"You didn't want your penny did you?"

Azari

katerinasol wrote: »

I don't think it sounds less, I always round it up to a tenner in my head anyway

That's what I do.

What's funny is if there is a salesman involved and whenever you mention the the cost of the item: £(x+1), he (I've never known a female salesperson do it) keeps correcting you and saying "no, its £x.99. :rotfl:

fluffnutter

dzug1 wrote: »

Yes that's OK too - the shop can either accept your offer or decline to sell to you.

The same as you can either accept that you're getting no/too little change or cancel the transaction altogether

I don't disagree with this. And I'm not suggesting that unholyangel's original post on the matter was wrong (not sure she's ever wrong!). But I think it's taking the law out of context.

If the price is £9.80 and I hand over a tenner, there's an understood expectation that I'll get the goods plus 20p. I'm not offering a tenner and the shop staff know that. Common sense prevails despite what the definition of legal tender might specify.

Bit like those laws about hackney cabs carrying bales of hay, or people in Shrewsbury killing a Welsh person once a year. Just because the law says X doesn't mean that X can be practically enforced.

Azari

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't disagree with this. And I'm not suggesting that unholyangel's original post on the matter was wrong (not sure she's ever wrong!). But I think it's taking the law out of context.

If the price is £9.80 and I hand over a tenner, there's an understood expectation that I'll get the goods plus 20p. I'm not offering a tenner and the shop staff know that. Common sense prevails despite what the definition of legal tender might specify.

Bit like those laws about hackney cabs carrying bales of hay, or people in Shrewsbury killing a Welsh person once a year. Just because the law says X doesn't mean that X can be practically enforced.

I think there is some confusion about exactly what 'legal tender' means.

Legal tender is the definition of what must be accepted in payment of a debt.

It has no bearing on the negotiations on the details of a sale where both parties are free to accept or reject offers made by the other.

Thus, if you owe the milkman £8.37 and you offer him that amount in legal tender then he must accept it. If, on the other hand, you offer him that amount in pennies, he may reject they payment if he wishes as pennies are not legal tender for that amount.

In a normal, non credit, sale in a shop, however, there is no debt and each party is free to continue with the transaction or abort it if the terms are unacceptable.

Thus if the shopkeeper does not have change for a £20 note they may refuse to sell you the item if that is all you are prepared to proffer. Similarly, you are not obliged to purchase the item if they say they will accept £20 for it but not give change. What is or is not legal tender is irrelevant.

What always interested me was what would happen if you went into one of those pubs (often at stations) which had a notice "No £50 notes accepted" and ordered drinks which you quickly consumed before handing over such a note. There would now be a debt and you would be offering legal tender to pay it.

esuhl

Azari wrote: »

What always interested me was what would happen if you went into one of those pubs (often at stations) which had a notice "No £50 notes accepted" and ordered drinks which you quickly consumed before handing over such a note. There would now be a debt and you would be offering legal tender to pay it.

Interesting... Although for it to be a sale, the contract would have to be agreed by both parties. When the drinks were presented, consuming them before payment terms had been arranged (particularly when the "No £50 notes" sign would form part of the sales contract) would presumably be theft as you do not (yet) own the drinks and intend to permanently deprive the owner of them...

Azari wrote: »

Legal tender is the definition of what must be accepted in payment of a debt.

I thought that "legal tender" only applied to court debts, so even if I was settling a £50 bar tab, the bartender could refuse to accept the £50 note if it was part of the agreed (or implied) terms.

But if the bartender took me to court and I was ordered to pay £50 for my unpaid tab... then I could legally pay with that same £50 note even though it wasn't accepted for the initial debt...

WelshBluebird

esuhl wrote: »

Interesting... Although for it to be a sale, the contract would have to be agreed by both parties. When the drinks were presented, consuming them before payment terms had been arranged (particularly when the "No £50 notes" sign would form part of the sales contract) would presumably be theft as you do not (yet) own the drinks and intend to permanently deprive the owner of them...

What about a situation where you are normally expected to consume the goods before paying, like a restaurant?

esuhl

WelshBluebird wrote: »

What about a situation where you are normally expected to consume the goods before paying, like a restaurant?

Hmmm... again I'm not sure, but the restaurant should be able to stipulate which forms of payment it accepts, and if you're informed beforehand (or it's made clear with a sign that you couldn't reasonably miss saying "No £50 notes", for example) then I imagine you'd be committing an offence (theft?) by consuming the food without having the ability to pay in an acceptable form.

In the absence of obvious signs or prior warning, I suppose that they would have to accept any coins/notes (although I seem to remember that they wouldn't be legally required to provide change), and that it would be your responsibility to check that other payment methods are accepted.

That's my best guess, anyway!

Azari

esuhl wrote: »

Interesting... Although for it to be a sale, the contract would have to be agreed by both parties. When the drinks were presented, consuming them before payment terms had been arranged (particularly when the "No £50 notes" sign would form part of the sales contract) would presumably be theft as you do not (yet) own the drinks and intend to permanently deprive the owner of them...

For a charge of theft to apply they would need to prove that you had seen and understood the notice. It is not at all uncommon for people to start drinking before the bill has been paid, particularly where large rounds are involved.

I thought that "legal tender" only applied to court debts, so even if I was settling a £50 bar bill, the bartender could refuse to accept the £50 note if it was part of the agreed (or implied) terms.

No, it is what is legally deemed to be acceptable for the settlement of a debt.

Azari

esuhl wrote: »

In the absence of obvious signs or prior warning, I suppose that they would have to accept any coins/notes (although I seem to remember that they wouldn't be legally required to provide change), and that it would be your responsibility to check that other payment methods are accepted.

I'm not sure where this 'not obliged to give change' idea springs from.

If you give someone £20 to pay a £10 debt then they owe you £10. It's as simple as that. Whether there is any case law for when that debt must be paid I have no idea

NBLondon

Azari wrote: »

I'm not sure where this 'not obliged to give change' idea springs from.

The "not obliged to give change" is from a shop situation - like you said above - it's an offer and a debt does not exist. The restuarant question is a good one - when you order, there's an implicit agreement that you will pay at the end for what you have consumed under the conditions agreed - but does that constitute a debt in legal terms and bring the legal tender definition into play? Maybe it would hang on whether the conditions of payment were clearly stated e.g. if the menu states "no £50 notes" then by reading the menu and ordering are you deemed to have accepted that condition?

In your second case

Azari wrote: »

If you give someone £20 to pay a £10 debt then they owe you £10. It's as simple as that. Whether there is any case law for when that debt must be paid I have no idea

I suspect it depends on the conditions of the original debt occurring. You lend me a tenner in the pub until I can get to the cash point; Next day, I get 2x£20 out and offer you one. You can choose whether to wait until I have a £10 or to take the £20 and pay me £10 change when you have one.

If you overpay a debt to say HMRC or Wonga.com then they would presumably have rules about paying back the "change".

Random example. I once ended up in magistrates court for speeding (when I was young and stupid and drove a hot hatch). I paid the fine same day by cheque but inadvertently made it out for too much and the clerk didn't notice. Any guesses how long it took them to repay the excess?

Azari

NBLondon wrote: »

The "not obliged to give change" is from a shop situation - like you said above - it's an offer and a debt does not exist.

Ah, yes, I should have been clearer. I did not mean that a shopkeeper is obliged to accept some high value note and give change. Merely that if he did accept the note he would owe you the excess.

I meant tha The restuarant question is a good one - when you order, there's an implicit agreement that you will pay at the end for what you have consumed under the conditions agreed - but does that constitute a debt in legal terms and bring the legal tender definition into play? Maybe it would hang on whether the conditions of payment were clearly stated e.g. if the menu states "no £50 notes" then by reading the menu and ordering are you deemed to have accepted that condition?

One interesting case is where a restaurant displays a credit card logo but no longer accepts that card (and does not make that fact clear). This sometimes happens with Amex. Most people have more than one card but if they didn't it would be interesting to know the legal position. Clearly they would owe the restaurant for the meal but what could the restaurant do to ensure future payment?