Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment?

No, there's no contradiction (embarrassing or otherwise), a restaurant is free to offer only those payment options it wishes and a customer is free to choose one of those options or take their business elsewhere; if you believe this statement to be false then please provide a link to the statute that forces restaurants to accept a particular payment method...

Your fundamental problem is, as @unholyangel's signature states, the words "legal tender" do not mean what you think they mean. There is no contradiction with the court accepting legal tender because that is literally the very definition of what legal tender is!

As you are obviously having a problem understanding this basic premise perhaps you will believe the very people who make the "legal tender" that you wrongly believe businesses should be forced to accept?

Royal Mint - What is legal tender?

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender

You obviously can't understand the obvious and overwhelming contradiction, which I have highlighted multiple times but will again for those with reading comprehension problems.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the legal tender (cash) to be compulsorily accepted in a court setting to extinguish the debt, but NOT accepted to settle his debt or payment obligation in the restaurant. It should be mandatory that it would settle the debt in both, as there is no essential difference. If you can't see how that is a gross contradiction then I pity you.

The contradiction is inherent in the UK's definition of legal tender as espoused by the Royal Mint's definition, which is a total embarrassment and the fact you, or anyone else, think it is morally right is worrying. We need urgent hard legal tender to force the acceptance of cash in all payment obligations, not just court settings. Yes, that's my political opinion that I'm sticking with. The vast majority of people who say in a shop, 'it's legal tender' do in fact think the concept means shops cannot reject cash, but our pathetic and immoral legal system permits it to do so.

So having failed singularly to convince any of the other posters on this thread (and on Legal Beagles) of the logical coherence of your argument, you are forced to resort to throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum by abusing those other posters and insulting their intelligence in comparison to your own superior intellect     

Oh - and of course - nobody else, not even the law, can stand comparison to your "morality"...

trusaiyan said:Well you have no idea what political activities I am involved with, and I am well aware of the challenges of getting the law changed, but I think it should be done.

You're right - I have no idea what political activities you are involved with, but I'm hoping you'll tell us.  Do any of the movements you are affiliated with have their own Wiki page like FMOTL?

I don't usually respond to troll posts, like a few of yours in this thread, from people who spend their precious time posting pointless ad hominem crap instead of grown up discussion.

I couldn't care less whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I came on to find out if someone could point me in the direction of the law on this matter (before solicitors instruction), and no one has been able to do that other than repeat two vague definitions off the Bank of England's or Royal Mint's website (which I had already seen and knew about). 

It then transgressed into discussing the morality of the law.

powerful_Rogue

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment?

No, there's no contradiction (embarrassing or otherwise), a restaurant is free to offer only those payment options it wishes and a customer is free to choose one of those options or take their business elsewhere; if you believe this statement to be false then please provide a link to the statute that forces restaurants to accept a particular payment method...

Your fundamental problem is, as @unholyangel's signature states, the words "legal tender" do not mean what you think they mean. There is no contradiction with the court accepting legal tender because that is literally the very definition of what legal tender is!

As you are obviously having a problem understanding this basic premise perhaps you will believe the very people who make the "legal tender" that you wrongly believe businesses should be forced to accept?

Royal Mint - What is legal tender?

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender

You obviously can't understand the obvious and overwhelming contradiction, which I have highlighted multiple times but will again for those with reading comprehension problems.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the legal tender (cash) to be compulsorily accepted in a court setting to extinguish the debt, but NOT accepted to settle his debt or payment obligation in the restaurant. It should be mandatory that it would settle the debt in both, as there is no essential difference. If you can't see how that is a gross contradiction then I pity you.

The contradiction is inherent in the UK's definition of legal tender as espoused by the Royal Mint's definition, which is a total embarrassment and the fact you, or anyone else, think it is morally right is worrying. We need urgent hard legal tender to force the acceptance of cash in all payment obligations, not just court settings. Yes, that's my political opinion that I'm sticking with. The vast majority of people who say in a shop, 'it's legal tender' do in fact think the concept means shops cannot reject cash, but our pathetic and immoral legal system permits it to do so.

So having failed singularly to convince any of the other posters on this thread (and on Legal Beagles) of the logical coherence of your argument, you are forced to resort to throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum by abusing those other posters and insulting their intelligence in comparison to your own superior intellect     

Oh - and of course - nobody else, not even the law, can stand comparison to your "morality"...

trusaiyan said:Well you have no idea what political activities I am involved with, and I am well aware of the challenges of getting the law changed, but I think it should be done.

You're right - I have no idea what political activities you are involved with, but I'm hoping you'll tell us.  Do any of the movements you are affiliated with have their own Wiki page like FMOTL?

I don't usually respond to troll posts, like a few of yours in this thread, from people who spend their precious time posting pointless ad hominem crap instead of grown up discussion.

I couldn't care less whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I came on to find out if someone could point me in the direction of the law on this matter (before solicitors instruction), and no one has been able to do that other than repeat two vague definitions off the Bank of England's or Royal Mint's website (which I had already seen and knew about). 

It then transgressed into discussing the morality of the law.

That part in bold made me chuckle, as that's all you've done for the last 9 pages.

Go and pay for advice rather then coming to a free forum then.

Manxman_in_exile

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment?

No, there's no contradiction (embarrassing or otherwise), a restaurant is free to offer only those payment options it wishes and a customer is free to choose one of those options or take their business elsewhere; if you believe this statement to be false then please provide a link to the statute that forces restaurants to accept a particular payment method...

Your fundamental problem is, as @unholyangel's signature states, the words "legal tender" do not mean what you think they mean. There is no contradiction with the court accepting legal tender because that is literally the very definition of what legal tender is!

As you are obviously having a problem understanding this basic premise perhaps you will believe the very people who make the "legal tender" that you wrongly believe businesses should be forced to accept?

Royal Mint - What is legal tender?

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender

You obviously can't understand the obvious and overwhelming contradiction, which I have highlighted multiple times but will again for those with reading comprehension problems.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the legal tender (cash) to be compulsorily accepted in a court setting to extinguish the debt, but NOT accepted to settle his debt or payment obligation in the restaurant. It should be mandatory that it would settle the debt in both, as there is no essential difference. If you can't see how that is a gross contradiction then I pity you.

The contradiction is inherent in the UK's definition of legal tender as espoused by the Royal Mint's definition, which is a total embarrassment and the fact you, or anyone else, think it is morally right is worrying. We need urgent hard legal tender to force the acceptance of cash in all payment obligations, not just court settings. Yes, that's my political opinion that I'm sticking with. The vast majority of people who say in a shop, 'it's legal tender' do in fact think the concept means shops cannot reject cash, but our pathetic and immoral legal system permits it to do so.

So having failed singularly to convince any of the other posters on this thread (and on Legal Beagles) of the logical coherence of your argument, you are forced to resort to throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum by abusing those other posters and insulting their intelligence in comparison to your own superior intellect     

Oh - and of course - nobody else, not even the law, can stand comparison to your "morality"...

trusaiyan said:Well you have no idea what political activities I am involved with, and I am well aware of the challenges of getting the law changed, but I think it should be done.

You're right - I have no idea what political activities you are involved with, but I'm hoping you'll tell us.  Do any of the movements you are affiliated with have their own Wiki page like FMOTL?

I don't usually respond to troll posts, like a few of yours in this thread, from people who spend their precious time posting pointless ad hominem crap instead of grown up discussion.

I couldn't care less whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I came on to find out if someone could point me in the direction of the law on this matter (before solicitors instruction), and no one has been able to do that other than repeat two vague definitions off the Bank of England's or Royal Mint's website (which I had already seen and knew about). 

It then transgressed into discussing the morality of the law.

If you don't care whether anyone else agrees or disagrees with you why are you still posting here and giving other posters a good laugh?  Several others have already pointed out to you that your argument is flawed because it is based on a misunderstanding of a term of art - ie "legal tender".  It does not mean what you (and presumably your friend) think - or thought - it means.

If you now realise that there is no law compelling shopkeepers and restaurateurs to accept £50 notes (which presumably you did believe before posting here) then you've learned something.  If, having realised that, you now want to lobby MPs to change the law, good luck to you.  But nobody here seems to be as interested as you and I doubt that many MPs or voters are either.

I really would like to know what your other political activities are.

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment?

No, there's no contradiction (embarrassing or otherwise), a restaurant is free to offer only those payment options it wishes and a customer is free to choose one of those options or take their business elsewhere; if you believe this statement to be false then please provide a link to the statute that forces restaurants to accept a particular payment method...

Your fundamental problem is, as @unholyangel's signature states, the words "legal tender" do not mean what you think they mean. There is no contradiction with the court accepting legal tender because that is literally the very definition of what legal tender is!

As you are obviously having a problem understanding this basic premise perhaps you will believe the very people who make the "legal tender" that you wrongly believe businesses should be forced to accept?

Royal Mint - What is legal tender?

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender

You obviously can't understand the obvious and overwhelming contradiction, which I have highlighted multiple times but will again for those with reading comprehension problems.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the legal tender (cash) to be compulsorily accepted in a court setting to extinguish the debt, but NOT accepted to settle his debt or payment obligation in the restaurant. It should be mandatory that it would settle the debt in both, as there is no essential difference. If you can't see how that is a gross contradiction then I pity you.

The contradiction is inherent in the UK's definition of legal tender as espoused by the Royal Mint's definition, which is a total embarrassment and the fact you, or anyone else, think it is morally right is worrying. We need urgent hard legal tender to force the acceptance of cash in all payment obligations, not just court settings. Yes, that's my political opinion that I'm sticking with. The vast majority of people who say in a shop, 'it's legal tender' do in fact think the concept means shops cannot reject cash, but our pathetic and immoral legal system permits it to do so.

So having failed singularly to convince any of the other posters on this thread (and on Legal Beagles) of the logical coherence of your argument, you are forced to resort to throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum by abusing those other posters and insulting their intelligence in comparison to your own superior intellect     

Oh - and of course - nobody else, not even the law, can stand comparison to your "morality"...

trusaiyan said:Well you have no idea what political activities I am involved with, and I am well aware of the challenges of getting the law changed, but I think it should be done.

You're right - I have no idea what political activities you are involved with, but I'm hoping you'll tell us.  Do any of the movements you are affiliated with have their own Wiki page like FMOTL?

I don't usually respond to troll posts, like a few of yours in this thread, from people who spend their precious time posting pointless ad hominem crap instead of grown up discussion.

I couldn't care less whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I came on to find out if someone could point me in the direction of the law on this matter (before solicitors instruction), and no one has been able to do that other than repeat two vague definitions off the Bank of England's or Royal Mint's website (which I had already seen and knew about). 

It then transgressed into discussing the morality of the law.

If you don't care whether anyone else agrees or disagrees with you why are you still posting here and giving other posters a good laugh?  Several others have already pointed out to you that your argument is flawed because it is based on a misunderstanding of a term of art - ie "legal tender".  It does not mean what you (and presumably your friend) think - or thought - it means.

If you now realise that there is no law compelling shopkeepers and restaurateurs to accept £50 notes (which presumably you did believe before posting here) then you've learned something.  If, having realised that, you now want to lobby MPs to change the law, good luck to you.  But nobody here seems to be as interested as you and I doubt that many MPs or voters are either.

I really would like to know what your other political activities are.

My 'argument' that there is a contradiction in the law is obviously correct (i.e the legal tender provision only applies to a court situation but not when actually being tendered to pay for the debt or payment obligation in the restaurant). The applicability of the concept is therefore highly restricted and does not assist in the majority of instances where you would require there to be mandatory acceptance of the tender (unlike other countries where it does apply to all situations where a payment obligation exists).

DoaM

Cash <> Legal Tender .... is what I've gleaned from this thread. Cash may be accepted as legal tender in a court, but the physical piece of paper/plastic itself with the words "....promise to pay the bearer on demand...." is not in and of itself legal tender in any non-court (i.e. not settling a debt) setting.

Spank

waamo said:

What a fuss and palaver over a £50 note being accepted. Two solicitors opinions as well. Talk about overkill.

I think the lockdowns finally driven some people mad

Manxman_in_exile

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

I completely disagree, for all intents and purposes there is absolutely no material difference to where the debt or payment obligation is paid and the law is completely at odds with common sense and morality being the way it is here. It shouldn't make a single squat of difference whether your owing is paid for in the court of law, the shop or the restaurant or any business accepting the tender. It should be mandatorily accepted as I will state for the last time in this thread (which has now run it's course).

You seem to be making excuses for this terrible law without actually being able to give a single benefit as to why it should remain.

And it isn't just France, Massachusetts has a very similar law (because someone who understood what legal tender should mean clearly wrote it):

"Section 10A. No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services. All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

Oh and other states, such as New Jersey:

"1. a. A person selling or offering for sale goods or services at retail shall not require a buyer to pay using credit or to prohibit cash as payment in order to purchase the goods or services. A person selling or offering for sale goods or services at retail shall accept legal tender when offered by the buyer as payment. b. A person in violation of subsection a. of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for a first offense and up to $5,000 for a second offense..."

As a final comment, it is interesting how no one has been able to post the exact court judgement, legal precedent or Act of Parliament where the UK's supposed concept of legal tender was established?? I am yet to see it other than in the vague definition on BofE or Royal Mint's site, does anyone know where it is?

powerful_Rogue

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

As a final comment, it is interesting how no one has been able to post the exact court judgement, legal precedent or Act of Parliament where the UK's supposed concept of legal tender was established?? I am yet to see it other than in the vague definition on BofE or Royal Mint's site, does anyone know where it is?

Neither have you to say the opposite.

Guessing everything online is wrong, including the BofE & Royal Mint in your eyes.

Manxman_in_exile

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If I say "the only car I own is black", and then I say "the only car I own is white", then that is a contradiction because I am saying that the same "thing" has two different and contradictory properties.

But when you are talking about paying money into court as opposed to paying a bill for a meal in a restaurant, you are talking about two different things or transactions.  The fact that you can settle them in different ways, or that you can use one method in one case but not in the other, is not necessarily a contradiction as you seem to believe.  It may not on first appearance seem very sensible, but I suspect that if you studied the reasoning behind this (which for all I know has developed over centuries of common law) it might quickly become evident that it is sensible for reasons that are not immediately obvious.

For what it's worth, I'd rather put reliance on a legal principle that's evolved under common law reasoning than on one based on some codified version of Napoleonic/Roman law.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying where I come from which is "There's a boat in the morning".  Many on my native isle would suggest that you might be happier living in France or some similar country which has a more(?) logical and "moral" civil code.  (I wouldn't want to live in such a place).

And it isn't just France, Massachusetts has a very similar law (because someone who understood what legal tender should mean clearly wrote it):

"Section 10A. No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services. All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

So you are saying that what you have quoted means that if I go and buy a packet of chewing gum in a shop in Massachusetts costing just $1, and I offer a £1000 bill in payment, the shop must accept it? 

Are you sure it doesn't just mean what it says: "No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services"?  I understand that to mean that they can't refuse to sell to a cash buyer by trying to make them take out an expensive loan or other finance/credit agreement.  It does not say that they have to accept "legal tender" offered in any or every denomination.