Legal Tender and consumer contract law

shaun_from_Africa

trusaiyan said:

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

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

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.

So fa you have used the USA and Euro banknotes as examples, neither of which have any relevance whatsoever.
If you've not reached the bottom of the barrel yet, why not have a look at the laws of Libya, Nigeria and Australia as you may find something there that you think is useful.

steampowered

A lot of the shops, restaurants and cafes near me are now accepting cards only - no cash.

A lot of them say it is to reduce Covid risk, though I suspect it is really to save the hassle of dealing with cash.

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

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. 

What? It relates to the EURO. We have never used the euro. I have corrected the title typo.

I know it doesnt apply here and never ever has. But our cousins across the pond have a reasonable definition of the concept, hence me posting it. 

That's the last post now the professional opinions. Everything I've wanted to say is said here. 

waamo

trusaiyan said:

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...

Or how forward thinking we are and have a system all countries should adopt.

George_Michael

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

trusaiyan

George_Michael said:

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

Probably, but we await the professional opinions for a categorical conclusion. And don't worry, we won't be commencing legal action if it turns out they broke the law.

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

George_Michael said:

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

Probably, but we await the professional opinions for a categorical conclusion. And don't worry, we won't be commencing legal action if it turns out they broke the law.

But the restaurant hasn't broken the law..... 

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

George_Michael said:

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

Probably, but we await the professional opinions for a categorical conclusion. And don't worry, we won't be commencing legal action if it turns out they broke the law.

But the restaurant hasn't broken the law..... 

You're not in a position to give an authoritive answer (especially when you can't even find where it has been established in the law)... However I accept it is the probable outcome and it is the opinion of many in this thread.

powerful_Rogue

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

George_Michael said:

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

Probably, but we await the professional opinions for a categorical conclusion. And don't worry, we won't be commencing legal action if it turns out they broke the law.

But the restaurant hasn't broken the law..... 

You're not in a position to give an authoritive answer (especially when you can't even find where it has been established in the law)... However I accept it is the probable outcome and it is the opinion of many in this thread.

There is no law saying shops must accept cash. As such, no law has been broken. Job done.

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

George_Michael said:

trusaiyan said:

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...

Backward or not, it's still the law and as you finally seem to have accepted this then surely you must also accept that what the restaurant staff did was perfectly legal.

Probably, but we await the professional opinions for a categorical conclusion. And don't worry, we won't be commencing legal action if it turns out they broke the law.

But the restaurant hasn't broken the law..... 

You're not in a position to give an authoritive answer (especially when you can't even find where it has been established in the law)... However I accept it is the probable outcome and it is the opinion of many in this thread.

That's a logical fallacy.  If neither you, I, nor anyone else can find this law you refer to, bearing in mind that legislation is publicly available on the internet, the overwhelming likelihood is that said law doesn't exist.  Nobody, not even restaurants, can break non existent laws.