P for paying with putrid pennies

[Figleaf]

$206 traffic ticket paid for with coins ... packaged in urine

Mailroom employees at an administrative office in Multnomah County, Oregon, got an unpleasant surprise recently when they opened a package containing payment for a traffic ticket. Inside was a tightly sealed plastic bag filled with over $200 worth of coins ... soaked in a liquid that was unmistakably urine.

"That's something I can't wrap my mind around," said Sgt. Phil Anderchuk, of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, according to KPTV in Portland.

The urine-filled package, sent by a Washington man, did not break any postal laws. Mailing bodily fluids is perfectly legal, officials said, as long as they are properly packaged to not smell or leak en route.

What isn't okay is the all-coin payment for the $206 ticket. Because the county's policy is to accept only up to $20 in change, the court returned the money, tacking on a fine for late payment. 

The county doesn't intend to pursue the matter, reported KPTV, if the man pays the now $271 bill. Presumably with no other bodily fluids enclosed.

Source: Oh My Gov

[chrisild]

Now the question remains -- did anybody at this administrative office actually count the coins? And if yes, did they have to open the bag? And if yes, did they properly seal the bag and package before returning it to the sender? Inquiring minds want to, errm, no.

Christian

[Figleaf]

I like the reasoning "I don't accept coins so you didn't pay so I'll give you a fine". How about: "the road is badly maintained so you didn't deliver so you owe me damages and interest"? Or: converting the rails took 15 months, instead of three so you are in breach of social contract so you will give me my taxes back". Or: "I don't accept virtual money so whatever you pay in my bank account is not a payment so I'll fine you for late payment"?

There were times when coins up to a certain amount and all banknotes for any amount had to be accepted in payment, also by the government. Now, it's apparently enough to "have a policy" to be able to force people to use whatever method of payment you like.

Peter

[chrisild]

The US does not have that "European" concept of limited legal tender. The Coinage Act simply states that "United States coins and currency (...) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues". In Euroland however coins are legal tender only up to 50 pieces per payment. During the DM years, Germany had amount limits - 5 DM for Pfennig coins, 20 DM for Mark coins - and I think the UK has a similar regulation.

So "around here" it would be easy to point out that, even where the obligation to accept legal tender applies, only a maximum of 50 coins would have to be accepted. Now if US federal law does not set such limits, the consequence would be to either accept each and every amount when paid in coins, or to set a maximum yourself. Admittedly the second option - provided it is "communicated" properly - makes more sense to me.

Christian

[asm]

Are banks allowed to issue more change against notes if one goes to the bank to get them or is this also not legally permitted?
BTW, here in the city where I live, they had introduced a law requiring all motor cycle (two wheelers) riders to wear helmets. In case caught without a helmet, the cop would impose a fine of Rs 50. (about US$ 1). To oppose this there was a guy who went about with a bag full of Rs 1 coins. As soon as he was stopped, he would quitely pay the fine and make the cop count the change before issueing the receipt. A few weeks into this he started paying up in 50 paisa coins. The poor cop was made to count 100 coins. It so happened that after a few days, as soon as the cops saw him approach, they would look the other way. 
Amit

[Figleaf]

Banks and especially shops here have an anti-coin attitude. Very few if any will accept 1 and 2 cent coins, 5 and 10 euro coins and 100, 200 and 500 euro banknotes. Some (e.g. public transportation) will even refuse 50 euro banknotes. Banks now want extra money for rolls of coins. I am not sure, but I believe they charge you also for bringing in larger amounts of coins. The railroad charges you extra if you pay in cash. Parking meters do no accept coins. Tax authorities do not accept cash. The list goes on ...

Yet people like cash. An attempt to have people pay small amounts with a card (chipknip) failed miserably. There is no question of supply and demand here, but one of imposing "policy" against what forced consumers want.

Peter

[chrisild]

Banks and especially shops here have an anti-coin attitude. Very few if any will accept 1 and 2 cent coins, 5 and 10 euro coins and 100, 200 and 500 euro banknotes.

To some extent that makes sense to me. The 1 and 2 ct pieces are a nuisance, and if anybody in NL gave me a €5 or €10 coin back, I would not want it because that regional money is worthless here in DE (well, anywhere except the issuing member state). With high denomination notes it depends ...

As for paying with a hundred 50 paisa coins, well, as a cop I may check that guy even more often. This way he would quickly learn what "Heavy Metal" is - after all, he would always have to shlep the pieces with him.

Christian

[a3v1]

Recently a Belgian pub paid a fine in 1 cent Euro coins (three wheelbarrows full of them).
Regards,
a3v1

[bruce61813]

The US does not have that "European" concept of limited legal tender. The Coinage Act simply states that "United States coins and currency (...) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues". In Euroland however coins are legal tender only up to 50 pieces per payment. During the DM years, Germany had amount limits - 5 DM for Pfennig coins, 20 DM for Mark coins - and I think the UK has a similar regulation.

So "around here" it would be easy to point out that, even where the obligation to accept legal tender applies, only a maximum of 50 coins would have to be accepted. Now if US federal law does not set such limits, the consequence would be to either accept each and every amount when paid in coins, or to set a maximum yourself. Admittedly the second option - provided it is "communicated" properly - makes more sense to me."
Christian

I think there is a law in the US where you may refuse payment of a debt in excess of $100, if i is being paid in small  coins [ie pennies]. It comes under nuisance laws, and would require the payer to exchange the coins for bills. It does not excuse them from payment of the debt that is due. But I don't remember the exact reference.

Bruce

[Prosit]

Interesting situation.  Here is my take on it.
In the US the question of what is legal tender is usually not an issue, we know what is legal tender.
There is a misunderstanding about this however because just because something is legal tender there is not always a corresponding law that says you are required to take it.  Now if the government pays you or your employer pays you...you are in reality stuck in accepting their payment except in odd circumstances.  I could not demand a tax refund in chickens for instance  or that my paycheck be paid in gold or silver

Another 'for instance', if I own a store with items to sell...this falls under private contract...I have offered
items for sale "offer to sell".  That offer to sell isn't considered universal...I can refuse to sell to anyone I want to and I can take payment in any form I want to.  It is my store, my item, and my offer to sell.
Also in most cases if I offer something to sell, I am not legally obligated to sell it at all except under certain conditions.

Now paying a fine with change, this comes up quite often and people do it as a protest but the people receiving it do not have to take it.  Or if they do many times they can charge a reasonable conversion fee or a handling fee.  Also in this particular situation, I think that the person could theoretically be charged with attempted assault with a biological weapon.  In other words not a smart thing to do.

I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV.  But this subject comes up often enough that I have developed an opinion...right or wrong.

Dale

[Figleaf]

Not really different from the rules here, maybe a bit more restrictive. I like the biological weapon thought. In the middle ages, urine was used by defenders of besieged cities to ward off attackers who were foolish enough or in enough trouble to keep their eyes open in the face of a urine counterattack You'd have thunk we'd have grown up ...

A few years back, an enterprising British entrepreneur paid his staff their salary in gold pounds at around market value. By selling the pounds, they would receive their salary. However, for taxes and social premiums, he used the nominal value of the coins, which amounted to a pittance. A court said he couldn't do it, but maybe a US court would think differently. Wouldn't it be fun to be paid in gold double eagles AND pay almost no tax?

Peter

[Prosit]

Wouldn't it be fun to be paid in gold double eagles AND pay almost no tax?

Peter

Which is an interesting idea.  Was it 1933? that FDR? removed gold from the private sector and made it illegal to own except in collections or jewlery...that changed in the 70's?  So, the question is did those coins retain their legal tender status?  Were they de-legal-tendered? If so were the then later de-de-legal-tendered? or is that re-legal-tendered    I do not know.   

Dale