REPEALED: California Corporations Code Section 107, but now...

Unfortunately, yesterday's signing into California law of the repeal
of the requirement about "lawful money" does not help on any
terminological issues.

REPEALED: California Corporations Code Section 107
107.  No corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association or
individual shall issue or put in circulation, as money, anything but
the lawful money of the United States.

http://law.onecle.com/california/corporations/107.html
http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB129/2013
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB129/2013

Semantic Experiment -- let's express the repeal of a negative rule by
stating it in the positive:

"Any corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association or
individual may issue or put in circulation, as money, anything."

I wonder if THAT logical counterpart would have passed into law?  It
certainly then leads to the following dialogue:
As what?
As money.
What's that mean in law?

It remains unfortunately ambiguous that this new legal scenario in
Calif says nothing about what units contracts & payments within Calif.
can be expressed in and settled in, if the terms are to be legally
enforceable on the same basis as contracts & payments expressed in
USD. I reckon that the only directly enforceable unit remains "the
lawful money of the United States".  The repeal has only to do with
"issuing" not "use".  Do all Calif. vendors now NEED to specify WHICH
units of account they are willing to accept? (i.e. Exactly this is
enabled  simply in my Paris proposal for the W3C Web Payments Spec:
The payment solution would default to national currency, but can be
expanded by the seller to offer some payment unit choices to the
buyer.) Otherwise the seller MUST accept "as money" the load of
firewood that Fred is offering? Hardly!

What this Calif repeal means I reckon is: "Issue whatever you like;
the only enforceable payment unit remains USD."

Joseph Potvin


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> "Inventing terminology here could be quite confusing. "
>
> +1   That's my point.
>
> The term "electronic token" comes from UNCITRAL, the most
> authoritative global body in the domain of electronic commerce.
> http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_4/wp_119_e.pdf
>
> RE: the legality, but that’s a different issue.
>
> Is there some advantage in W3C diverging the terminology from that
> which lawyers worldwide would normally use?
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:46 AM, David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com> wrote:
>> Tobie Langel wrote:
>>
>> So, I really don't think there's any issue with using cryptocurrency in the
>> context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1.  Inventing terminology here could be quite confusing.  It’s up to
>> governments to decide the legality, but that’s a different issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie.langel@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:35 AM
>> To: Joseph Potvin
>> Cc: Stephane Boyera; team-webpayments-workshop-announcement@w3.org;
>> public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is
>> available for comments
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>>> > The case of cryptocurrencies or digital
>>> > currencies is more problematic. i got your point, and i agree with it,
>>> > however, this is quite a generic name, independently of the legal status
>>> > of
>>> > a currency or not isn't it?
>>> > Is there a way we could mention these emerging payment options through
>>> > the
>>> > use of a neutral word?
>>>
>>> [JRP1:]  A neutral term could be "electronic tokens" which can be a
>>> type of "electronic media of exchange" regardless of whether or not
>>> they are deemed to represent a currency in and of themselves  I wonder
>>> if anyone from the Ripple, Ven, Bitcoin+derivatives communities on
>>> these lists might let us know if my suggestion would bother them, or
>>> if it's a reasonable compromise considering the W3C's need (well, I
>>> reckon it's a need) to steer clear or taking sides in the ongoing
>>> juridical interpretations worldwide.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cryptocurrency is the commonly used terminology. Event though the IRS
>> doesn't treat cryptocurrencies as legal currencies (which I suspect was the
>> case you were referring to, Joseph), it still calls them virtual
>> currencies[1]. So, I really don't think there's any issue with using
>> cryptocurrency in the context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's
>> explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>> --tobie
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> [1]: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
>>
>> ________________________________
>> This electronic message, including attachments, is intended only for the use
>> of the individual or company named above or to which it is addressed. The
>> information contained in this message shall be considered confidential and
>> proprietary, and may include confidential work product. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please be aware that any unauthorized use,
>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
>> sender by replying to this message and deleting this email immediately.
>
>
>
> --
>

Received on Sunday, 29 June 2014 12:11:08 UTC