Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Here's some context:

In Australia, the Reserve Bank has set limits on how much you can use a particular coin. I.e., there is a $5 limit on using 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins, a $10 limit on $1 coins and a $20 limit on $2 coins. This is not a WELL known law, but it is a law and often, cashiers refuse payment. There's a video that gets reshared every 6 months or so of a guy trying to pay $100+ in fines with 5c and 10c pieces and gets super shitty when it's rejected. He videoed it, shared it, and then got heaps of support.

Heres the link to the article: https://tendaily.com.au/news/australia/a190103snv/outrage-after-shop-refuses-mum-paying-10-in-50-cent-coins-20190103?utm_content=tnq-facebook&amp;utm_campaign=socialflow&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=facebook

TL;DR of article, lady takes $10 in 50c coins to a shop, gets told she cant use it, goes home to get correct tender, goes back to shop to finish transaction, goes home and complains to company on FB and was told the same thing, and is now sharing her story to shame the company.

I got into an argument with some people who thought that the cashier and company were in the wrong and that they should have accepted the coins, regardless of what legal tender laws there are. 

thinking a cashier (and company employing cashier) rejecting excessive change being used in the transaction is actually the victim and not the stupid customer who got super pissed and wrote to the papers