news.yahoo.com— Apple Inc. no longer accepts cash for iPhone purchases and now limits sales of the cell phone to two per person in a move to stop people from reselling them.
Oct 27, 2007View in Crawl 4
This is just stupid. All they are doing is forcing us to use banks. It is my opinion that I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want in cash if i so choose without ever having to go to a bank. IT"S MY FARKIN MONEY! this whole notion that your a criminal if you have more than like 200 dollars on you is ridiculous. If i go to the store with 10k in cash and want to buy a tv or iphones or whatever the hell I want thats my business and they should have to accept that. saying bank transfer / checks or cc only only empowers the banks, something that I should not have to do. They don't own me or my money but some companies seem to think otherwise.
There are several fundamental problems with your arguments. I will try to tackle them in turn as to keep other readers from getting confused by your uninformed and poorly reasoned comment.First, Apple does not have the burden of proving that they do not discriminate, it's the other way around. You are correct that proving a negative would be difficult, but luckily Apple would never have to prove it to a certainty, only to a preponderance of the evidence. Meaning they would have to just give more proof than the other side. Maybe Apple will change their policy because of bad press, and even potential lawsuits, but I highly doubt they would ever be forced to. Second, pennies are still legal tender. Up until the passage of the Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879, pennies and nickels were not legal tender. After the passages of those acts they were only legal tender for debts up to $ 0.25. Other fractional coins were legal tender up to $10. The Coinage Act of 1965 made all U.S. coins legal tender in any amount, and that is the current law. "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts." 31 USC 5103. I'm not sure where you get your belief about using pennies for the payment of taxes, but I think its quite clear that pennies would be a legally sufficient, though not likely appreciated, form of payment.Third, the fact that vending machines reform those pennies does not depend on the legal tender status of pennies. I don't know the exact reason, but I would imagine good-old-fashioned innovation has much more to do with the proliferation of those machines than any perceived change in the law. “Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..." 18 USC 331. The key word in that section is "fraudulently." The purpose of those machines is not to perpetrate some fraud like making nickels into dimes, but to create a souvenir. Intent to perpetrate fraud is a required element of the crime, and thus without it, there is no violation of the law. Further, the law clearly covers any "coin[] coined at the mints of the United States." There is no requirement that the coin constitute legal tender. FYI, 18 USC 333 deals with paper money.Finally, the fact that the notes contain the statement "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" does not make it the law. It is merely a reflection of what the law is, a reminder, so to speak. Just because its written on the bill has no binding effect on anyone. No competent jurist would allow a plaintiff to forgo actually citing the law by just holding up a bill and saying "Look, Your Honor, it's right there on the money, that has to be the law."P.S. Currency also has the phrase "In God We Trust." Which, I might add, is much more prominent than the legal tender phrase. Does that mean that that is the law, or that we must actually trust in God before we are allowed to use the money? I'm quite sure the answer to both questions are no.
I'm just curious, but which statute or case says that they have to give a "damn good reason?" I'm curious, because I almost assuredly have much more experience in this area than you, as clear from your comments, but I do not know of any law like this. In fact, the only reasons I can think of that would be illegal are discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (Civil Rights Act of 1964) Apparently your "evil intent" doctrine is made up, so thats kind of hard to rebut. But you are correct that its legal to refuse to sell, but you are incorrect in that there must be an affirmative reason. This is clearly not the law. The law is you can refuse to sell for any reason, unless that reason is prohibited. I can refuse to sell to you if I think your ugly, stupid, fat, smell bad, aren't wearing shoes, aren't wearing a shirt, are wearing an ugly shirt, or just because I'm in a bad mood. None of those reasons are unlawful, and neither is refusing a sale because they don't pay in cash. In fact the law doesn't even care if you require payment in the form of red jelly beans, as long as this is a condition place before the actual sale happens its all good.
Look up the definition of Legal Tender. I am waiting for the first lawsuit. Steve Jobs cant possibly be the ONLY person allowed to screw over a corporation or are you all forgetting his little blue box invention?
Drug dealers probably don't have bank accounts that's so unfair to all Nancy Botwins out there. Apple really sucks. Like a central vac. I mean everybody hates at&t. They suck! I mean for a media phone, you need an awesome media network. and who is that? sprint! at&t has the worst service!
I'm walking in with exactly enough cash for one all in one dollar bills and if they refuse I'm bitching...and it is a big deal for people who... dont have credit cards
elderonOct 27, 2007
This is just stupid. All they are doing is forcing us to use banks. It is my opinion that I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want in cash if i so choose without ever having to go to a bank. IT"S MY FARKIN MONEY! this whole notion that your a criminal if you have more than like 200 dollars on you is ridiculous. If i go to the store with 10k in cash and want to buy a tv or iphones or whatever the hell I want thats my business and they should have to accept that. saying bank transfer / checks or cc only only empowers the banks, something that I should not have to do. They don't own me or my money but some companies seem to think otherwise.
soonerroadieOct 30, 2007
There are several fundamental problems with your arguments. I will try to tackle them in turn as to keep other readers from getting confused by your uninformed and poorly reasoned comment.First, Apple does not have the burden of proving that they do not discriminate, it's the other way around. You are correct that proving a negative would be difficult, but luckily Apple would never have to prove it to a certainty, only to a preponderance of the evidence. Meaning they would have to just give more proof than the other side. Maybe Apple will change their policy because of bad press, and even potential lawsuits, but I highly doubt they would ever be forced to. Second, pennies are still legal tender. Up until the passage of the Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879, pennies and nickels were not legal tender. After the passages of those acts they were only legal tender for debts up to $ 0.25. Other fractional coins were legal tender up to $10. The Coinage Act of 1965 made all U.S. coins legal tender in any amount, and that is the current law. "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts." 31 USC 5103. I'm not sure where you get your belief about using pennies for the payment of taxes, but I think its quite clear that pennies would be a legally sufficient, though not likely appreciated, form of payment.Third, the fact that vending machines reform those pennies does not depend on the legal tender status of pennies. I don't know the exact reason, but I would imagine good-old-fashioned innovation has much more to do with the proliferation of those machines than any perceived change in the law. “Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..." 18 USC 331. The key word in that section is "fraudulently." The purpose of those machines is not to perpetrate some fraud like making nickels into dimes, but to create a souvenir. Intent to perpetrate fraud is a required element of the crime, and thus without it, there is no violation of the law. Further, the law clearly covers any "coin[] coined at the mints of the United States." There is no requirement that the coin constitute legal tender. FYI, 18 USC 333 deals with paper money.Finally, the fact that the notes contain the statement "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" does not make it the law. It is merely a reflection of what the law is, a reminder, so to speak. Just because its written on the bill has no binding effect on anyone. No competent jurist would allow a plaintiff to forgo actually citing the law by just holding up a bill and saying "Look, Your Honor, it's right there on the money, that has to be the law."P.S. Currency also has the phrase "In God We Trust." Which, I might add, is much more prominent than the legal tender phrase. Does that mean that that is the law, or that we must actually trust in God before we are allowed to use the money? I'm quite sure the answer to both questions are no.
soonerroadieOct 30, 2007
I'm just curious, but which statute or case says that they have to give a "damn good reason?" I'm curious, because I almost assuredly have much more experience in this area than you, as clear from your comments, but I do not know of any law like this. In fact, the only reasons I can think of that would be illegal are discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (Civil Rights Act of 1964) Apparently your "evil intent" doctrine is made up, so thats kind of hard to rebut. But you are correct that its legal to refuse to sell, but you are incorrect in that there must be an affirmative reason. This is clearly not the law. The law is you can refuse to sell for any reason, unless that reason is prohibited. I can refuse to sell to you if I think your ugly, stupid, fat, smell bad, aren't wearing shoes, aren't wearing a shirt, are wearing an ugly shirt, or just because I'm in a bad mood. None of those reasons are unlawful, and neither is refusing a sale because they don't pay in cash. In fact the law doesn't even care if you require payment in the form of red jelly beans, as long as this is a condition place before the actual sale happens its all good.
mileNov 14, 2007
Look up the definition of Legal Tender. I am waiting for the first lawsuit. Steve Jobs cant possibly be the ONLY person allowed to screw over a corporation or are you all forgetting his little blue box invention?
psantoriniDec 26, 2007
Drug dealers probably don't have bank accounts that's so unfair to all Nancy Botwins out there. Apple really sucks. Like a central vac. I mean everybody hates at&t. They suck! I mean for a media phone, you need an awesome media network. and who is that? sprint! at&t has the worst service!
iphonemaniacJan 25, 2008
I'm walking in with exactly enough cash for one all in one dollar bills and if they refuse I'm bitching...and it is a big deal for people who... dont have credit cards