Tinwhistler said:
And what if the guy said \"I'll only move my car if you sing \"I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General\"?\"
IE: said \"I'll quit breaking the law if you do something for me that you are in no way obligated to do\"
That's the position you're advocating here. Because you think the guy pulled a dick move (and don't get me wrong, I do too), you seem willing to sacrifice the rule of law in the cashier's favor. That, to me, is very dangerous ground. The rule of law is not flexible.
The rule of law is quite flexible, police offers and judges are given a fair amount of leeway in how they apply the law. If they were not, every person pulled over for speeding would be given a ticket. No one would be let off with a warning.
Furthermore, your analogy is not apt. In the case in the video, the one trying to abuse the letter of the law is the one trying to exact extra effort (getting the cashier to handle the pennies), in your demanded singing example, it is the one who is already breaking the law who is trying to exact further trouble, beyond what is required. Note that the boy in the video never asked politely for coins to be accepted, never gave a reason why he was paying in coin, and was rude from the very start. He jumped straight to a threat to call the police, instead of trying to work the situation out in a reasonable manner. Having the coins wrapped and easy to handle would have been the
polite thing to do, as would moving the car. Demanding that another person do extra effort to accomodate you for no reason is not polite, regardless if you have a legal right to cause them to do the extra work. If someone had come in to pay and pennies was all they had to make the payment with, and politely asked for the circumstance to be excused is a completely different situation than someone intentionally trying to cause troule. Yes, even legally, as motivation does play a factor in how the law is applied.
I note, for the record, you still haven't found a court case that allows debtors to refuse coinage in payment.
So what? I'm not a lawyer, I don't have access to a law library or anything. It's not like I could convince you anyway, since you stand behind your examples which I still hold are not applicable to the case at hand. You say that the wording is clear, while ignoring the context. The ruling revolves around the difference between payment in gold coin, and payment in paper money, and the ruling says that if the distinction had been between gold and silver, both coins, they would have still ruled in favor of gold, because the contract said "gold". So, it's declaration that the law sees no difference between a paper bill and a coin results from their face value under in the eyes of the governemnt, just as the government saw silver and gold coins as equal regardless of market value. Thus, it says nothing about weather they are a reasonable way to make payment of a debt. My argument is not that pennies lack the face value to appease the debt, but that a box full of unwrapped pennies is not a reasonable manner in which to settle such a large debt. As such, a ruling saying that coins and bills have equal montetary value should not effect if the actions of a person's actions constitute reasonable effort to pay the debt.
I should have cited it earlier but
this article says:
Gilmore then informed Prosser the court accepts coins as legal tender — as long as they are wrapped correctly. The court would even supply the 300 wrappers it would take to wrap all of his pennies. It turns out people have tried this before, although not in this amount, Gilmore said.
So it would have to wait until another day — Monday — when Prosser came back to the court with his $150 in pennies, this time wrapped, with his name, phone number and citation number written on each roll, as specified by the court.
Sounds like the court has worked out it's standards by which payment can be made in coins, and has a very exact policy. Coins must be wrapped and properly labeled to be accepted. They must be offered in a reasonable manner, and they have the right to refuse payment offered unreasonably.
EDIT:
Looks like Iowa has a similar policy when paying taxes.
"Cash or coin - accepted only in reasonable denominations -
coin or cash in small denominations considered unreasonable payment by the treasurer or treasurer’s staff, will be refused."
New Mexico doesn't accept coins at all in payment of bail bonds, why should the requirements for freeing a car be more lenient than for freeing a person?
"The court may set a policy that the cash bail may be posted by personal check, cashiers check, or money order in addition to cash. The policy on cash bonds may include the acceptance of reasonable denominations of currency and with no acceptance of coin. This policy should be posted in a public view."
