Legal Tender and consumer contract 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.

The BofE website does not constitute where the law is established or what the law actually is, or a full explanation of the law (as far as I am aware). Yes it may be true in the end, but it has to be located outside of that site (where no one has brought to my attention?).

And secondly, plain reading of the second sentence does NOT categorically preclude the situation in the restaurant, because 1) there is a 'debt' to pay in the restaurant meal (I assume, but am not certain, as it could be considered an instant transaction still), 2) my friend 'offered' to pay off the 'debt' by tendering to legal tender £50 note, 3) it therefore could be construed on plain reading that the restaurant 'can't sue' my friend for failing to repay, as he did 'offer' to in the restaurant.

Nothing in that sentence says this only refers to court situations. Yes I am aware other areas of law has been presented in this thread regarding the tender before claim defence, but that does not apparently comply with the legal tender definition as espoused on the BofE site. 

Regardless, it cannot be true that this is where the concept has been established or where judges look to for their definition.

shaun_from_Africa

trusaiyan said:

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)... 

The law doesn't generally state what is legal, it states what is illegal hence the term "breaking the law". 
If the refusal to accept a certain payment is illegal then this must be written into legislation in order for someone to be charged with failing to abide by that legislation.

jon81uk

If you really want to force shops/restaurants to accept cash then I suggest writing to your MP and/or setting up a petition on the parliament website.

There are two relevant arguments which are very different to your £50 being refused, that some people recently due to cash being refused in stores due to covid have gone without food. This is a problem. Stores should have signage clearly showing what payment methods they accept or do not accept.
Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.

Realistically I don't think many people care. The only time I personally use cash is at the chip shop as they don't take cards. There are some (generally elderly) people who use cash a lot, but I think that number is getting lower and we will see many places that will stop taking cash due to Covid and will never take it again.

Edit to add.

There already is a petition here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/320311 only 15 signatures though.

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

And secondly, plain reading of the second sentence does NOT categorically preclude the situation in the restaurant, because...

The BofE definition categorically DOES preclude the restaurant situation because you have conveniently ignored the previous two paragraphs which state "Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case." and "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" so it is patently obvious to any sane, rational person that, even if there is a debt, paying it off with "legal tender" can only happen outside the normal course of the shop owner's business which would be in court.

This is called confirmation bias; where you pick and choose and interpret only the bits that support your argument even when other bits refute your position - if you were doing this on forums ten years ago, I can see why your time may not have been a happy one!

trusaiyan

shaun_from_Africa said:

trusaiyan said:

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)... 

The law doesn't generally state what is legal, it states what is illegal hence the term "breaking the law". 
If the refusal to accept a certain payment is illegal then this must be written into legislation in order for someone to be charged with failing to abide by that legislation.

Yep, and according to the BofE site which is apparently 'the law' according to this thread, "if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay". Which might, you know, help my friend out as he did just that!

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

 it cannot be true that this is where the concept has been established or where judges look to for their definition.

As suggested by @powerful_Rogue, when the judge asks you or your friend which law has been broken what will you say?

trusaiyan

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

And secondly, plain reading of the second sentence does NOT categorically preclude the situation in the restaurant, because...

The BofE definition categorically DOES preclude the restaurant situation because you have conveniently ignored the previous two paragraphs which state "Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case." and "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" so it is patently obvious to any sane, rational person that, even if there is a debt, paying it off with "legal tender" can only happen outside the normal course of the shop owner's business which would be in court.

This is called confirmation bias; where you pick and choose and interpret only the bits that support your argument even when other bits refute your position - if you were doing this on forums ten years ago, I can see why your time may not have been a happy one!

I don't agree, because most transactions would NOT be considered a 'debt', because services are yet to be rendered in normal shop transactions - so there is no debt.

But in the situation where they have been rendered and a debt exists (like taxi service or restaurant meal), I don't believe the sentences you are concerned with conclusively applies according to that definition (but would apply when walking to the counter to pay for the goods). I assume Tesco also didn't think they applied hence why they didn't sue the tenderer who walked away with the free fuel 'debt', after having his legal tender refused after pumping.

If this had not been a service that had been rendered, and my friend simply tried to pay for some new shoes at the counter, I never ever would have posted this thread (which I accept would not apply according to our backward legal system). It is the very fact he had eaten the meal which may (although unlikely) mean a debt exists and the resturant must accept the legal tender, or at least it means they can't sue you should he walk off.

In the alternative, it may mean that it would only apply when he tenders that legal tender to court when being sued for the unpaid meal, but that is a gross absurdity for the reasons already stated 50 thousand times by me (but is quite possibly true).

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

And secondly, plain reading of the second sentence does NOT categorically preclude the situation in the restaurant, because...

The BofE definition categorically DOES preclude the restaurant situation because you have conveniently ignored the previous two paragraphs which state "Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case." and "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" so it is patently obvious to any sane, rational person that, even if there is a debt, paying it off with "legal tender" can only happen outside the normal course of the shop owner's business which would be in court.

This is called confirmation bias; where you pick and choose and interpret only the bits that support your argument even when other bits refute your position - if you were doing this on forums ten years ago, I can see why your time may not have been a happy one!

I don't agree, because most transactions would NOT be considered a 'debt', because services are yet to be rendered in normal shop transactions - so there is no debt.

But in the situation where they have been rendered and a debt exists (like taxi service or restaurant meal), I don't believe the sentences you are concerned with conclusively applies according to that definition (but would apply when walking to the counter to pay for the goods). I assume Tesco also didn't think they applied hence why they didn't sue the tenderer who walked away with the free fuel 'debt', after having his legal tender refused after pumping.

If this had not been a service that had been rendered, and my friend simply tried to pay for some new shoes at the counter, I never ever would have posted this thread (which I accept would not apply according to our backward legal system). It is the very fact he had eaten the meal which may (although unlikely) mean a debt exists and the resturant must accept the legal tender, or at least it means he can't be sued should he walk off.

In the alternative, it may mean that it would only apply when he tenders that legal tender to court when being sued for the unpaid meal, but that is a gross absurdity for the reasons already stated 50 thousand times by me (but is quite possibly true).

But it has been explained to you many times, THERE IS NO DEBT.
There is no difference between a bill in a restaurant and a bill at a supermarket checkout.
Unless a restaurant explains credit terms to you, payment is expected on the spot and therefore it is not a debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_off_without_payment

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

MobileSaver said:

trusaiyan said:

And secondly, plain reading of the second sentence does NOT categorically preclude the situation in the restaurant, because...

The BofE definition categorically DOES preclude the restaurant situation because you have conveniently ignored the previous two paragraphs which state "Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case." and "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" so it is patently obvious to any sane, rational person that, even if there is a debt, paying it off with "legal tender" can only happen outside the normal course of the shop owner's business which would be in court.

This is called confirmation bias; where you pick and choose and interpret only the bits that support your argument even when other bits refute your position - if you were doing this on forums ten years ago, I can see why your time may not have been a happy one!

I don't agree, because most transactions would NOT be considered a 'debt', because services are yet to be rendered in normal shop transactions - so there is no debt.

But in the situation where they have been rendered and a debt exists (like taxi service or restaurant meal), I don't believe the sentences you are concerned with conclusively applies according to that definition (but would apply when walking to the counter to pay for the goods). I assume Tesco also didn't think they applied hence why they didn't sue the tenderer who walked away with the free fuel 'debt', after having his legal tender refused after pumping.

If this had not been a service that had been rendered, and my friend simply tried to pay for some new shoes at the counter, I never ever would have posted this thread (which I accept would not apply according to our backward legal system). It is the very fact he had eaten the meal which may (although unlikely) mean a debt exists and the resturant must accept the legal tender, or at least it means he can't be sued should he walk off.

In the alternative, it may mean that it would only apply when he tenders that legal tender to court when being sued for the unpaid meal, but that is a gross absurdity for the reasons already stated 50 thousand times by me (but is quite possibly true).

But it has been explained to you many times, THERE IS NO DEBT.
There is no difference between a bill in a restaurant and a bill at a supermarket checkout.
Unless a restaurant explains credit terms to you, payment is expected on the spot and therefore it is not a debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_off_without_payment

Yes, that is probably true (that the legal system doesn't consider it a 'debt'), as I have mentioned is possibly the case millions of times. But again, I have not been presented with any conclusive evidence as to why this is the case, hence why we're getting professional legal assistance.

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

I don't agree, because most transactions would NOT be considered a 'debt', because services are yet to be rendered in normal shop transactions

You are desperately clutching at straws; The statement "A shop owner can choose what payment they accept" is unambiguous and makes no distinction between goods, services or "debts".

trusaiyan said:

 it may mean that it would only apply when he tenders that legal tender to court when being sued for the unpaid meal, but that is a gross absurdity

There is nothing "absurd" about two completely different entities (a restaurant and a court) accepting different payment methods for the same thing.