A business’s duty to accept cash as a form of payment by a consumer : A comparative study of the law of Belgium and Thailand

Abstract

This research explores a legal duty of a business operator to accept cash payments from a consumer within a comparative legal analysis framework between the laws of Belgium and Thailand. The central research question addresses whether, and to what extent, a business operator is required to accept a payment in cash both in the absence of an explicit agreement and in the presence of an agreement rejecting such a payment.

Findings from the Belgian legal system demonstrate the existence of a mandatory acceptance of cash principle. Under this regime, business operators are legally obligated to accept euro-denominated banknotes and coins in face-to-face transactions, regardless of any contrary agreement. Exceptions are limited to situations involving legal restrictions such as anti-money laundering laws, safety concerns, or disproportionate denominations. Conversely, the Thai legal system has no statutory regime mandating cash acceptance. Generally, the Thai Civil and Commercial Code obligates businesses to accept cash from consumers unless there are contrary agreements. Thus, a consumer’s offer to pay monetary debt in cash constitutes a valid tender. Business operators may be deemed in default if they refuse such payment without a lawful justification.

Therefore, this research study proposes a legislative reform to introduce a mandatory cash acceptance regime in the Thai legal system, accompanied by some legal exceptions. Two primary reasons support this proposal: (1) to ensure the practical enforceability of the principle of legal tender of cash under the existing currency law; and (2) to prevent indirect discrimination against financially marginalized consumers. The practical recommendation includes amending the Price of Goods and Services Act B.E. 2542 by adding a new provision explicitly prohibiting business operators from refusing cash payments for goods or services in face-to-face transactions unless there are lawful justifications. Furthermore, a proposed provision will render any pre-established term or unilateral advanced declaration to the contrary void.