It seems kind of odd to me that only a federal reserve note is the only "cash" ...when it is not even a promise to pay but merely "a tender of payment"
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=1966-67+%28Can.%29%2C+c.+88%2C+ss.+12+&language=en&sear chTitle=Federal&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1977/1977canlii36/1977canlii36.html
This is a supreme court of canada case but the same principals apply to the USA and the our current money system.
It basically says a promise to pay is not the same as an offer to pay.
A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another. With that in mind, the court said.
Quote:
|
I confess my inability to appreciate how there can be any substance in the assertion that an inconvertible note issued by a bank and being legal tender involves the same liability of a bank as is incurred by a merchant who makes and gives a promissory note.
|
Quote:
Despite the fact that paper money has become practically inconvertible and no longer evidences a debt, such notes must, for reasons of accounting, appear on the
liability side of the balance sheet of the bank or other institution of issue. There should be no misapprehension, however, of the legal nature of the notes. The “debtor” has disappeared.
|
The cite is quote elaborative as to the nature of central bank notes .