Guess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
Unless Arizona has a law that says businesses have to accept all forms of legal tender as payment, I would expect that businesses would not be forced to accept Bitcoin as payment.
Consider cash:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
I think they’re appealing to the idea that by eating food before paying, you are indebted to the restaurant, and the very definition of legal tender is that it is valid for all debts.
Is that true? From my understanding as long as the restaurant is up front about what types of payment are accepted prior to the transaction they do not need to accept all forms of legal tender. But I am not a lawyer.
From Investopedia: "Creditors are required to accept them as payment offered to discharge a debt; however, except where prohibited by state law, private businesses may refuse to accept some or all forms of cash tender provided that a transaction has not already occurred and debt has not been incurred by the customer."
If you order at the counter and pay before eating, a restaurant can deny cash. If you sit down and eat all the food, then they bring you the check, they must accept cash (because now you owe a "debt").
There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.
Only debts. Receiving a good/service might generate a debt, but not always; for example, if you pay in advance for a service.
You use an intermediary that will vouch for you in the meantime — say like a credit card company.
Seriously, if it reaches that point, sure maybe Bitcoin is not going to work and we will pick something “new,” but for payment processing it doesn’t matter as intermediaries will pop up as they did for cash.
Edit: Disclaimer: I worked and work on that “new” stuff.
Comments
Guess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
Unless Arizona has a law that says businesses have to accept all forms of legal tender as payment, I would expect that businesses would not be forced to accept Bitcoin as payment.
Consider cash:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
It is, of course, a bit different since cash, check, and credit are all denominated in dollars, whereas Bitcoin is denominated in Bitcoin.
You don't have to sell me goods and services for cash. However, you must accept USD if I owe you money.
I think they’re appealing to the idea that by eating food before paying, you are indebted to the restaurant, and the very definition of legal tender is that it is valid for all debts.
Is that true? From my understanding as long as the restaurant is up front about what types of payment are accepted prior to the transaction they do not need to accept all forms of legal tender. But I am not a lawyer.
From Investopedia: "Creditors are required to accept them as payment offered to discharge a debt; however, except where prohibited by state law, private businesses may refuse to accept some or all forms of cash tender provided that a transaction has not already occurred and debt has not been incurred by the customer."
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legal-tender.asp
If you order at the counter and pay before eating, a restaurant can deny cash. If you sit down and eat all the food, then they bring you the check, they must accept cash (because now you owe a "debt").
But if the restaurant states that they don't accept cash, then you agreed to those terms.
The whole point of legal tender is that it overrides any terms you may have agreed to beforehand.
That's not accurate. It's merely establishing the default behavior.
It depends somewhat on the jurisdiction. Some courts honor contracts which specify payment in a specific form rather than legal tender. Most do not.
And will you get a free option to pay for dinner at the exchange rate when you order or when you finish?
I don't believe you're obligated to accept legal tender for goods or services
Downvoted, but correct.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm
Only debts. Receiving a good/service might generate a debt, but not always; for example, if you pay in advance for a service.
Imagine having to wait ten minutes at the checkout for the transaction to clear.
You use an intermediary that will vouch for you in the meantime — say like a credit card company.
Seriously, if it reaches that point, sure maybe Bitcoin is not going to work and we will pick something “new,” but for payment processing it doesn’t matter as intermediaries will pop up as they did for cash.
Edit: Disclaimer: I worked and work on that “new” stuff.
But is that really Bitcoin at that point?
Bitcoin Lightning is used for such transactions.
I heard Cashapp's lightning implementation works well.