It is not a contradiction because all the business mentioned take take payment before or upon purchase or delivery of the service, in that case you can deny whatever you want. Restaurants take payments after delivery which means you have a debt to the restaurant and then legal tender is applicable.
Though there may be ways to get around this. I am guessing there is something else that allows you to refuse payment for debt if you have any reason to assume it may be counter-fitted for example, or if it in such a poor condition that you can’t easily determine if is counter-fitted or not.
I’ve wondered this.When I first thought about it ,it seemed to debunk our economics
my thinking was " why do people use fiat money when sometimes but not always they know it’s not backed by anything.Wouldn’t this mean that ordinarily people value fiat money?
Is the reason, gresham’s law and legal tender laws?
My understanding from reading around to answer my question is that it is indeed legal tender laws and Gresham’s laws that result in this.I get this answer from my reading of Rothbard and others.
Having worked many restaurants for many years, I’m telling you you’re wrong. Restaurants may, and often do, refuse bills over $20. Going further than that, no private business is required by the Federal government to accept cash at all:
Yes. People will hoard appreciating gold and spend depreciating dollars. It makes no financial sense to pay for goods in gold when you can use the government’s funny money instead.
There does not need to be a “mandate” to accept paper money. All that is necessary is that I can pay you dollars if you sue me for failing to pay you. That is entire point to “legal tender”. Therefore, you cannot decline dollars.
People are free to barter anything. A transaction does not have to be enumerated in dollars and legal tender law is not applicable if there is no debt incurred.
Of course they are. But if we agree to exchange a ton of oranges for a ton of bananas this Saturday and I show up with dollars instead, you have no choice but to accept them because, again, dollars are legal tender. A judge is not going to force me to purchase bananas to consummate the exchange when I am offering the equivalent in legal currency.
I can tell people I have a car I am willing to trade for a motorcycle. We meet and you tell me you have a motorcycle and are looking for a car. We decide to meet this Saturday and look at each others property. I say I will trade my car for your motorcycle. You say ok. When I get the title you try to hand me a bunch of dollars and I am going to tell you to goodbye because I am only willing to trade for your motorcycle not your dollars.
Good luck with that suit trying to get a judge to force me to give you my car for your dollars. You have no case.
Again, that’s a different fact pattern. Nobody is saying you are not free to decline the transaction. The only point of legal tender laws is that contractual obligations are dischargeable in dollars. Since that’s the case, Gresham’s law applies and people use depreciating dollars instead of appreciating stuff.
So if you recognize I can decline a transaction with my property why would it not apply on a larger scale?
Let’s say I go to home depot and purchase some raw materials. I bring those raw materials back to my garage and make widgets. I put a sign out in front advertising “widgets for trade”. I still do not have to accept a transaction on my property enumerated in dollars but I am also free to do so.
I can scale it up even more if I start trading enough widgets and have to figure out how to manufacture more of them.
I don’t know what Gresham’s law is but I certainly understand the nature of legal tender laws and why people like to work in dollars.
They are required to pay government in dollars and government tries to convert every natural right people possess at the barrel of a gun into regulated privileged activities.