Paying with pennies
- Thread starter CrimsonSoul
- Start date
- Status
Now you know your victims will be blamed for calling 9-1-1. I mean, geez. Police upholding the law. That is not what they're paid to... erm....Shegokigo said:
but it WAS an actual crime...Bowielee said:
figmentPez
Staff member
I agree. This guy was intentionally being a jerk, period. He was taking his frustration out, and chose a very poor way of doing it. He didn't have to pay in pennies, he did so specifically to harass the towing company. The police should not have sided with him. I don't care if it is legal tender, it's absurdity. Just because it's the letter of the law does not mean it's acceptable behavior. If he wanted to make a protest, he should have taken another route to do so.Bowielee said:
Is no one going to answer my previous question about getting paid, yourself, in pennies? Despite the joke, it was a serious question. If someone owed you money, how large an amount of pennies would it take for you to consider it non-payment? Would a ton of pennies (2,000lbs. or $3,680) sitting in your driveway change your mind? Or would you consider it payment of the debt, even if it cost you hundreds of dollars to get it carted away and counted?
-- Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:21 pm --
That's debateable. Until there is actual legal precedent, where someone was successfully sued for not taking payment in pennies, it's not necessarily what is supposed to be enforced. Even beyond that, it's probably a cival mater and not a criminal one. The situation could have easily been solved without involving the police. No one's health or welfare was in danger, and the guy trying to pay the fine could have solved it faster than calling the police, simply by exchanging the money himself.CrimsonSoul said:
So? I agree. It was absurd, rude, unacceptable behavior. It's also the law. The law does not equal justice. They are not the same and they never will be. The police were not there to dispense justice; they were there to uphold the law. Law is not about what's right; it's about rules.figmentPez said:
In my employment I read hundreds, probably thousands of court cases. Justice is not the law. It's unfortunate, and I've seen judges trying their best to work with people who are unfortunately wronged by the law. I never want to be a judge, because honestly, many of them feel like scum at the end of the day for what they have to enforce. It's sad, but it is the system.
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, and what the law dictates that the police do in a situation like this is not clear. They should not have been called at all, because there was no need for a police officer. The situation was not violent, no one's health or welfare was at stake, and there were many ways to resolve the situation without involving the police. The young man who wanted to pay his fine had many options besides calling the police. He could have exchanged the pennies himself, and paid the fine with folding money. He could have called a lawyer and used that method of persuasion. He could have asked to see a supervisor. Simply put, he was intent on being a jerk, and I see no rational reason why the police or the law should assist him in doing so, even if the letter of the law is on his side. I realize that the law is about rules, but I also realize that is not the ideal of the law, it is not the goal of the system, even if it is often the result.escushion said:
figmentPez
Staff member
Actually, as stated earlier, if a busniess has a right to add a surcharge for handling of money, then his pennies were not enough to pay the debt, and she had no obligation to accept partial payment.Shegokigo said:
Again, if it were a private business. Sure.
Government mandated? Nope.
Your opinons are getting more interesting by the minute.
Government mandated? Nope.
I agree. What I don't agree with is who you're blaming. You're honestly saying the person breaking the law isn't the one who is responsible for the police being involved?Bowielee said:
So now if you're of "no morals" you don't deserve law enforcement?Bowielee said:
Your opinons are getting more interesting by the minute.
Except, hey, it was an actual crime, albeit not a violent one. Regardless of how much of a dick move you thought it was, the guy was within his rights to settle a contractual debt with any form of legal tender he so chose. If the business whom he owes the debt to chooses not to accept legal tender, and forces him to call the police, that's the business wasting the police's time, by trying to force the guy to do something he's not required to do: Roll pennies, pay in folding money, etc.Bowielee said:
figmentPez
Staff member
The police didn't need to be involved, even if the cashier was in the wrong. There were other options available to resolve the matter.Shegokigo said:
How bout I just show you the law, numbskull?Bowielee said:
31 U.S.C. § 5103.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5103.shtml
figmentPez
Staff member
How about you cite legal precedent, instead of just a statute. That little snippet says nothing about how the law is to actually be applied. It also doesn't show if there are any exceptions elsewhere in the code, which may or may not provide for reasonable limitations on how debts are to be paid.Tinwhistler said:
Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694, 696figmentPez said:
Legal precident that coin money is worth exactly the same as folding money in terms of paying a debt.
or how about:
Crummey v. Klein Independent School District
Crummey v. Klein Independent School District
in this case, it was about 50 dollar golden eagles. The court held that the coins were worth exactly $50 in the payment of a debt, and it didn't matter that they were coins.
Read up, I already addressed that. The guy WAS ALLOWED to pay his bill in pennies, just as the lawyer was allowed to bill him for the pain in the ass in doing so. The precedent shows that he can pay in pennies.Bowielee said:
So, now we have three law cases that show that payment is coin is legal tender.
Do you have any legal precedent that says that it's not?
I've jumped through your hoops. Your turn.
Find me one single case where a person was not allowed to pay via coins for a debt. One.
Do you have any legal precedent that says that it's not?
I've jumped through your hoops. Your turn.
Find me one single case where a person was not allowed to pay via coins for a debt. One.
figmentPez
Staff member
I think that's in reference to a bill backed by coin rather than a bill that is simply a promisary note. I imagine it's archaic and not applicable anymore, as I don't believe that any bills that are currently legal tender actually are backed by gold or silver in the US.Tinwhistler said:
Furthermore, it makes no mention of reasonable limitations on the size of a debt that can be paid for in the smallest denomination of coin.
- Status