|
|
|
|
|
by Bjartr
587 days ago
|
|
I specifically said "incurred a ... debt" and "without prior... agreement". As your source says > In short, when a debt has been incurred by one party to another, and the parties have agreed that cash is to be the medium of exchange, then legal tender must be accepted if it is proffered in satisfaction of that debt. You are correct that if cash is not accepted at all, or if payment is to happen ahead of the exchange of goods or services, you are not obligated to accept arbitrary cash. And I never claimed otherwise |
|
In other words, an agreement isn't required in order to refuse legal tender, an agreement would be required to make it mandatory.
A court might decide that an agreement to accept cash without specifying in what form was meant to include dimes, but I see no evidence anywhere that a court has to rule that way if the contextual evidence suggests something else was probably meant.