The Netherlands

4 readers

2 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

-1

Cashless shops operating i̶l̶l̶e̶g̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ (legally) in Netherlands a̶n̶d̶ (but not) Belgium; corporate disobedience (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Saw a “no cash” sign at a bakery. Conversation went like this:

me: So, no cash? What’s going on there?

cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to accept cash.

me: Isn’t it the other way around? Isn’t there a legal tender law in #Netherlands?

cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to refuse cash.

me: So this sign posting says loud and clear “we are breaking the law”, in effect, no? Is that not being enforced?

cashier: That’s right. It’s unenforced in Netherlands.

The same thing is happening in #Belgium. This kind of forces me to revise my understanding of European culture & norms. In both the US & Europe there is a culture of certain laws (rightfully) going unenforced against individual natural people. E.g. small amounts of marijuana possession. But I previously thought when it came to moral/legal people (businesses), they simply complied with the law in Europe to a great extent.

IOW, companies complied with laws in Europe. Contrast that with the US where corporations small and large will blatantly disregard any laws that interfere with profit based on the calculated risk of getting caught and risk of penalties.

I just wonder if Europe is being influenced by cavalier US corps and changing to comply only when penalties are likely. Or is this something I had wrong all along.. that EU companies were always loose with compliance?

#WarOnCash

(update) Title corrected because someone in a crosspost pointed out that it is in fact legal in Netherlands for a shop to refuse cash.

top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Drusenija 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember reading a while back (so don't take it as gospel) that, for Australia at least, legal tender meant that if you have a debt owed for something, legally that person has to allow you to settle the debt with legal tender currency.

However there is nothing that says they have to accept the transaction to begin with, meaning they were allowed to have a rule like this because if you didn't accept it, they just didn't sell to you, which means there was no debt accrued that you could settle with legal tender. And if you did accept it, you've already paid with your card, so no need for cash.

Don't know if the same logic applies in Europe but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar justification. They have to accept legal tender for a debt, but they don't have to allow the debt to be incurred.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s exactly how it is in the US as well. The US makes a clear distinction between point of sale (PoS) transactions and debt payments. Legal tender must¹ be accepted accepted in the US as payment toward a debt. W.r.t. PoS, legal tender is protected in the sense that legal tender can be accepted, but both parties must agree.

I thought it was bizarre that #Belgium does not distinguish a PoS from a debt. But it was explained to me this way: Belgium is very contract-focused. Whether you have a PoS or debt, there is always a contract of terms that come into force when two parties begin a transaction or business relationship. So that contract is still in play when it comes time to pay a debt. So the Belgians see no need to make a distinction.

“Must” is a simplification. A creditor can refuse to take the money and not face any legal consequences. But if a debtor manages to leave cash in the creditor’s possession, the debt is legally regarded as paid. E.g. you can leave the money on the creditor’s countertop/desk, etc, and walk out. Seems a bit off to do that though.. i mean, you would want proof of that.