Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

Those two sites do not conclusively explain what the law is regarding the concept of legal tender.

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

It states in BLACK AND WHITE: "All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

If you can't understand that then God help you.

New Jersey passed a similar law recently in response to businesses refusing legal tender (i.e cash). You can see it here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S3000/2785_R2.PDF or here: https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/new-jersey-bans-cashless-businesses/.

KeithP

Just out of interest what is New Jersey's definition of 'legal tender'?

Is it the same as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' definition?

Do either of those match the UK's definition of 'legal tender'?

shaun_from_Africa

I may be missing something but what possible relevance do the laws of Massachusetts have when discussing a consumer problem in the UK?
When your friend had the meal that is under discussion, did they have any alcohol?
The reason I ask is that it's illegal to sell alcohol in some areas of Massachusetts so as it's illegal there, shouldn't it also be illegal here?

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

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? 

On plain reading of the Massachusetts legal page on that, it would seem that way, but I assume there is another provision in the law somewhere that would exclude situations when not enough change or fraud suspected (I agree with you, it should contain those provisions if it doesn't, they should not have to accept if they can't give change). I'm not an American legal expert so I don't know is the answer, but I assume the provisions are there somewhere.

trusaiyan

shaun_from_Africa said:

I may be missing something but what possible relevance do the laws of Massachusetts have when discussing a consumer problem in the UK?
When your friend had the meal that is under discussion, did they have any alcohol?
The reason I ask is that it's illegal to sell alcohol in some areas of Massachusetts so as it's illegal there, shouldn't it also be illegal here?

It's relevant in the sense that, when discussing the morality or rationality of UK law, we can compare it to other legal systems of comparable nations to see how it could be done correctly. And so I think it is useful in these circumstances.

There is no strong objection to changing it, other than a weak and pathetically flimsy 'but it's been this way for 200 years' argument, when no one can even find where it has been established in the law as the way it is being presented! So there's been bad law for hundreds of years, so let's keep it that way... *massive facepalm* haha no thanks!

KeithP

trusaiyan said:

So there's been bad law for hundreds of years, so let's keep it that way... *massive facepalm* haha no thanks!

Or conversely, if a law has been established for hundreds of years and has caused no problems to anyone, why change it?

Sounds reasonable to me.

We don't have to follow everything the Americans do, do we?

trusaiyan

KeithP said:

trusaiyan said:

So there's been bad law for hundreds of years, so let's keep it that way... *massive facepalm* haha no thanks!

Or conversely, if a law has been established for hundreds of years and has caused no problems to anyone, why change it?

Sounds reasonable to me.

We don't have to follow everything the Americans do, do we?

Oh yes the millions of transactions in that time where cash has been rejected totally immorally and is continuing to be rejected every single second means, according to you, it's 'caused no problems to anyone'. Yes it hasn't caused unnecessary hardship and unfairness on completely innocent unsuspecting buyers. Yes of course it hasn't, in your non-existent fairytale complete BS world. 

I'll be back with the full legal expositions for those interested, done with this thread now (I forgot why I stopped posting on online forums ten years ago...)

Manxman_in_exile

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

It states in BLACK AND WHITE: "All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer."

If you can't understand that then God help you.

New Jersey passed a similar law recently in response to businesses refusing legal tender (i.e cash). You can see it here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S3000/2785_R2.PDF or here: https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/new-jersey-bans-cashless-businesses/.

So again the strength and brilliance of your argument is such that you have to resort to being abusive.  How telling.     

First, that provision is intended to prevent retailers from selling only on credit and from refusing cash buyers.  It is consumer protection legislation because credit is more expensive.

Second, yes - it says that retailers must accept "legal tender", but as others have asked, what is the definition of legal tender in Massachusetts?  I've already pointed out earlier that in this country "offering to pay in legal tender" means offering to pay the precise amount owed* - that's part of what it means.  If you are trying to tell us that offering to pay for a $1 item with a $1000 bill would be offering to pay in legal tender in Massachusetts, please show us where it says that because I don't believe that is true.

*I note that the Chards website I think you linked to earlier makes this very point when discussing the chap trying to pay for his petrol at Tesco with one pound coins.  AIUI he was able to do that because he either offered the precise amount or he wasn't bothered about getting less than a quid's worth of change  Edit:  Or Tescos couldn't be bothered to argue

KeithP

trusaiyan said:

Oh yes the millions of transactions in that time where cash has been rejected totally immorally and is continuing to be rejected every single second means, according to you, it's 'caused no problems to anyone'. Yes it hasn't caused unnecessary hardship and unfairness on completely innocent unsuspecting buyers. Yes of course it hasn't, in your non-existent fairytale complete BS world. 

I'll be back with the full legal expositions for those interested, done with this thread now (I forgot why I stopped posting on online forums ten years ago...)

Yet more abuse.

I've done with this thread too.

Good luck with your crusade. Nah... I don't mean that.