We will deal with the question of the form of payment and take no stand on how much, if at all, they owe you. That would require hearing both sides and appraising the clothes’ depreciation in value, neither of which are feasible to arrange from what we understand. It is important, however, for you to have a sense of whether the terms you are being offered meet the basic halachic requirements, assuming that the laundromat does owe you money.
The halacha does not always require one to make payment in the form of cash. Regarding a regular loan, one who has cash must pay cash.[1] However, when it comes to damages, even one who has money may give objects of the equivalent market value.[2] If one pays for damages with movable objects (m’taltelin), he can give objects of any type and level of quality, as long as the overall value is correct. If he does not own movable objects of the right value, he can pay with real estate, but he then must select from the choicest level of fields that he possesses.[3] The advantage to the recipient of being paid with m’taltelin over land is that he can take the items to wherever he wants and sell them.[4]
Now we will analyze whether the type of compensation that the laundromat is offering is a legitimate form of payment. They are offering a service whose value is limited to a very specific use and venue (laundering at a single establishment[5]). Therefore, it lacks the broadness of m’taltelin, which one can take with him to use or sell, and if you cannot readily sell the free service, perhaps it will be of little use to you. However, if they give you a written credit slip that is not limited to your personal use, then it is arguably like m’taltelin, as it can be sold if you personally have no use for it. Is that sufficient?
A similar case discussed by the poskim in the context of a loan can serve as a precedent for our case. The Shulchan Aruch[6] accepts the opinion that if someone is a debtor and has a loan contract against a third party, he can transfer it to his own creditor as payment. The Rama[7] clarifies that such a payment is valid even if the debtor owns standard m’taltelin that he could give as payment. Those who do not allow such payment[8] reason that paying with a loan contract that one has against a third party is not equivalent to giving an object of value because a loan contract does not have intrinsic value. In addition, not always does one who possesses such a contract succeed in extracting payment from the obligated party. As we saw above, the halacha demands that payment be made in a relatively safe and accessible form, and some do not view a loan contract as meeting those requirements.
It is important to note that the Shach[9] disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama and says that a loan contract cannot be used as payment unless the lender consents.[10] The Shulchan Aruch and Rama themselves note that the value of the contract is not determined by its face value, but rather depends on how much a person would pay for it. Certainly, one would not pay $1,000 for the rights to a contract on a loan of $1,000. In each case, beit din would have to consider how easily one can expect to be able to extract payment from the specific debtor, which would be affected by factors such as his financial assets, his personality, and his legal history.
How does the credit at the laundromat compare to transferring a loan contract? In some ways, it is better, in that it does not involve an unknown third party. If the proprietor were to renege on his credit offer, your claim and any legal steps that might have been taken before his offer would then resume from the same point, but there would need to be more direct payment. Thus, it is unlikely that the proprietor will cause problems, and there is little lost by trying to accommodate him.
Both cases raise similar questions as to whether a document – in this case, a written credit for a service – can be considered the equivalent of money.[11] In such matters, accepted standards derived from laws or social norms may affect the halacha. It seems to us (albeit without extensive research) that in similar situations, proprietors often give this type of compensation. We understand why you would prefer to receive cash, which certainly simplifies matters, but you should also understand that it may be considered perfectly legitimate for him to give you a transferable written credit as compensation. Assuming that you would prefer not to drag the matter to a din Torah and that you may lack means of exerting effective pressure, this might be the most practical way for you to obtain compensation with minimum headache.