Legal Tender and consumer contract law

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

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.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978#Section_3_-_Making_off_without_payment
This section creates the offence of making off without payment.
It provides:
 (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done, or in respect of which service has been provided.
(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

As in the bolded section, most people would understand that payment on the spot is due in respect of service which has been provided. Therefore as payment on the spot is expected, there is no debt and non-payment is a criminal matter.

In legal terms it would be the "man on the clapham omnibus" argument, that an average person understands that payment of a restaurant meal is due on the spot after dining. Therefore this is not a debt.
Places are free to dictate whatever payment methods they wish to accept for services rendered.

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978#Section_3_-_Making_off_without_payment
This section creates the offence of making off without payment.
It provides:
 (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done, or in respect of which service has been provided.
(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

As in the bolded section, most people would understand that payment on the spot is due in respect of service which has been provided. Therefore as payment on the spot is expected, there is no debt and non-payment is a criminal matter.

In legal terms it would be the "man on the clapham omnibus" argument, that an average person understands that payment of a restaurant meal is due on the spot after dining. Therefore this is not a debt.

Yes, I am persuaded by this already, I already saw it before I came to this thread...

The legislation would strongly suggest it is not a debt. I did accept that if it can be construed that the restaurant meal is not a debt, the legal tender provision (as allegedly outlined in UK law) would definitely fail. I mentioned that at the start.

Manxman_in_exile

trusaiyan said:

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.

How's your reading comprehension?  I've already pointed out at least twice that to constitute an "offer of legal tender", your friend would have had to offer to pay the exact amount of the restaurant bill.  So unless the bill was exactly £50 he was not offering to pay in legal tender.  Even the Chards website you have referenced here and on Legal Beagles says that.

It is of course possible that the bill was exactly £50, but as you haven't mentioned that fact in 15 pages of discussion I assume either that it was not for exactly £50 or that you are being deliberately disingenuous and argumentative.

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978#Section_3_-_Making_off_without_payment
This section creates the offence of making off without payment.
It provides:
 (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done, or in respect of which service has been provided.
(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

As in the bolded section, most people would understand that payment on the spot is due in respect of service which has been provided. Therefore as payment on the spot is expected, there is no debt and non-payment is a criminal matter.

In legal terms it would be the "man on the clapham omnibus" argument, that an average person understands that payment of a restaurant meal is due on the spot after dining. Therefore this is not a debt.

Yes, I am persuaded by this already, I already saw it before I came to this thread...

The legislation would strongly suggest it is not a debt. I did accept that if it can be construed that the restaurant meal is not a debt, the legal tender provision (as allegedly outlined in UK law) would definitely fail. I mentioned that at the start.

Then why have you kept arguing if you knew this from the start!

A shop/restaurant can take whatever tender they wish. All a banknote means is that the BoE will pay the bearer the sum shown.

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

How's your reading comprehension?  I've already pointed out at least twice that to constitute an "offer of legal tender", your friend would have had to offer to pay the exact amount of the restaurant bill.  So unless the bill was exactly £50 he was not offering to pay in legal tender.  Even the Chards website you have referenced here and on Legal Beagles says that.

It is of course possible that the bill was exactly £50, but as you haven't mentioned that fact in 15 pages of discussion I assume either that it was not for exactly £50 or that you are being deliberately disingenuous and argumentative.

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

There's not a cat in hell's chance your getting that. You will get a copy of the questions and the solicitors answers posted here by me. You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave I couldn't care less .

waamo

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

How's your reading comprehension?  I've already pointed out at least twice that to constitute an "offer of legal tender", your friend would have had to offer to pay the exact amount of the restaurant bill.  So unless the bill was exactly £50 he was not offering to pay in legal tender.  Even the Chards website you have referenced here and on Legal Beagles says that.

It is of course possible that the bill was exactly £50, but as you haven't mentioned that fact in 15 pages of discussion I assume either that it was not for exactly £50 or that you are being deliberately disingenuous and argumentative.

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

There's not a cat in hell's chance your getting that. You will get a copy of the questions and the solicitors answers posted here by me. You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave I couldn't care less .

Then it's pointless posting it. Giving an answer without knowing the question is a complete waste of time.

shaun_from_Africa

trusaiyan said:

There's not a cat in hell's chance your getting that. You will get a copy of the questions and the solicitors answers posted here by me. You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave I couldn't care less .

But Manxman already stated that they didn't expect the personal details of the solicitor and they only wanted the details of the question and answer:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

trusaiyan

shaun_from_Africa said:

trusaiyan said:

There's not a cat in hell's chance your getting that. You will get a copy of the questions and the solicitors answers posted here by me. You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave I couldn't care less .

But Manxman already stated that they didn't expect the personal details of the solicitor and they only wanted the details of the question and answer:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

You'll get the EXACT questions asked and the EXACT solicitors response to those questions, except any private details. And you will not get any 'scan', it will be typed by me.

powerful_Rogue

trusaiyan said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

trusaiyan said:

There's not a cat in hell's chance your getting that. You will get a copy of the questions and the solicitors answers posted here by me. You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave I couldn't care less .

But Manxman already stated that they didn't expect the personal details of the solicitor and they only wanted the details of the question and answer:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'd love to know what legal opinion you get.  Can you please post here the text of the precise question you have asked and a scan of the legal response.  (I presume the solicitors/counsel will want their name(s) redacted).  I'd like to know how much you're paying for this definitive advice too.

You'll get the EXACT questions asked and the EXACT solicitors response to those questions, except any private details. And you will not get any 'scan', it will be typed by me.

I bet the 'solicitor' will agree with you. You'll also post that you contacted the resturant in question with the response from the 'solicitor' and they have offered you £500 and free meals for the next 6 months.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm a little curious why you need to go to the trouble of re-typing the entire text out yourself rather than posting a redacted and anonymised scan?  It makes me question whether it will actually exist...

"You will not get any information of the solicitor we asked, that is final, so you can take it or leave (sic) I couldn't care less"

Well if you won't put your money where your mouth is because your error is beginning to dawn on you, I'll leave it thank you.