back that statement after ActionAbe showed up.
[/quote]

I don’t know what you mean by walking back the statement. I still hold that a debtor can pay however they want absent any agreement to pay in a particular way. Nothing you’ve said refutes that, so I have to assume that you just have a problem comprehending the laws you’re reading.

Of course, you’re also changing the goalposts–turning a payment for goods or services into a debt by saying [quote]and yes, when you buy something, until pay for it in full, you have a debt - that’s what a mortgage is)[/quote]
when I was talking about purchase of goods or services.

And a mortgage would specify how payment is to be performed, and both parties would agree to it ahead of time, so none of these arguments even matter in this particular case. Unless the lender was stupid.

It’s pretty simple:

• I owe a debt, and there’s no prescribed method of payment, you cannot force me to pay in any way other than legal tender. You can ask me to pay in another way, and I can agree to do so. If you ask me to pay in a way that I don’t want to, I can always revert back to legal tender.

• I am buying an item, paying in full. You can require that I pay you in dollops of strawberry jam. I can insist on paying in $2 bills. You can tell me to take my business elsewhere.

Not too hard. Not sure why you don’t get it. It’s all right there in the links you posted, and it’s also in the Snopes article that spawned this discussion (with citations.)

[catgrin]

Are you even reading what you write anymore?

@erikosterholm

Pretend that you owe me $20. I decide that I don’t want to accept currency or coins. You offer a check–I don’t want that, either. We can’t agree on an accepted form of payment.

You wrote that you wouldn’t accept payment through currency OR a check AND we couldn’t agree on alternate payment. I responded to YOUR PREMISE.

@erikosterholm

No, in this scenario, you’re demanding something you have no right to demand. You’d lose. Unless you can show me where in the law it allows a creditor to demand payment by some means other than legal tender.

In your own premise YOU TURNED DOWN LEGAL TENDER. So guess what - this discussion is now over for the night, because I have a feeling you’re too tired to follow it. Under your originally-stated premise - I would take you to court and win.

[erikosterholm]

You’re right. I mixed up the scenario. I think because you said you would sue me, and that got me confused.

We can stop here. It’s pretty obvious that we’ll never agree. Let’s hope the two of us never get into a situation where it’s needed.

[erikosterholm]

@catgrin

In your own premise YOU TURNED DOWN LEGAL TENDER. So guess what - this discussion is now over for the night, because I have a feeling you’re too tired to follow it. Under your originally-stated premise - I would take you to court and win.

Though I have to say this before I go.

You said that one could reject legal tender. That’s fine. Then you say you would take me to court to settle the debt. That’s also fine. You said you’d win. Sure.

So what? I’d have to accept legal tender? Which is the entire point I was trying to make? Or are you saying the court would require me to accept a check? In that case, I ask, “What law would the court enforce to make me accept a check?”

Now I’m done for the night, because it’s late here.

[gradv]

31 U.S. C. § 5103 is still subject to ‘common sense doctrine’

Without pointing to any case law, the Court simply concluded that "It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances

This comes from State v. Carroll, 1997 WL 118064 . See here for a lawyer’s take

On a more personal note I have worked for a large utility company that accepted cash payments at branch offices. This would be a “debt” as the service was already consumed. The company’s legal department after review established limits on the amount of change and singles that had to be accepted. It was equivalent to the amount you find in a roll of coins eg: .50 in pennies $2 in nickles and so on and $100 in singles.

I have no idea how such a decision would fare in the face of a serious appeal but I think it would hold up fairly well. Courts generally favor a ‘soft plain meaning’ interpretation.

I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of “scrivener’s error” that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard-of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result.

This from avowed textualist Scalia.

Furthermore the absurdity doctrine has a long standing place in common law.

that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of a felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire – ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt’

Absurdity and the Limits of Literalism: Defining the Absurd Result Principle in Statutory Interpretation; Dougherty, Veronica M.

[LemoUtan]

And add a charge for the time taken to ascertain the shortfall.

[DerekBalling]

@catgrin

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.

No, they are not. Payment for goods and/or services is me walking into Target and saying “I’d like to buy this”, or me boarding a bus and saying “I need to go uptown”. A debt is “You loaned me money, and now I owe you money”.

YOU are the one attempting to rewrite the law here by trying to equate two things are not the same.

[anon26940528]

@erikosterholm

In that case, I ask, “What law would the court enforce to make me accept a check?”

It’s called a quasi-contract or an implied-in law contract. Courts have wide latitude to create contracts for the sake of equability. It would depend on the circumstance, but they could absolutely issue an ultimatum to accept a check as payment for a debt or forgo your right to collect.

Sorry, but @catgrin is right. You’re adding a construction to the law that isn’t warranted by its language. I could set up a mortgage which has to be paid off in installments of African elephants. It would be a valid debt and the courts could force someone to pay it off in that precise way. To argue that if there was no prescribed method of payment, one would be compelled to accept legal tender is to argue a really weird and obvious point that importantly: has nothing to do with the statute you’re citing.

However, let’s say you have an injured, poor disabled person who has no car and no friends or acquaintances who can help lug buckets of coins, and nowhere to store them: I can absolutely see a court enjoining a party from paying two million dollars in pennies on this person’s doorstep.

[hhype]

Rolled, you say?

(whispered to self in background - Too obvious. Be cool man, you won’t trick them with that link.)

[Brainspore]

@DerekBalling

It’s possible he was every inch the asshole to the insurance company as the (Comcasts, Phone Companies, Town Clerks, etc.) are to the consumers who end up furiously paying their bill in coins. We don’t know.

We do know that the company in question has an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau. That’s good enough for me to guess which side is the bigger asshole here.