Talk:Legal tender

message: some euro dollar bearing the word "not legal tender" ,please explain.
:where did you see euro coins/banknotes bearing it? Gugganij 10:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro dollar

message: Legal tender laws were originally known as "Forced Tender".
Googling for "forced tender" reveals this.
Something about "legal tender" previously being called "forced tender" should be included in the main text. --Octothorn 08:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced tender

message: As well as legal tender, there is the concept of whether or not a bank is required to accept certain money for deposits - I'm not sure what the word(s) for this are.  For example, it is my understanding that Scottish banknotes, while not being legal tender in England, must be accepted by English banks.  Is this right?  If so, should the article mention the distinction?  EdDavies 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal tender vs "bankability" 

message: There is a concept of legal tender in Scotland.  When they existed, Bank of England £1 notes were legal tender.  The Scottish Parliament says 
Under this narrow legal definition Scottish banknotes have never, even in Scotland, except for two very short periods during the two World Wars, been legal tender. Bank of England banknotes are also not legal tender in Scotland under this definition. Only coins from the Royal Mint are legal tender in Scotland and even these are subject to limitations, e.g. £1 worth of 1pcoins is legal tender but £1.01 is not. £1 and £2 coins are legal tender in Scotland to unlimited amounts. --Henrygb 09:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal tender in Scotland

message: Is the Indian rupee legal tender alongside the national currencies (which are pegged to the rupee) in both Nepal and Bhutan? Just checking. Man vyi 11:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Indian rupee is also legal tender in Bhutan.  I don't think it is in Nepal, but it may be exepted as legal tender.  Zntrip 00:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea on the status of the Indian rupee anywhere. However you need to be clear about the meaning of legal tender as described in this article. It has a specific meaning. The fact that a currency may be widely or universally accepted doesn't necessarily mean it's legal tender since it has a specific meaning related to the laws of the country. The situation in Scotland is a good example where there is NO legal tender. Nil Einne 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The mere fact that a particular kind of money is universally accepted in a particular country as currency does not mean that the money has legal tender status in that country. We're talking about two separate concepts. See other dicussions below. Famspear (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal tender in India 

message: precise equivalent values= is precise the right word here?--Gbleem 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  precise equivalent values 

message: Culled:
:"... the restaurant is not in debt, it has been given a gift."
No.  The restaurant was first in credit.  A large bank note has been tendered for payment of the customer's debt.  No gift has occurred and the restaurant does now owe the change, it is not a gift, even if the change cannot be paid now.  Paul Beardsell 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debt, Gift, Invitation to Treat vs. Binding Offer 

message: I've been searching but cannot find any information about the following scenario, which I'll illustrate with an example. Suppose you receive a traffic ticket and thus are indebted to the county for $55. You show up to court with a $100 bill. The court says you must bring exact change so won't take payment in the form of a $100 bill. If the fine were $100, they'd be happy to take it. So the issue is not whether they will take the large bill, but whether they have to be able to provide change. What law, if any, covers this scenario?
:: Several posibilities. Firstly the court may be breaking the law. Secondly many legal tender laws have limits on the ways and means of payment. For instance in many juristictions you can't use an excessive number of small denomination coins to pay a large debt. There is a restriction on how many small coins can be used. See the following link as an example:  Terjepetersen 12:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the recipient is not required to "make change." I don't have a citation to a specific law on that, but at least in the United States I believe that's the general rule. Famspear (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's true. They would of course be legally required to accept your $100 bill for the debt, but in doing so they may require you to forfeit any balance owing. Presuming you don't want to lose out on $45 it would be your resonability to ensure you provide them exact legal tender Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: The UK section seems to have a paragraph missing: legal tender in Northern Ireland. The situation for NI is clearly similar to Scotland (except that both Northern Irish AND Scottish banknotes are in common circulation, in addition to Bank of England notes). Can someone fill in the legal details? Mtford 19:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just fixed. (Been a long time!) Ph1729 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland? 

message: In the US section the limits on the use of coin seem to come from Canadian law  .  They may also apply in Australia and other countries.  However, after a brief search I cannot find any definitive information for the US.  Could someone more familiar with the subject please add an appropriate reference or revise the section?  137.65.157.18 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: The australia bit is a bit confusing as it dosn't mention the $1,$2 coins properly. if you have a look here http://www.ramint.gov.au/about_ram/faq.cfm at Q13 it explains it a bit better. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 06:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: When were the legal tender aspects of the acts/laws of 1873, 1866, & 1864 overturned?.  I know those laws were still in effect as of 1930 as per Neil Carothers book "Fractional Money: A history of small coins and fractional paper currency of the United States" but I can't find any information inbetween 1930 and 1965.  Basically as of 1930, the Feb 12, 1873 law (or act or whatever) had all the silver coins as legal tender up to $10, the May 16, 1866 law (or act or whatever) had the nickel as legal tender up to 25cents, and the April 22, 1864 law (or act or whatever) had the penny as legal tender up to 25 cents.  Was it the 1965 currency act that specifically overruled them? and if so where can I find the full text of that?  Thank you.
Gecko G (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Coins legal tender limit? 

message: I find the following odd material in the article:
::In 1798, Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote that the federal government has no power “of making paper money or anything else a legal tender,” and he advocated a constitutional amendment to enforce this principle by denying the federal government the power to borrow. [footnote] Jefferson, Thomas.  Letter to John Taylor (November 26, 1798), reprinted in The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 4, page 260 (1859). [end footnote]
I haven't read the Jefferson letter, but the part about proposing an amendment to enforce the prinicple "by denying the federal government the power to borrow" is confusing. The power to borrow money and the power to designate a particular currency as legal tender for antecedent debts are two different things. A rule that would say "the government cannot borrow money" would not prevent the government from making a rule that says "currency X shall be legal tender". So I'm unclear on what is intended by this verbiage.
The concept of "currency" or "current money," the concept of "legal tender," and the concept of "government borrowing money" are all separate concepts.
Comments, anyone? Famspear (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefferson was unconvinced that the vote taken during the Constitutional Convention to strip the Federal government of the power to print paper money would hold and that eventually that stripping would be ineffectual. One way to avoid that intent of that vote would be to force debt paper on an unwilling public and he sought to block that avenue by barring the Federal government from issuing debt. That path was the one actually take (showing Jefferson's foresight) as the "greenback" debt was forced on an unwilling public by legal tender laws to fund the Civil War. Later non legal tender demand notes for gold and silver coin, evolved into today's unbacked dollar. This is thanks to Federal Reserve overprinting of gold demand notes in the 20's and 30's and overprinting of silver demand notes up into the 1960's. This overprinting and the inevitable failure to honor the "demand" obligation on those notes led to the US first dropping gold and then silver as a part of the currency.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd statement regarding Jefferson

message: Would someone please consider the following revision. In accordance with the Coinage Act 1971, UK gold coins are legal tender for any amount. The sovereign, double sovereign and quintuple sovereign are covered by the current revision which states that £1, £2, and £5 coins are legally tenderable for any amount. However, the 'half sovereign' is a valid coin with a face value, I believe, of 50p. Therefore, this wording should be added to the section about coins OK for any value 'and gold half sovereigns which have a face value of 50p'. Of course, spending any sovereign at face value would be a very silly thing to do, as it's bullion value is many times greater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.84.226 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UK coins legal tender

message: This doesn't make sense:
"Bank of England notes are the only banknotes that are legal tender in England and Wales. [...]
"Scottish notes are legal tender everywhere in the UK"
If only Bank of England notes are legal tender in England, then Scottish notes can't be legal tender in the entire UK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.83.55 (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now reverted to "Scottish notes are not legal tender anywhere in the UK". Well spotted, thanks. Man vyi (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland

message: The article doesn't really give any explanation of the history and purpose of legal tender laws. See for example [Legal Tender Laws and Fractional-Reserve Banking]. Legal tender laws originated as a way for governments to force bad money on people who would not otherwise accept it. Of course this is controversial and probably considered POV but isn't it a perspective that should be explained in the article? ScottJ (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal Tender laws have historically been used to defraud the people of their wealth. It is simply a more advanced version of "debasement" used to water down gold and silver coinage. The power to print money is equivalent to the power to steal since the one doing the printing can take anything he wants simply by printing one or more pieces of paper. Arguably a Central Bank/Government can eventually own everything by continually exercising that power.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and purpose of legal tender? 

message: I've just removed a vaguely accurate but somewhat misplaced comment about hemp once being legal tender in the US - it and other materials were declared legal tender by a number of colonies (a Virginia statute of 1682 cites "flax and hemp, washed wool, tar, and
lumber"), to a) indirectly boost production of a strategic resource, and b) alleviate shortages of circulating coin.
Reason a) is fairly irrelevant here, but b) is quite interesting - we only really deal with legal tender as a concept applying to money, whereas it has cropped up throughout history as a status bestowed on some fairly surreal things we don't think of as money, as above. Should this be addressed here, and if so is there a good source around to draw on? Shimgray | talk | 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-currency as legal tender 

message: It seems bizarre to me to site the British royal mint as definitive that legal tender must be accepted for all debts - while that may be the case in the UK, that doesn't necessarily mean it is worldwide, and regardless, the Royal Mint isn't a source for say, France or the US Darquis (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Mint citation? 

message: I don't have time to go through it now. That section has many minor errors of grammar. Snezzy (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Legal Tender section needs editing 

message: There should be a section on the legitimacy of legal tender. In the words of Larry Parks:
If the money is good, and would be preferred by the people, then why are legal tender laws necessary? If the money is not good, then why in a democracy should people be forced to accept it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.216.95 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality of legal tender 

message: The article is lacking in pre Civil war material. Here is some relevant material that should be included.
During the drafting of the US Constitution a vote was taken to strip the power to print paper money from the Federal government. This power was specifically included in the Articles of Confederation and in the draft version of the US Constitution.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good. 
On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 
Madison later wrote in Federalist 44
"The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it."
The US Supreme Court ruled in accordance with the above vote until it was packed by Grant and reversed itself (something that happens once in a blue moon). The US Supreme Court has further never ruled as to whether paper money is forbidden by the 10th Amendment as the Federal Government was specifically stripped of that power and by definition stripping is not "delegating".
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
BTW: Wiki used to have an article on the "Legal Tender Cases" which referenced that vote. That article got scrapped recently.
AUTHOR:    Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION:    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”   “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION:    The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional convention and Federalist papers 

message: The Danish krone and the Faroese króna, plus Greenlandic notes all share the DKK iso code, are interchangeable, but are only legal tender within their respective regions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.220.144 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special mention of the Danish Krone needed? 

message: Would it be more correct to say that "Legal tender is a medium of payment denominated in a specified monetary unit recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation expressed in terms of that unit."  Otherwise the definition is meaningless in the general case.  US dollar bills are not intended by the law to be recognized legally as meeting a loan obligation expressed in Mexican pesos, or in ounces of gold, right?
Mark.camp (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary units 

message: Current intro sentence is 
 "Legal tender is a medium of payment recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.
In the US legal system, is a payment in dollar bills recognized as valid for meeting an obligation to repay a loan of 100 Euros?
If not, then either a loan of Euros is not a financial obligation, or the text is incorrect. I think a loan of Euros probably is a financial obligation, so I think the opening sentence may be in error.
Mcamp@cinci.rr.com (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Garchy (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That material falls under Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works.  Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up - feel free to remove this notice, I didn't want to since you've replied (and I would be removing your comment), but you have permission to remove my comments if you'd like! Garchy (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Federal Reserve is not part of the US Government so it is not Public Domain.  The Federal Reserve published this in July, which predates the August date. Part of the summary has to be removed as copyright infringing. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you posted reaffirms the link that Toddst1 reverted back to - the burden would be on you to prove that the cited link, which points to a ".gov" site, is not protected from copyright issues per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works. Until then, I don't see either of these being "original research" nor a copyright issue. Garchy (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone." That means it is not the legal property of the US Government, so its production is not in the Public Domain. It is an independent entity. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again.   https://www.federalreserve.gov/disclaimer.htm says "This is a protected U.S. government website."   Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Please read this - if you read this it will answer all your questions about this, and hopefully put an end to this discussion. Garchy (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Try searching for Federal Reserve. You wont find it listed. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: It is a mirror of . It specifically states  "This website contains copyrighted material, trademarked material, and other proprietary information, including but not limited to text, software, graphics, logos, and button icons that are the property of the Federal Reserve Banks or third parties." 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that frbservices.org website specifically says "SOURCE: Board of Governors, FAQs (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm" Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was already pointed out that the Board of Governors is not owned by the US Government or an official part of it. It is independent. It was also pointed out that .gov is not just for US government websites. These are the same issues that had you dragged before ArbCom before you dramaquit to save from being banned. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works and to the CENDI FAQ on "Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright", "Copyrighted works that are not owned by the Government should be included on government web sites only with permission of the copyright owner and should include an appropriate copyright notice."   No such notice exists on the federalreserve.gov site or treasury.gov site with that material.  Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  A .gov domain does not mean that you are owned by the US government: states, local governments, and other quasi governmental entities use them. There are many .gov sites that are not public domain. You are pushing a fringe argument. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: You cannot just copy and paste. You would need to quote. That was pointed out multiple times and you continue to insist that it is fine as is. That goes against multiple policies and guidelines. Please don't make false statements as a way to try to win an argument. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again.  You can post US Government web material verbatim.  See Copying Text From Public Domain Sources.  If you're still confused or otherwise arguing this point,   WP:CP can clear this up for you.  Toddst1 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, you can take it to WP:CP if you'd like. And no, it cannot be quoted - as the text on the page does not match what is on the website. Please check the page history before reverting to that argument again, it was not copy-pasted. This will be my last reply, as you're not listening Garchy (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: [] There are so many policies and guidelines being ignored here it is baffling. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From the above link - "In some limited cases, close paraphrase may be an acceptable way of writing an article. For example, many Wikipedia articles are (or were) based on text from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). If the source is in the public domain, such as work of the U.S. government, or is available under a license compatible with the CC-BY-SA license (a partial table of license compatibility can be found at the Copyright FAQ,) then the source may be closely paraphrased if the source is appropriately attributed.". Phew! Garchy (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Properly attributed means to state that it comes from a source, i.e. "Accord to ____ (source), such and such is true." 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. Per WP:CITE, "A citation, also called a reference,[1] uniquely identifies a source of information."  This material is well cited and attributed. Consensus here is that it's fine.   If you continue to disagree, stop WP:REHASH and see what the good folks at WP:CP think.   Otherwise, move on!   Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation=/=attribution. Only a quote or a "____ says" is an attribution. A citation is a source. An attribution is an identification of a statement having a source. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Is there an overview anywhere on wikipedia or elsewhere of the denominations used for coins and notes around the world (and perhaps throughout history)?
The most common denominations are 1, 2, 2.5 or 5, multiplied by a power of ten (so we also have e.g. 0.01, 0.25, 500).
But some countires also have 1.5 or 3 muliplied by powers of ten - and perhaps other less common values.--Nø (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred numbers: 1,2,5,10 / 25,50,100 ... but also 3,15... 

message: "United States banknotes issued at any date remain legal tender even after they are withdrawn from circulation"
That phrase makes no sense. If all banknotes remaing legal tender, then it means that United States never retired them from circulation, just stopped producing older banknotes. --64.134.166.200 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose most cash goes through a bank quite frequently, and I suppose the withdrawn tender in question will be taken out of circulation as soon as it passes through a bank. If I'm right about that, the quote from the article is not entirely nonsensical. But it's just a thought - I don't know, really.--Nø (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Withdrawn from circulation" means that the notes will be separated when they reach the banks and will be destroyed when they are then sent onward. However, there is no compulsion to turn in the notes when the withdrawal is announced. I could have stacks and stacks of notes that have been officially "withdrawn from circulation" but they remain legal tender when presented as payment. This is different from how things are done in some other countries where an announcement will be made that notes must be redeemed for new ones by a certain date, after that date the old notes have value only as a collector's item. --Khajidha (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retiring from circulation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal tender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515010654/http://rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2002_2006/2003mar66_1matthews.pdf to http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2002_2006/2003mar66_1matthews.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.bot.or.th/English/Banknotes/HistoryANdSeriesOfBanknotes/Pages/Banknote_Series02.aspx.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Danish "coin law" , §4.3, it is stated that no-one is required to accept in excess of 25 coins of any given denomination in a payment. I do not see anything about law to this effect in the article - does it deserve a mention? Do other legislations have similar stipulations?--Nø (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark: Max number of identical coins 

message: "On October 6, 1944, 100 franc was demonetized." There are several countries which use (or used) the franc as their currency. Judging from the date, this probably is about France or Belgium, but the article can be approved by stating in which country this happened. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the book cited, this refers to the Belgian franc. I have edited accordingly. -- gsyhiap (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Francs?