cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11153742
In a Dutch bar I ordered a few samples (which have no cost and were somewhat generous in size) and drank part way through them all. Then I ordered a full sized beer. I continued working on the samples.
Bartender asked if I wanted to pay now or start a tab. I asked if they accept cash. It feels silly to ask and I almost didn’t ask because the answer is always “yes”, of course. So I was shocked when the bartender said no.
WTF? Surely there would be enough customers who are wise enough to foresee possible consequences of having electronic records of alcohol consumption. It can only work against you, e.g. when the bank, data brokers, and insurance companies see an opportunity to collude and optimise your your insurance premiums using that info.
The GDPR would theoretically protect Europeans from that but bars are open to tourists -- non-Europeans with non-European bank accounts. I mentioned that to the bartender, who said “what’s the GDPR?” Wow. I was shocked again.
I made it clear that electronic payment doesn’t work for me (most especially when alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana are involved). I said: can someone pay with their own account and take my cash? Bartender asked if I have exact change. No, I didn’t but I got close enough that the bartender was able to use the tip jar to give me change.
I later noticed that the menu book (1st page after the cover) says “cash not accepted”. But I initially missed that because I ordered off the posted board. And there’s no guarantee anyway that a customer would see the first page. I often flip straight to the last page to look for drinks. When I left the bar I had a look at the entrance and door. There was no cash-hostile signage like some other shops have.
Questions for Dutch folks:
If the bar had been less reasonable, less flexible, how else might this have played out? I did not sip from the full beer before the conversation, so I suppose the bar could have just treated it like an erroneous beer pour and pour it down the drain.
Suppose I had not thought to ask if cash was accepted. What if I drank the beer and then my cash were refused with both sides standing their ground? There is a practical problem here not just a legal one. The hundreds worth of banknotes in my pocket would be worthless. So would it be no different than the situation of a deadbeat debtor who simply does not pay? Would I be cited and fined? Would I have the option to leave the bar with an invoice to pay by bank transfer, perhaps using the post office? Would I have to leave collateral such as an ID card while running the errand? And what if it’s Sunday or after hours of the post office?
What about the case where someone enters with bank card(s) that are in a broken state, unknown to the card holder? I’ve been in grocery store lines where a customer tries all their cards. Often the last card they try works but I’ve seen a case where someone had to leave all their groceries. I’ve been in situations where a card in good standing is refused for being foreign (despite the rules of the card network). Are these situations legally any different than someone who simply has no cards to pay with?
There is a very wise “EU Recommendation” that cash be accepted on payments towards debts specifically (not necessarily points of sale). I believe if you have a bar/restaurant tab that would be a /debt/, not a /point of sale/. But what are EU recommendations good for? Is it just to guide lawmakers, or is there some courtroom value when national policy deviates from the recommendation?
FWIW, this thread is where I learned that cash acceptance is optional in Netherlands. The original post was censored but that cross-post mirrors it.
The legal default is that a store accepts all forms of cash payment, but they are allowed to opt out of any or all denominations with posted signage either on the window or at the register. IANAL, but I doubt a mention in the menu qualifies as such.
On the other hand, if they have clear signage, then the argument that "card doesn't work for me" isn't an ability to pay if you have a working card, but a refusal to pay.
What if someone enters a place that takes cash, thinking they can pay with dollars (which happens at a non-zero rate in Amsterdam), or rubies and gold? The answer is the same in both cases: that's the customers problem.
The legal question is really "was it clearly posted?" If yes, then it's always the customer's problem for going into an agreement they can't fulfil. If not, it's the seller's problem for refusing a legal means of payment. That's really the crux of it, and the requirements for "clearly posted" are very broad: a card-sized sticker at the register is enough.
Your comment is mostly sensible and I appreciate your insight on the obligation to post cashless signage, but this seems a bit off:
EU law has established the definition of legal tender in the eurozone to include euro banknotes and coins. Each eurozone member state keeps its own laws as far as defining the role and purpose of legal tender (and that creates a bit of a mess, but it is what it is). I think a member state can include more forms of money as legal tender, but euro banknotes and coins are mandated by the commission to be part of the legal tender definition. So there can be little confusion about other currencies having legal tender status. There is also an EU Recommendation that legal tender be accepted on payment toward debts, and I believe running a tab and paying later must be a debt (as opposed to a point of sale). In any case, gold and rubies would not have equal standing to euro banknotes in Amsterdam.
I cannot say I put much stock into any guesswork that a broken card would be treated as if the customer brought nothing to pay with. Banks can (and often do) spontaneously disable cards at any moment without communicating to the card holder. The card may even be functional while you eat, and the bank could disable it 5 seconds before you tap the payment terminal. It could be entirely outside the card holder’s control -- by an shitty anti-fraud AI mechanism (which I have been at the receiving end of lately). It would be absurdly and embarrassingly harsh for a society to treat a victim of AI like a deadbeat freeloading non-payer. I can’t say you’re wrong because I don’t know Dutch law and procedure, but it sounds like conjecture.
Sometimes the card and card holder’s bank is not even at issue. Some machines rejected my perfectly valid card in Netherlands. The logo for the payment network matched and my account was funded. Machine rejected it saying “contact your bank”. The bank said there’s nothing wrong with the account.. no blocks.. card should work. The bank did a deeper check and said the transaction attempts were never even transmitted to the bank -- that the card processor itself decided to reject the card. So the machine that rejected my card lied, and erroneously implied the problem was on my side.
So when a card fails to pay out, that failure can potentially be entirely on the merchant side of the transaction. E.g. some merchants refuse foreign cards, which violates the terms of the Visa merchant agreement but it’s not enforced so merchants are happy to break it. And the messaging cannot be trusted. So surely as someone is in a bar or restaurant with a failing payment, there is no way to know with certainty on the spot where the fault is, amid false error messages. It requires investigation which may take some time. On top of that, some banks charge high hourly fees for investigations. This is why I’m interested in what Dutch law and procedure is in this situation.
This can also be a dicey scenario. Some foreign cards have no fees for global use, while cards not designed for foreign use can have absurdly high fees if used outside the country. I would plan on using only cards that are reasonable and perhaps carry the very costly cards for emergencies.
It’s also seems a bit haphazard that businesses only have to specify “no cash”, but not necessarily the forms of payment they take. So a customer could pull out a Diner’s Club card and find it’s not even compatible. This is another problem that would normally be easily solved with a cash option.