> companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes
This is an important distinction. Credit card payments are not notes. They are not cash. So these companies have very little to do with the transfer of cash.
The point of "legal tender" is that if you try to pay off a debt in cash, they can't claim you haven't paid it and take you to court. If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice).
What's tricky is this has to be a debt, as in past tense. If you try to buy groceries with cash and they refuse, you can walk out but you can't the groceries with you.
Participation in the cash market is mandatory on anyone who is owed money. Everything else on top (credit cards, checks) is essentially voluntary. Merchants can take it or leave it, the processors can come or go.
If you want to make an argument about the outsized effect that Visa has on the US monetary system, that's totally legitimate. It just has little to do with the concept of "legal tender".
If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice).
I think they would have a case, because you still owe them a debt. But then after you lose the case you can pay in cash. Just how I understand it, could be wrong. Doesn't change your point though.
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "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."
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.
~
The important distinction is payment for goods or services vs payment for a debt. Dine-in restaurants work on debt (you eat the food then pay for it), but grocery stores work on payment for goods (you get the food and pay for it in one transaction).
I don't think it's accurate to say restaurants are extending credit to their customers. If you walk out without paying, it's theft, not defaulting on a loan.
Let's say you had a business that only accepted pokemon cards as payment. One of your customers does not pay their bill, so you take them to small claims court. The judge is going to rule that they pay you the value of the card, because debts are settled with money.
The way to avoid this if you want to really pay in cash is to order the cash from your bank and have an armored car service transport it for you. There is just little point since that's more expensive than a check or ACH transfer.
And yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is pure evil, I agree.
This is an important distinction. Credit card payments are not notes. They are not cash. So these companies have very little to do with the transfer of cash.
The point of "legal tender" is that if you try to pay off a debt in cash, they can't claim you haven't paid it and take you to court. If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice).
What's tricky is this has to be a debt, as in past tense. If you try to buy groceries with cash and they refuse, you can walk out but you can't the groceries with you.
Participation in the cash market is mandatory on anyone who is owed money. Everything else on top (credit cards, checks) is essentially voluntary. Merchants can take it or leave it, the processors can come or go.
If you want to make an argument about the outsized effect that Visa has on the US monetary system, that's totally legitimate. It just has little to do with the concept of "legal tender".