Do legal tender laws prevent &quot;no cash&quot; restaurants?
<p><a href="https://www.eater.com/2018/11/27/18114798/cashless-restaurants-classist-racist" rel="noreferrer">This story</a> about restaurants that only accept electronic payment set me wondering. I know that under legal tender laws a business can set a policy on what forms of payment it will accept, but that only applies if <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender" rel="noreferrer">no debt exists prior to the time of payment</a>.  I think this creates a problem for restaurants trying to impose a "no cash" policy. Normally you only pay for your meal after you have eaten it, so the debt is incurred when you eat the meal, and the payment happens some minutes later. </p>

<p>Am I right in thinking that that legal tender laws would apply in this situation? If you provide payment in cash, the restaurant cannot then claim you haven't paid your debt.</p>

<p>Note: not a duplicate of <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/21975/is-it-legal-for-a-restaurant-to-not-accept-cash?rq=1">this question</a> because it did not consider the delay between incurring the debt and paying it.</p>

<p><strong>No</strong></p>

<p>A debt is created by a contract (among other ways not relevant here). A contract for a restaurant does not contemplate the creation of a debt, payment is to be contemporaneous with the service.</p>

<p>Presuming that the customer was made aware that cash payment was not acceptable and that they chose to enter the contract, by ordering, then they accepted that term. Not abiding by it is a breach of the contract.</p>

<p>Now, if the customer did not pay and the restaurant sued for the amount (plus damages) and won, <em>that</em> would be a debt for which cash must be accepted.</p>

united-states debt currency