Everything looks completely normal: salespeople in grey-green shirts scurry through the salesroom.

The latest technical devices, tablets such as notebooks and mobile phones, polished to a high gloss, are everywhere.

And yet something is different in the forty Gravis stores, like here on Cologne's Ehrenstraße: Because there are no longer any cash registers.

That's right: Anyone who wants to pay for their new charging cable or monitor with bills and coins will be rejected.

This is also indicated by a large sticker on the glass door.

Of course, in Scandinavia people are used to the fact that it is almost impossible to pay in cash anywhere.

But in Germany, a land of cash, that's an unbelievable provocation, isn't it?

Franz Nestler

Editor in Business.

  • Follow I follow

But Gravis has nothing dogmatic about it: The proportion of cash payments has been negligible for around two years, only a “small single-digit percentage” of customers still pay in cash today, according to the company.

Cash has advantages

First of all, the advantages of cash are obvious.

Because cash undoubtedly has many strengths.

For one, it's anonymous.

Nobody can trace a cash payment.

Arguments that exactly this is exploited by criminals are useless.

Almost everything in the world can be exploited by criminals.

Also has no control over cash, it cannot (yet) be confiscated or denied.

Cash makes capitalism more democratic because anyone can pay with it and anyone can participate in payment transactions - from the banker to the homeless.

And that goes unnoticed by the state or other institutions - a not unimportant argument in today's world.

In addition, cash encourages discipline: those who see the bills disappearing in their purse are more likely to spend less money,

But Gravis wipes that away with the stroke of a pen: "For us as retailers, cashless payment is cheaper, easier, and it enables faster processes," says the technology chain.

And indeed: Cash recipients, for example, have to keep large amounts of change on hand.

To do this, complex safety technology must be installed.

The companies insure themselves against theft and pay service providers who deliver and collect cash in armored vehicles.

In addition, there is no interest on the stored money - which is no longer so serious in the current low-interest environment.

But everyday things like wrong change also cause costs.

The time spent managing cash is not to be scoffed at.

And this effort is more or less the same, no matter

whether one customer pays this way per day or whether it is 100.

From a certain point in time, the expense and income are no longer in line.

Freedom of contract negates the obligation to accept

Legally, this is completely unproblematic: In Germany, the principle of freedom of contract applies.

This enables those involved, including the business and its customers, to freely determine the content of their business.

It is therefore also possible to agree or exclude a certain type of payment.

Some kiosks or bakeries do not accept credit or debit cards.

Petrol stations and other shops often indicate that they do not accept 500 euro bills.

However, the German Retail Association emphasizes that it is not in the interests of retailers to let a transaction fail because of the type of payment, and that restrictions are therefore only rarely made.

For the big bills, retailers often cannot guarantee that they will have enough change on hand and therefore exclude them.

Paying with too many coins significantly slows down the flow of business.

In addition, there is even a Brussels regulation according to which no retail company is obliged to accept more than 50 coins in a single payment.

And the fee for credit and debit cards is simply too high for some companies.

Limiting cash payments in general by law, as is repeatedly discussed, is viewed critically from a legal point of view.

Last but not least, Hans-Jürgen Papier, President of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2002 to 2010, pointed out, among other things, the contradiction to freedom of contract, according to which the contractual partners are free to agree on a form of payment.

However, claims for a right to cash payment of broadcasting fees have been repeatedly dismissed.