jerry639, could you please site the statute, case law, or administrative regulation on which you base this? In McFarland v Christoff, 92 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 1950), the court stated that failure to accept legal tender does not discharge an underlying obligation, but it may, under certain conditions, toll the running of additional charges (interest, etc.). I find no cite overturning that point; do you have one, or is your position based on "common knowledge"? I think you may have meant to say you cannot refuse payment of a debt in all forms of legal tender, unless otherwise agreed, without forfeiting the debt.
Your debt may be discharged if the other party refuses ALL forms of legal tender AND your agreement with the other party does not specify some other form of payment -- either by contract or because you walk up to the counter that says "credit card transactions only" or the like.
You also asked when pennies were not lawful tender for payment of debts. The answer is until the Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879, as modifed by the Coinage Act of 1965.
With apologies to all, this thread is full of misunderstandings. For example, the term "debt" when used with respect to legal tender is interpreted by courts as a contractual obligation, not repayment of a loan as everyone is presuming. There are appellate cases on that point. The term "legal tender" is not synonymous with "official money." There are cases on that point. There are three famous cases from the 1830s through the 1870s called the "Legal Tender" cases which primarly deal with whether a party could demand gold or silver bullion from the government in lieu of currency or coin. For example, could you purchase a U.S. security and then demand that it be replaced with gold or silver? And that's not even getting into the legal tender laws during the Revolutionary War which dealt with Tories refusing to accept paper issued by Colonial governments.
Simply stated: You don't have to accept pennies in payment. Period. That's the law. Ohio v. Carroll, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) is the most recent case I can find on the subject (yes, it's Ohio law, but I cannot find contrary law in any jurisdiction). Basically, payments in pennies are considered "nuisance" payments and you are not required to accept them -- although the tender MAY stop the accrual of interest, as I mentioned.
Similar examples? New York courts have ruled that public transportation systems may refuse five pennies and require $.05 tokens in payment for a ride. Other courts have ruled that laundromats may refuse currency and accept only coins. In 2003, during litigation styled In Re Marriage of Powell, from 2001-2003, a man who tried to pay his $1,000 legal fee in pennies was ordered to pay an additional $533 for the time spent by the attorney and bank in redeeming the pennies, plus court costs. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. We could keep going forever.
See my Posts, including #70. If I am wrong, then I would appreciate you educating me -- but only by citing a case or administrative ruling, and please not just by saying that you know the law to be different.
Thanks for your reply.
Didn't the government renege on gold-clauses however? That's not a stellar example. Anything more recent than the 1870's or 1930's? I understand the part about contractual obligations, which is why I diverted the discussion to tax liabilities. Presumably the coin of the realm ought to be in some manner acceptable to those levying the taxes. Do you disagree?