|
The question ‘what is money?’ has traditionally proved to be a difficult one to answer, and it has been the cause of many ideological and analytical disputes. It is certainly a root of the doctrinal disdain that exists between some economists and lawyers.
For most economists, money serves three classic functions--as unit of account, means of payment, and store of value. Such a conception was favorably received in Moss v. Hancock , in which “money” was defined to mean “that which pass freely from hand to hand throughout the community in final discharge of debts…being accepted equally without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it and without the intention of the person who receives it to consume it…” However, in F. A. Mann’s view, the economic definition is broad enough to cover mere bank account balances, which is unacceptable to the lawyer. For Mann, “in law, the quality of money is to be attributed to all chattels which, issued by the authority of the law and denominated with reference to a unit of account, are meant to serve as universal means of exchange in the State of issue”. Nevertheless, other scholars think Mann unjustifiably expands the economic definition and restricts the legal one. They think on the economic side, the definition refers to the quantity of money and not the quality of what continues money, and it does not address the mechanism that converts such balances to a medium of exchange. As for the legal definition, they think Mann’s chattels requirement is not necessarily a feature inherent of the future concept of money, especially such an electronic era. Therefore they prefer the adoption of economic definition just as in Moss v. Hancock, and believe that electronic money could meet these requirements, because “it is a medium of exchange only for small denomination transactions is not an obstacle; ceilings for the use of certain currency denominations issued by the State may even be provided by law” .
In my view, in the content of legal definition, the quality of money may be regarded as a right of claim, the money is just as a record of the rights and obligations between the creditors and debtors. The reason that bills, debt cards, credit cards and any other plastic money, and ATMs are used more widely is that cash is not necessary for the modern business. The relationships may no longer be directly controlled by an express contract. To illustrate, a merchant may confidently accept a credit card or a smart card in payment because he or she knows that the contract that they have with the card issuer will guarantee that they receive value for the transaction. At this point, it may be said electronic money is an express, convenience and effective money to assert the right of claim. Hereby, someone will ask the question, why we did not think bank cheques and travel cheques as money, they have same function to claim. Probably, I think a main reason is that both bank cheques and travelers’ cheques can not circulate.
By contrast, someone has argued that electronic money is not real “money”, merely a mechanism of payment. Widely, issues on unit of account, medium of exchange, anonymity, the effects on central bank’s monetary policy and legal tender are five principle objections.
First, e-money does not provide a distinct unit of account. Electronic money unbundles the unit of account function, which becomes completely dematerialized. However, In the intangible economy, where all values are relative, values are calculated as indexes and all index computations are widely and readily available. Furthermore, Benjamine & Muharem think the unit of account could be external and not be the inherent of money itself. Therefore, it is not necessary for e-cash.
|
