It’s still a business with operating expenses, creditors, employees, etc. The fact they provided a service which dealt solely with virtual “property” doesn’t change that. In any event, the inevitable investigations, lawsuits, etc. should be fascinating to watch. Who wants popcorn?
I plan to offer CoinCoin. The hook is that with every virtual CoinCoin, you also get a premium copper/zinc commemorative token, stamped with a handsome portrait of George Washington!
What the hell?
Rupees are legal tender in India, ok? If that’s not blindingly obvious and triggercut’s IMF buddy is not persuasive, then you’ll be forced to make do with the FAQ of the Central Bank of India.
What is legal tender?
The coins issued under the authority of Section 6 of The Coinage Act, 2011, shall be legal tender in payment or on account i.e. provided that a coin has not been defaced and has not lost weight so as to be less than such weight as may be prescribed in its
case: - (a) coin of any denomination not lower than one rupee shall be legal tender for any sum, (b) half rupee coin shall be legal tender for any sum not exceeding ten rupees,
Every banknote issued by Reserve Bank of India (
2,5,10,20,50,100,500 and1000) shall be legal tender at any place in India in payment or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government, subject to provisions of sub-section (2) Section 26 of RBI Act, 1934.
Newsflash:
Starlight has literally no idea about how anything in the entire universe works.
That’s right, I believe in things like democracy and workers rights. Thanks for stating your opposition!
Never mind you’re constantly claiming barter (and indeed, bitcoins) are legal tender… (say, how is mindwiping people across the internet working?)
magnet - It’s a mistranslation. The correct term is “acceptable payment” Legal Tender, again, is related to court debts, and that paragraph is discussing “at any place in India in payment or on account for the amount expressed therein”.
Legal Tender is NOT a intuitive concept, at all. Making assumptions about it is a bad idea. Again, there are actually quite a few conditions on if a Rupee note is acceptable for paying a court debt in India.
Can you provide any sources?
Sure. OED Law dictionary (yes, dead tree version).
First of all, mistranslation from what? English is an official language of India. Something written in English by the Indian government is not a mistranslation any more than your post is a mistranslation.
Even if that weren’t the case, the formal definition of “legal tender” varies by jurisdiction, just like the formal definition of “manslaughter”. The Oxford Dictionary of Law does not get to write legal definitions on behalf of the government.
Even if that weren’t the case, the Oxford Dictionary of Law does not appear to contain a definition of “legal tender”.
Finally, your reason for setting India apart doesn’t make any sense. “Any place in India” includes the court system, and it’s plainly obvious that rupees can be used to pay court debts in India. The language that establishes legal tender in the United States, similar to that used by India, emphasizes that it can used to extinguish any sort of debt. Which, by the way, is the accepted informal definition.
“extinguish any sort of debt”
Nope! There is no general legal requirement to accept business from someone. Both American and Indian law on this is derived from English common law.
That you’re depending on a wikipedia definition…that you don’t realise that just MAYBE some other laws might have been passed in the last 80 years which changed the law surrounding the rupee…
Have any such laws been passed, or are you still dancing to avoid admitting that you’re wrong?
That’s true, there is no general legal requirement to accept business from someone. For example, a grocery store owner could demand payment only in Spanish doubloons. Of course, customers retain the option to walk away without making their purchase.
However, if one agrees to accept future payment for services rendered (i.e. become a creditor), then one must accept legal tender to extinguish that debt. For example, if a hotel owner bills a guest on check-out, then payment cannot be demanded only in Spanish doubloons. And that makes sense, because there is no longer an option for the customer to walk away.
That you’re depending on a wikipedia definition
There are plenty of other definitions that say about the same thing. Here’s a few more to ponder.
Maybe. Maybe. So what have you got to show me in support of your odd conception of India, besides an Oxford reference book that you can’t be bothered to open?
Protip: If you’re trying to argue precise definitions of legal tender and you’re not familiar with the legal distinction between settling debts and making purchases, you need to shut up and let people who know a goddamn thing talk.
YES! For flip sake…I gave one example ages ago, any kind of political message or logo invalidates a rupee bill as legal tender.
magnet - Ah right, so you are accusing me of lying based on the fact I have a legal dictionary and you don’t, as you call India’s laws odd… Well, I’ll keep using invitation to treat, like any normal person.
Funkular - Yep - Legal Tender is ONLY about court debts. Thanks for backing me!
India isn’t odd, but your notions of it are. And I’m not accusing you of lying. I just think you are poorly informed on this matter and are making bizarre claims as a result.
You could prove us all wrong by actually showing us the Indian law that declares rupees are not legal tender. Since you can’t or won’t, I suspect it all comes down to a misinterpreted anecdote on your part, maybe of a particular rupee note that was defaced and thus rendered worthless (as would be true of many currencies). Who knows, but anyway your story that “India has no legal tender” is rather unpersuasive.
Yea, no Inscribed Notes act. Well, then there’s no problem. Dimension 134?
Yes, there is an Indian law that considers currency defaced if inscribed with a political message, rendering it worthless. There are also countless ways to render dollar bills equally worthless, specified by American law. That’s not controversial. Declaring that “India has no legal tender” is quite another matter.
Oh, what are those countless means, for dollar bills?
One specific act, thanks, since you don’t believe laws are changed piecemeal…
You’re flailing, Starlight. But anyway, under Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: “Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association”
Nope, you’re the one lashing out, I’m going by what you said. You’re talking about defacement, which is something different - you missed the “with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued” bit. Oh, and it’s not only amended (“as amended by section 330016(1)(B) of title XXXIII of the Act of September 13, 1994”) it’s also one element, not “countless” ones.
So, that’s that, you’re wrong on your claims of fact there. Move on, there’s actually funny things to be mocked, like Bitcoin’s trajectory and the lawsuits shaping up over the fall of Mt.Gox. Or is there a reason that shouldn’t be discussed?
Here’s a funny thing to be mocked: Someone who refuses to admit that India has legal tender and thinks the matter is settled because a list of verbs is not “countless”.