just throw this down on them. Unless they can come up with some nuisance coin law (there were such laws when I was a kid), it should shut them up.
You should also understand that it costs them money to accept a credit card so they are justified in charging the fee. The cannot not charge the fee.
I know it costs money to take a credit card, but if I have an option available to me where the cost of accepting the credit card is on the burden of the US Mint instead of myself, then why would I want to do it any other way?
I did some additional research and found that:
1. An Ohio court ruled that the municipal clerk can refuse unrolled loose pennies because having a requirement that pennies be rolled is not unreasonable. In my situation, I am not using pennies and all my coins are rolled.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Ross County.
STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Brian CARROLL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96CA2236.
March 13, 1997.
2. Governments used to have the ability to reject payment. "The minor coins of the United States are legal tender for any amount not exceeding 25 cents in any one payment. Act Feb. 12, 1873, Rev. Stat. § 3587, Comp. Stat. § 6574, 6 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 298." However, this was done away in 1965 with 31 U.S.C.A. 5103.
3. According to Dooley v. Smith,_ 80 U.S. 604, 20 L.Ed. 547, 13 Wall. 604 (1871), offering payment in coins stops accumulation of interest. Theoretically, I can offer to pay my debts in coins, they can reject, they will add interest charges, and then when I eventually do pay the debt, I can have the interest charges canceled out. In effect, I can borrow money at a 0% interest rate.
4. § 3-603(b) supports my comments in #3 and may even go so far to eliminate the debt:
3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.
* (a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.
* (b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is
discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.
* (c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
5. Public Law 42 Stat 122-113 73rd Congress HJR 192 Nullifies Obligee power to require a particular type or coin or currency in the discharge of debts. Failure to do so is “interference with commerce”, a felony under the RICO ACT, 18 USC 1951. Also see Guaranty Trust Company vs. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939).
Thoughts???
6.
