Legal Tender and consumer contract law

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

 Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). 

Just imagine how stupid it would be if all online retailers had to accept cash as payment because it's legal tender because that's what your saying...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

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? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

But nobody's arguing with you - what you've described is contradictory and absurd.  I agree.  But you must surely understand that the law, like politics, religion and any other communal human activity, is full of contradictions and logical failings, fallacies and loop holes.  I'm sorry, but it's simply the best that we, as a species, can do.  If the law was perfect and made sense, there would be no need for lawyers and legislators.  It would be wonderful if we all agreed.  But I think in this case we sort of do - one man's legal tender is another's worthless bit of paper.

If true, this needs to be legislatively corrected such that the legal tender concept applies where there is any payment obligation. There is no reason this ridiculous and unfair situation must exist, so I think we can do a lot better if I'm honest (other countries like France do fine with hard legal tender, you can pay in 100 and 200 euros in most places and those rejecting it are breaking the law).

FWIW my friend has sent the enquiry to two separate lawyers, and is awaiting a response for a complete authoritative answer. I'll post it here once he receives it for anyone who wants to read it.

The French example isn't quite as simple as you present.  Whilst there is a legal obligation for banknotes to be accepted, there are reasonableness criteria attached such as the ability for the payee to insist upon the exact amount being tendered, or refusing the transaction if he or she doesn't have sufficient change or, crucially, feels the face value of the note is disproportionate to the transaction value.  There's more about it here: https://www.banque-france.fr/en/banknotes/how-recognise-and-use-euro-banknotes-and-coins/where-under-what-conditions-and-how-much-can-i-pay-cash#:~:text=Genuine%20euro%20banknotes%20and%20coins%20are%20legal%20tender,and%20limits%20which%20vary%20from%20country%20to%20country.
The principle isn't that different to here, in that someone in France attempting to pay for a 0.50 Euro pencil with a 200 Euro note can be turned away, much as the same person attempting to pay for a £0.50 pencil with a £50 note can here.  The key difference seems to be that someone in France is automatically entitled to purchase a 49.99 Euro CD player with a 50 Euro note, whereas someone in the UK isn't. 
If you really think it's that much of an issue then your recourse is to the general public.  I can't see how you could do it via legal case as you, as a private individual, wouldn't have any particular reason to require any of the acts relating to bank notes to be amended.  You'd probably need a new act passed, let's call it the 'Legal Tender Act 2020'; it would have to pass through both houses and gain royal assent.  There needs to be some sort of public demand for it, firstly, for parliament to even think of the issue as one worth debating.  You might consider starting a petition or canvassing in your local area, then making a case to your MP if you are able to adequately evidence your claim that the public wants a new law.    
The only question is 'why?'.  The majority of people aren't at all interested in cash these days and youngsters don't even carry it - I've had my purse commented on as if it's some mysterious remnant of a vanished civilisation.  Interest in extending the status of legal tender, therefore, is likely to be even smaller.

I discussed previously in posts in this thread how there are exceptions in 'hard' legal tender countries, which are morally right, regarding still being able to reject cash payment, such as not having enough change (good faith principle) or suspecting fraud. So yes, in those circumstances cash could be rejected and these would be inherent in any country.

I disagree though that there isn't an overall material difference to the way cash is accepted in society because of our law. I've been to France and other hard legal tender countries and cash is very rarely rejected, especially higher denominations. Over here, some denominations of legal tender and legal currency are carte blanch rejected with many shops having permanent policies against £50 notes, Scottish and Irish £20 notes, and now NO CASH shops altogether, which is illegal in hard legal tender countries. I therefore firmly would support the adoption of hard legal tender in the UK.

Regarding the political effort to change it, the law is changed all the time, and there is no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be changed here. 51% of people surveyed in the Access to Cash Review agreed it should be mandatorily accepted in shops, against 24% who were against, so it is strongly supported.

I've no wish to stir the pot, but I just want to check that @trusaiyan knows neither Scottish nor Northern Irish banknotes are legal tender in any territory.  Not even, resepectively, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

trusaiyan

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

I'll be back with the full legal expositions for those interested,

We look forward to these "full legal expositions" but I suspect you won't be back once your solicitors confirm that most people here were correct and the only person not getting it was you. What exactly did you ask the solicitors?

I will because I have pretty much already conceded that it is probably true that the shop can still reject the legal tender payment to extinguish the debt in the restuarant, but not in the court (however grossly absurd that arrangement is).

However, we will conclusively discover: 1) if the unpaid meal constitutes a 'debt' in the eyes of the law (or is it still considered an instant transaction and not a 'debt'), 2) exactly where the legal tender principle is established in UK law (outside the not perfectly similar definitions off BofE and Royal Mint's websites, which can't be exactly where the law is established).

You will find out when we get a full response which may not be soon with covid etc

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

 Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). 

Just imagine how stupid it would be if all online retailers had to accept cash as payment because it's legal tender because that's what your saying...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

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? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

But nobody's arguing with you - what you've described is contradictory and absurd.  I agree.  But you must surely understand that the law, like politics, religion and any other communal human activity, is full of contradictions and logical failings, fallacies and loop holes.  I'm sorry, but it's simply the best that we, as a species, can do.  If the law was perfect and made sense, there would be no need for lawyers and legislators.  It would be wonderful if we all agreed.  But I think in this case we sort of do - one man's legal tender is another's worthless bit of paper.

If true, this needs to be legislatively corrected such that the legal tender concept applies where there is any payment obligation. There is no reason this ridiculous and unfair situation must exist, so I think we can do a lot better if I'm honest (other countries like France do fine with hard legal tender, you can pay in 100 and 200 euros in most places and those rejecting it are breaking the law).

FWIW my friend has sent the enquiry to two separate lawyers, and is awaiting a response for a complete authoritative answer. I'll post it here once he receives it for anyone who wants to read it.

The French example isn't quite as simple as you present.  Whilst there is a legal obligation for banknotes to be accepted, there are reasonableness criteria attached such as the ability for the payee to insist upon the exact amount being tendered, or refusing the transaction if he or she doesn't have sufficient change or, crucially, feels the face value of the note is disproportionate to the transaction value.  There's more about it here: https://www.banque-france.fr/en/banknotes/how-recognise-and-use-euro-banknotes-and-coins/where-under-what-conditions-and-how-much-can-i-pay-cash#:~:text=Genuine%20euro%20banknotes%20and%20coins%20are%20legal%20tender,and%20limits%20which%20vary%20from%20country%20to%20country.
The principle isn't that different to here, in that someone in France attempting to pay for a 0.50 Euro pencil with a 200 Euro note can be turned away, much as the same person attempting to pay for a £0.50 pencil with a £50 note can here.  The key difference seems to be that someone in France is automatically entitled to purchase a 49.99 Euro CD player with a 50 Euro note, whereas someone in the UK isn't. 
If you really think it's that much of an issue then your recourse is to the general public.  I can't see how you could do it via legal case as you, as a private individual, wouldn't have any particular reason to require any of the acts relating to bank notes to be amended.  You'd probably need a new act passed, let's call it the 'Legal Tender Act 2020'; it would have to pass through both houses and gain royal assent.  There needs to be some sort of public demand for it, firstly, for parliament to even think of the issue as one worth debating.  You might consider starting a petition or canvassing in your local area, then making a case to your MP if you are able to adequately evidence your claim that the public wants a new law.    
The only question is 'why?'.  The majority of people aren't at all interested in cash these days and youngsters don't even carry it - I've had my purse commented on as if it's some mysterious remnant of a vanished civilisation.  Interest in extending the status of legal tender, therefore, is likely to be even smaller.

I discussed previously in posts in this thread how there are exceptions in 'hard' legal tender countries, which are morally right, regarding still being able to reject cash payment, such as not having enough change (good faith principle) or suspecting fraud. So yes, in those circumstances cash could be rejected and these would be inherent in any country.

I disagree though that there isn't an overall material difference to the way cash is accepted in society because of our law. I've been to France and other hard legal tender countries and cash is very rarely rejected, especially higher denominations. Over here, some denominations of legal tender and legal currency are carte blanch rejected with many shops having permanent policies against £50 notes, Scottish and Irish £20 notes, and now NO CASH shops altogether, which is illegal in hard legal tender countries. I therefore firmly would support the adoption of hard legal tender in the UK.

Regarding the political effort to change it, the law is changed all the time, and there is no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be changed here. 51% of people surveyed in the Access to Cash Review agreed it should be mandatorily accepted in shops, against 24% who were against, so it is strongly supported.

I've no wish to stir the pot, but I just want to check that @trusaiyan knows neither Scottish nor Northern Irish banknotes are legal tender in any territory.  Not even, resepectively, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Yes, I'm completely aware of that, hence why I never referred to those denominations as legal tender but legal currency (which they are and which means Parliament has sanctioned their use).

Of course the distinction is again utterly ridiculous and for the purposes of the law, any legal currency accepted by Parliament should be granted legal tender status. It's more, you guessed it, BAD LAW.

trusaiyan

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

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

On the contrary your argument is obviously incorrect because you still do not seem to understand that the very definition of "legal tender" means it only applies to a court situation. Just because you wish legal tender to be something that a shop has to accept doesn't make it so, however loud you scream and scream and stamp your feet! 

trusaiyan said:

 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?

"Vague definition"?!?! The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and one of their jobs is to provide ways to pay for things safely therefore any sane, rational person would think their definition of legal tender would be about as authoritative as you can get:

Bank of England What Is Legal Tender?

Please explain exactly which part of "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" is vague?

Please explain exactly which part of "Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay" is vague?

If you still cannot get your head around that then I truly feel sorry for you. I guarantee that your solicitors will get back to you with exactly the same answers as have been repeated ad nauseam on here.

You still obviously struggle with reading comprehension.

Legal tender does NOT mean in all countries of the world that it ONLY must settle a debt in a court situation. It is possible that it does mean that in the UK (based on a flimsy Royal Mint definition - the BofE on plain reading is slightly different as it suggests you couldn't be sued if you offered to pay off your debt in legal tender, which you could argue happened inside the restaurant), but that is totally ridiculous.  

And even if it did mean that everywhere, that is a total contradiction and absurd conundrum, as the applicability of the concept is not useful in everyday life where the majority of debt or payment obligations exist, so it was never intended in its original conception to only mean court situations (whether it did in the UK I do not know). Of course it should mean mandatory acceptance in all instances where any payment obligation exists:

Legal tender in the euro area (Siekmann 2018): 

"From the historic development follows that the principal virtue of legal tender is (i) that it has to be accepted for settlement of any kind of monetory obligation - private or public. In contrast to all other monetary instruments, (ii) the creditor is held to accept legal tender at full face value if it is offered to her or him. Complementing this characteristic, (iii) the creditor of a monetary obligation only has a claim for legal tender". 

EU Commission's recommended definition:

"1.   Common definition of legal tender

Where a payment obligation exists, the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins should imply:

(a)	Mandatory acceptance: The creditor of a payment obligation cannot refuse euro banknotes and coins unless the parties have agreed on other means of payment.

(b)	Acceptance at full face value: The monetary value of euro banknotes and coins is equal to the amount indicated on the banknotes and coins.

(c)	Power to discharge from payment obligations: A debtor can discharge himself from a payment obligation by tendering euro banknotes and coins to the creditor.

2.   Acceptance of payments in euro banknotes and coins in retail transactions

The acceptance of euro banknotes and coins as means of payments in retail transactions should be the rule. A refusal thereof should be possible only if grounded on reasons related to the ‘good faith principle’ (for example the retailer has no change available)."

It therefore typically means that it MUST be accepted WHEN IT IS TENDERED, i.e at the point of paying for the debt/payment obligation, not just in a court situation. It is possible the UK have adopted another definition but I would like to see where this has been established in the law, which no one has yet done.

waamo

I have no idea why foreign laws about a currency we don't use have any bearing on our legal system at all. 

stragglebod

I have only once tried to pay for something in a shop with a £50 note and that was indeed rejected. Fortunately it was a £20 note on the other side so I just turned it over and paid with that.

LABMAN

OP with regards to comprehension what did you actually mean when you said you were done with this thread now?

shaun_from_Africa

waamo said:

I have no idea why foreign laws about a currency we don't use have any bearing on our legal system at all. 

Simple.
The OP can't find anything under UK legislation to back up their argument so they are desperate enough to resort to trawling the internet looking for laws and legislation from countries thousands of miles away in an attempt to show that they are right and that the BOE and everyone on here is wrong.

trusaiyan

waamo said:

I have no idea why foreign laws about a currency we don't use have any bearing on our legal system at all. 

Because it shows how backward our particular law on this is...

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

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

On the contrary your argument is obviously incorrect because you still do not seem to understand that the very definition of "legal tender" means it only applies to a court situation. Just because you wish legal tender to be something that a shop has to accept doesn't make it so, however loud you scream and scream and stamp your feet! 

trusaiyan said:

 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?

"Vague definition"?!?! The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and one of their jobs is to provide ways to pay for things safely therefore any sane, rational person would think their definition of legal tender would be about as authoritative as you can get:

Bank of England What Is Legal Tender?

Please explain exactly which part of "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" is vague?

Please explain exactly which part of "Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay" is vague?

If you still cannot get your head around that then I truly feel sorry for you. I guarantee that your solicitors will get back to you with exactly the same answers as have been repeated ad nauseam on here.

You still obviously struggle with reading comprehension.

Legal tender does NOT mean in all countries of the world that it ONLY must settle a debt in a court situation. It is possible that it does mean that in the UK (based on a flimsy Royal Mint definition - the BofE on plain reading is slightly different as it suggests you couldn't be sued if you offered to pay off your debt in legal tender, which you could argue happened inside the restaurant), but that is totally ridiculous.  

And even if it did mean that everywhere, that is a total contradiction and absurd conundrum, as the applicability of the concept is not useful in everyday life where the majority of debt or payment obligations exist, so it was never intended in its original conception to only mean court situations (whether it did in the UK I do not know). Of course it should mean mandatory acceptance in all instances where any payment obligation exists:

Legal tender in the EU area (Siekmann 2018): 

"From the historic development follows that the principal virtue of legal tender is (i) that it has to be accepted for settlement of any kind of monetory obligation - private or public. In contrast to all other monetary instruments, (ii) the creditor is held to accept legal tender at full face value if it is offered to her or him. Complementing this characteristic, (iii) the creditor of a monetary obligation only has a claim for legal tender". 

EU Commission's recommended definition:

"1.   Common definition of legal tender

Where a payment obligation exists, the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins should imply:

(a)	Mandatory acceptance: The creditor of a payment obligation cannot refuse euro banknotes and coins unless the parties have agreed on other means of payment.

(b)	Acceptance at full face value: The monetary value of euro banknotes and coins is equal to the amount indicated on the banknotes and coins.

(c)	Power to discharge from payment obligations: A debtor can discharge himself from a payment obligation by tendering euro banknotes and coins to the creditor.

2.   Acceptance of payments in euro banknotes and coins in retail transactions

The acceptance of euro banknotes and coins as means of payments in retail transactions should be the rule. A refusal thereof should be possible only if grounded on reasons related to the ‘good faith principle’ (for example the retailer has no change available)."

It therefore typically means that it MUST be accepted WHEN IT IS TENDERED, i.e at the point of paying for the debt/payment obligation, not just in a court situation. It is possible the UK have adopted another definition but I would like to see where this has been established in the law, which no one has yet done.

I note you've titled that link 'EU area', when factually speaking it should be 'Euro area'; they are separate conceits.  The EU commission's definition applies only to the Euro area, not the greater EU.  The Euro area comprises those members of the EU that use the Euro as currency.  Member states using currencies other than the Euro are not included, therefore prior to Brexit the UK was an EU member but not part of the Euro area.  The UK is now not in the EU at all, making this a somewhat redundant line of argument I feel.  If, hypothetically, we had chosen to remain and had, either by consensus or by force, adopted the Euro, then maybe the above would have had some bearing on these islands.  But in real life it just doesn't, sorry.