I haven't researched this little tidbit in depth, but I thought it interesting:
The Resurrection of Gold Clauses
In 1977, Congress amended its 1933 Joint Resolution in which it declared gold clauses to be unenforceable as ”against public policy after then-president Roosevelt effectively confiscated Americans’ gold and outlawed its ownership. That 1977 amendment is currently codified under Volume 31 of the United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and it plainly states that the provisions of the 1933 joint resolution banning gold clauses does not apply “obligations issued” (i.e., contracts entered into) after its date of enactment in October 1977.
What this means is that, under current US law, individuals and businesses can legally enforce any contract requiring payment in gold, as long as that contract was entered into after 1977. Most people don’t know that little fact, but it is likely to become extremely important as the current debt-based fiat dollar system unravels in front of our eyes.
I don't know how true this is, but if it is that means any contract can now have a gold clause in it and I could force the repayment of a debt in gold or bags of wheat or whatever as long as it is in the contract, and refuse to accept FRN's.
That author doesn't seem to know precisely what a gold clause is. It doesn't mean there will be payment in gold. It means the amount to be paid is pegged to the price of gold in dollars. The creditor still has to accept dollars though. Gold clauses, which were used almost exclusively in contracts between banks and the government, were a market reaction to the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply. If contract prices were tied to gold the government's ability to monetize its debts would be severely limited.