David Merrill wrote:
The court accepted notice that the debt has been paid in full. But then, the Teller clerk never acknowledged setoff in writing either...
Suppose you refuse to accept some bonded promissory notes in the value of $10 for a bag of vegetables at the Farmer's Market. Per custom I have already filled the bags with my choice of which kind at that advertized price. I could walk away with the $10 on the countertop I suppose but there is a ten-year old, nothing to do with our business already eyeballing the bill you refuse to accept. Trebilcock states in translation to modern money principles that you are required to accept the $10 note. But you keep refusing to accept it. You have waived the debt and rather than giving the $10 to the ten-year old there, I can grab that too.
The court did not "accept" that the debt had been paid in full, it simply noted on the docket that the party submitted a letter or pleading in which he
claimed that the promissory note that either accompanied or was copied with the pleading paid the debt in full. But the simple fact is, and any banker or lawyer will confirm this, a promissory note, whether from David Merrill Van Pelt or from Warren Buffet, pays absolutely nothing, it conveys zero dollars; a promissory note only promises payment at some future date and a great deal depends on how reliable the maker of the note is, and all sorts of unforeseen things that could happen before that date. Contrary to DiM's claims, a promissory note can be REJECTED and REFUSED, per UCC § 2-511(2), at which point the purchaser/debtor must pay with legal tender. The decision in Trebilcock v. Wilson (1872) 79 US (12 Wall.) 687, 20 L.Ed 460 ...
http://openjurist.org/79/us/687/trebilc ... lson-et-ux
.....doesn't address in the slightest the issue of rejecting a promissory note, nor does it suggest the cancellation of the debt, since it enforced the terms of a promissory note that had been negotiated and accepted.