Man arrested at Best Buy for using $2 bills

[jahcs]

Nah, the media has just reinforced the "Be Afraid of Everything" and "Save Us From Ourselves" mentalities for so long that we find any excuse to restict other people's freedoms, not always for good reasons.

[Tal]

We always got a orange and an apple in our stockings. :)

[Bob]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a law in the US saying that all legal tender must be accepted for payment of a debt (not trading in a contract, paying what you owe someone already) and if someone refuses to accept legal tender then the forfeit what they're owed. Or am I making that up?

Doesn't he have a pretty blatant false arrest case there? both BestBuy and the local police deserve to get legally flattened for this.

-Bob

[Ashock]

Ok, I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but in this case it is absolutely warranted. The punitive damages should be huge, and well deserved.



-A

[jahcs]

From the treasury website:

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

clicky


edit: Makes me wonder if the Post Office would have to accept a giant bag of pennies as payment since they are a Federal Institution...

[Bob the Beholder]

Man, that just makes me want to beat people with the You Are a Moron stick.

At my job, I handle money. I got a 2$ bill a while back, and, being that I lack sufficient levels of moron status, I didn't even bother breaking out the counterfeit pen, or asking about it. I looked at it, said, "Don't see those every day." And took it.

Then there's the whole part about 9/11 being used as an excuse for everything no matter what, which is so stupid that I am going to stop thinking about it right now, or I might just mail myself to Canada. (That is an exaggeration, of course.)

[swirly]

We always got a orange and an apple in our stockings. :)
[right][snapback]73321[/snapback][/right]

I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post, but apples and oranges used to be given out to kids at christmas at my church. I remember that after the service, everyone would head downstairs. There would be two tables on one side in the room down there: one with apples, one with orange. Eventually Santa would show up and would sit in a chair at the end of the tables. So then kids could get in line at the tables, get an apple, an orange, and then sit on Santas lap.

[MongoJerry]

We always got an apple and an orange/nectarine in our stockings. The primary reason was that these took up a lot of room in the stocking, so that santa/my mother could get away with putting less candy in the stockings.

[Ashock]

From the treasury website:
clicky
edit: Makes me wonder if the Post Office would have to accept a giant bag of pennies as payment since they are a Federal Institution...
[right][snapback]73329[/snapback][/right]

Refusing to accept a certain currency is not the same as having someone arrested. The first scenario would warrant the manager's tires being slashed. The second warrants them being reposessed.


Edit: Forgot to put in.....


-A

[jahcs]

The link to the Treasury website was to help answer Bob's question. And I agree, some punitive damages may be in order. Sometimes it's the only way to get corporations/agencies to stand up and take notice that they messed up.

[Gregorius]

We always got an apple and an orange/nectarine in our stockings.  The primary reason was that these took up a lot of room in the stocking, so that santa/my mother could get away with putting less candy in the stockings.
[right][snapback]73346[/snapback][/right]

For a long time I thought that happened because, ahem, *somebody* wanted me to eat more fruit. But later on it occurred to me that they were huge! I always got a grapefruit, orange, apple, bag of pistachios, and a "trinket," usually a really really small book, or some other miniature toy. Then there were a couple candies...

The best thing Best Buy has ever done for me was tell me the time. Other than that Best Buy is like being a level 20 Night Elf Priest wandering into Astranaar for the first time and getting insta-Ambushed by the rogue who's been there for an hour...

I would be very surprised if somebody paid something in $2 bills. But I'd take it in stride. There are worse things for customers to do. My brother has a million horror stories from working at Barnes and Noble.

[Sailboat]

Best Buy has had someone arrested for perfectly legal behavior before.

What I find outrageous and incomprehensible about these stories is that the police go along with these complaints and arrest the lawfully-behaving people. These same police tell me they can't intervene in a car accident that took place on "private property" (a store parking lot) but they are more than willing to handcuff someone for completely legal behavior in a store itself.

Sigh.

Sailboat

[jahcs]

To play a bit of Devil's advocate here:

Recording prices in stores may be legal but store owners have the "right to refuse service to anyone" -- as long as the refusal isn't based on race, sex, creed, religion, etc. Refusing to leave private property, loitering, trespassing, etc, are crimes. The basis the store used to make him leave is complete hogwash though.

[Dako-ta]

Hi, Lochnar,
[quote=LochnarITB,Apr 7 2005, 03:26 AM]
It amazes me to see the Frankenstein's Monster that Best Buy has become. Best Buy started as a few Sound of Music stores here in the Twin Cities in Minnesota. They started as small stores selling stereo systems and doing car stereo installations. In my early twenties, I spent many hours in the stores. My best friend was an assistant manager of a couple different stores and we often did "component testing" after hours....

the Roseville (St. Paul, MN suburb) store that got blown away. "

Yeah, I was living in St. Paul at what I think was about that time (1979/80?), and bought a couple of stereo components from them (I think it might have been from that Roseville store). In fact, I still have both of those components, even though neither are yet functional; the Akai cassette deck is probably dead for good, but I suspect the Kenwood integrated amplifier could still be fixed, if I had the money). Both served me long and well, and I just can't bear to throw them away. :(

Besides, the Akai was such a distinctive styling , I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't bring something on e-Bay (it was the best deck Akai made for about a three-year period, when most models were changed every 6-10 months).

Anyway, when I first started hearing about Best Buy after moving to Michigan, I thought, "Hmmm, wasn't that the name of that small store I shopped at in the Twin Cities? Still, can't be the same, it must be coincidence..."

But over the years, the more I heard, I eventually became convinced there was a connection. Thanks for further verification.

Lately, Best Buy got in the local news when a customer bought a digital camera there and when he got home, found the box was empty. When he went back to BB, they said they would check their inventory to see if an extra camera was listed; it wasn't, so they refused to either give the man his money back or give him a new camera, claiming the box was sealed when it left the store, so they had no way to know if he was telling the truth or not (but implying he probably wasn't).

Now, even the guy who bought the camera and contacted the local newspaper admitted that it was an ambiguous situation; he said if he was the BB manager,he wasn't sure he would have acted any differently. Still, he was out $500 or so, and it hurt.

Reader reaction was mixed but most people thought BB was out of line. One reader sent in a news item from another part of the USA, where a BB store did give a customer a new camera in exactly the same situation!

I remember in my first retail job (a Radio Shack franchise store, in the mid '70's), how shocked I was when a regular customer who came almost weekly to buy parts, tried to scam me. He gave me a ten, and after I gave him his change back, he started to put it in his wallet, then did a double-take and said, "Wait a minute, I gave you a twenty." Now in this case, I KNEW he had given me a ten, so I told him that, no it was a ten dollar bill. He continued to protest, saying he knew there was a twenty in his wallet when he came in, so the manager who had been standing nearby, but out of sight of the customer, came over and sided with me, saying he had seen that it was a ten. At this point the customer said he must have been mistaken, pocketed his change, and left.

Now, I've been in the situation where I got change back, put it in my billfold and realized there was less money there than I expected, but usually, when I thought about it, I could remember where the "missing" money went to. I just didn't get the feeling that this customer was telling the truth (aside from remembering clearly that it was a ten), I guess he wasn't a good enough actor to pull off the scam completely.

Here's what a local business consultant wrote a couple of weeks after the BB camera flap got play:

"Customers: Return policies shouldn't have priority over common sense

COMMENTARY


By Scott Stolz
For the Lansing State Journal
Advertisement


On March 28, John Schneider wrote a follow-up column about a Best Buy customer who bought a digital camera. When the customer opened the box, he found all of the pieces except the camera. Best Buy denied him a refund on the grounds that there was no proof that the camera was not in the box when it left the store.

On the same day, the cover story in Business Weekly was titled "Fending Off the Dreaded Serial Returnees." The article noted that "retail return fraud - returning items for a full refund after they had been used - reached about $16 billion in 2002..."

I was struck by how these two stories epitomize a problem that companies face today. How does a company protect itself from the 1 to 2 percent who are perfectly willing to take advantage of the company without installing policies that alienate the 98 to 99 percent who want to do business with it?

Increasingly, companies have chosen to deal with these issues by tightening up their return policies. It is not surprising that honest customers can get annoyed with these new procedures. The Best Buy customer was understandably upset that Best Buy denied his refund.

On the other hand, Best Buy's policy is understandable. It would not be difficult to remove a camera from the box and claim that a refund was due because the box was empty.

So how should a company set out to protect itself against fraud and theft without putting undue restrictions on its good customers? The answer is, "it depends."

While a policy is necessary, it cannot be viewed as the end-all solution. You have to look at each situation independently and ask yourself if the policy works in this case.

This approach means someone must be empowered to apply common sense to these situations even if that leads them to an action contrary to the company's policy and procedure. Unfortunately, common sense often takes a back seat to "that's our policy."

Scott Stolz is owner of Baseball Academy of
Mid-Michigan. His e-mail address is commonsenseservice@comcast.net"


Well, nothing profound; rather wishy-washy from some points of view, but at least he does point out that common sense should trump a rigid adherence to policy.

As far as the situation DeeBye brings up, common sense was clearly lacking <shudder> "There but for the grace of God..."

By the way, how many knew that there is currently a new proposal by the Bush administration to require US/American citizens to have to show a Passport when re-entering the USA after visiting Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and Panama? The article in the Lansing State Journal I read wasn't clear if this is an actual bill already introduced into Congress or just an intention to produce such.

[After writing most of the following, it occurred to me: This link should get you to the bit I read: http://lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/...=73204813867349 ] -- at least for a couple/few more days; apparently the LSJ only keeps articles on their website for 7 days; after that they get moved to a fee-for-service archive.

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea, even if there is some logic to it. I wonder how many residents of USA/Canada border states who regularly visit our Northern neighbor even have Passports? I suspect very few. One of my brothers and his sons are avid sportsmen, and occasionally go up to Sask. to fish. I think the only one in my immediate family to have a Passport is my oldest brother, who was in the Peace Corps back in the '60's (and he may not have kept it current; it's never occurred to me to ask him about it).

Rep. Bart Stupak's statement "the changes likely would not hurt commerce or tourism" strikes me as fatuous. "Likely" -- on this basis we are going to make a change that will require potentially tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of US citizens, to get a passport for the first time? How many truck drivers crossing from the US into Canada and back again do you think have passports?

Of course, spurring a couple of hundred thousand or more potential travelers to get new passports (at $100+ each), I guess, is one way to help balance the budget [-- oops, pardon me, my cynicism is showing].

I'm getting incoherent, past time to head for bed. 'Nite, all.

Regards,

Dako-ta

[ShadowHM]

By the way, how many knew that there is currently a new proposal by the Bush administration to require US/American citizens to have to show a Passport when re-entering the USA after visiting Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and Panama? The article in the Lansing State Journal I read wasn't clear if this is an actual bill already introduced into Congress or just an intention to produce such.

[right][snapback]73667[/snapback][/right]

Hi Dako-ta

I knew about this measure; it will affect me and mine rather soon.

I cottage on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. Most of my cottage neighbours are Americans from the Buffalo, New York area. The area was started as a 'cottage community' by fishermen from there who started building cottages in the 1920's and 1930's.

Most of them already have Nexus cards for quicker border crossings. It is completely unclear as to whether this passport requirement will affect them, as they already pass a fairly rigorous listing of personal information to get this card, but it will certainly slow down an already lengthy weekly drive if they do need to get and show passports to cross the border.

It will affect me and my family for winter visits to my Buffalo friends. We often go to Niagara Falls for a visit and hop across the border to pay a social call to them and their children. On our last visit, it was a quick and painless stop at Customs and Immigration at the bridge. But if we all need passports, it may preclude those visits.

[jahcs]

The passport law is a reasonable action on the border. Currently the fastest way through our local border, north of Seattle on I-5, is to have a Nexus card, because you skip the line of cars, and the next fastest is to have a passport in the regular line. A passport for crossing our southern border is long overdue, IMHO.

Mandatory use of Passports will only be an inconvenience the first time for citizens. To get a passport, fill out the form, get the picture, pay the fee, and wait a bit. A little planning now can make it easy to take those spur of the moment trips to see our friends above the parallel. Getting yourself a passport is a good idea.

BTW: this topic may deserve it's own thread ;)

[ShadowHM]

The passport law is a reasonable action on the border.&nbsp; Currently the fastest way through our local border, north of Seattle on I-5, is to have a Nexus card, because you skip the line of cars, and the next fastest is to have a passport in the regular line.&nbsp; A passport for crossing our southern border is long overdue, IMHO.

Mandatory use of Passports will only be an inconvenience the first time for citizens.&nbsp; To get a passport, fill out the form, get the picture, pay the fee, and wait a bit.&nbsp; A little planning now can make it easy to take those spur of the moment trips to see our friends above the parallel.&nbsp; Getting yourself a passport is a good idea.


[right][snapback]73699[/snapback][/right]

You are probably right about the reasonability of such a rule, given how porous the Canadian borders seem to be. :(

However, you will readily understand, I am sure, my reluctance to go through the hassle (and expense) of six passports, most of which will need renewing long before the usual ten year life expectancy of such a document, just for the sake of 'popping in for coffee' when on a family excursion to Niagara.

For anyone who routinely travels between the U.S. of A. and Canada, whether on personal or business reasons, having one is already a good idea, especially for those who are naturalised citizens (i.e. not born in Canada). However, having a passport, when actually driving across the border, (as opposed to flying to your destination) is not any guarantee of swift passage. Line-ups are long and bridges are in short supply. Any extra documentation that must be produced is bound to slow the process down and make those lines longer.

And, for families: a further complicating factor is travel with children. I do understand the need to protect children from parents who kidnap their kids and flee the country. But the cost of that protection is a giant PITA for anyone who is travelling with children but not with spouse. Getting sworn affadavits for a weekend at the cottage when the wife has to work is not something easy to do, especially if the wife can't come because she has to work overtime, eh? I have friends who have faced this, and it just added frustration to the trip even before the inevitable "Are we there yet" and "I have to go...." have set in.

As to this meriting its own thread? Maybe. :P

[jahcs]

Good Points Shadow.

Cheers!

[DeeBye]

You are probably right about the reasonability of such a rule, given how porous the Canadian borders seem to be.&nbsp; &nbsp; :(
[right][snapback]73723[/snapback][/right]

As a youngster I always used to live in "border towns". As a result, my family would quite often visit the US. Back then, the unfettered ability for US/Canadian citizens to freely cross the border was something everyone praised. No other neighbouring countries in the world were as friendly as the US and Canada, so we saw no reason why we couldn't enjoy an open door policy.

Now, instead of using the term "open border" we use the term "porous border". Instead of making it easy for friendly neighbours to visit each other we are making it tougher. At this rate in another 20 years or so we'll have a giant wall manned with armed guards stretching along the 49th parallel. This makes me sad :(

I absolutely understand and agree with the reasons behind tightening up border crossing procedures, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

edit: yeah, this thread was derailed pretty badly. Best Buy and Canada/US border crossings have nothing to do with each other :huh:

[Minionman]

edit: yeah, this thread was derailed pretty badly.&nbsp; Best Buy and Canada/US border crossings have nothing to do with each other&nbsp; :huh:
[right][snapback]73751[/snapback][/right]

People could smuggle pirated software over the border, which companies like Best Buy want to crack down on.

(at least I tried) <_<