Legal Tender and consumer contract law

Aylesbury_Duck

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

Sounds a lot like the government's latest initiative to make us all fat.

Aylesbury_Duck

Manxman_in_exile said:

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. 

Some people do indeed go to extraordinary lengths to save face.  And tell us how little they care about other people's views, despite their presence on the internet arguing about it vehemently for three days...

trusaiyan

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

I bet they don't. And as I said, nothing will be done currently even if it is proved (in the unlikely event) we were correct and were unlawfully refused tender, but this is unfortunately looking more and more unlikely as I don't think it is likely a 'debt'.

However, it will be interesting to discover where and when the legal tender concept IS established in our law.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

However, it will be interesting to discover where and when the legal tender concept IS established in our law.

The currency and banknotes act 1954
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/12

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

However, it will be interesting to discover where and when the legal tender concept IS established in our law.

The currency and banknotes act 1954
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/12

As previously mentioned, that legislation does reference 'legal tender', but it does not define it from what I could see but happy to be proved wrong...

I mean it does not define it in the way the Royal Mint or BofE website do (or the common conceptions of the term regarding it's acceptance or ability to extinguish debt), which must be drawn from other areas of law that I have not seen. That legislation does not go into what is explicitly referred to by 'legal tender' other than it is bank notes. 

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

However, it will be interesting to discover where and when the legal tender concept IS established in our law.

The currency and banknotes act 1954
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/12

As previously mentioned, that legislation does reference 'legal tender', but it does not define it from what I could see but happy to be proved wrong...

(1) The Bank of England may issue bank notes of such denominations as the Treasury may approve and shall not issue any other bank notes, and any bank notes issued under this section may be put into circulation in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales.

(2)All bank notes issued under this section shall be legal tender in England and Wales, and all such notes of denominations of less than five pounds shall be legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(3)Bank notes shall be payable only at the head office of the Bank of England unless expressly made payable also at some other place.

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

However, it will be interesting to discover where and when the legal tender concept IS established in our law.

The currency and banknotes act 1954
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/12

As previously mentioned, that legislation does reference 'legal tender', but it does not define it from what I could see but happy to be proved wrong...

(1) The Bank of England may issue bank notes of such denominations as the Treasury may approve and shall not issue any other bank notes, and any bank notes issued under this section may be put into circulation in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales.

(2)All bank notes issued under this section shall be legal tender in England and Wales, and all such notes of denominations of less than five pounds shall be legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(3)Bank notes shall be payable only at the head office of the Bank of England unless expressly made payable also at some other place.

See my edited post: 
"I mean it does not define it in the way the Royal Mint or BofE websites do (or the common conceptions of the term regarding it's acceptance or ability to extinguish debt), which must be drawn from other areas of law that I have not seen. That legislation does not go into what is explicitly referred to by 'legal tender' other than it is bank notes."

If that is literally the only establishment of legal tender in our law, then that tells us very little in terms of do they have to be accepted when tendered, only when there is a 'debt', only in a court situation, only when tendered exactly etc... It also flies against the definition of both Bank of England and Royal Mint, so that cannot be what they are referring to.

They are using it in that legislation it seems to purely mean the cash denominations only.

stragglebod

Manxman_in_exile said:

[Snip]Even the Chards website you have referenced here and on Legal Beagles says that.[/Snip]

Ah, the OP is posting on Legal Beagles. Over there these arguments will be a beacon of sanity. In comparison to the rest.

Ditzy_Mitzy

I've read around and the best I can find is some vague references to legal tender in the Currency Act of 1751.  Whilst this was aimed at curbing British colonies', specifically those in America, production of their own money, there are vague hints within it at the present status of legal tender.  Apparently the colonies' fiat money was worth less than the Pound Sterling, which disadvantaged British merchants obliged to accept it.  The Currency Act, long gone of course, defined what this colony money could be used for.  Specifically, it could be used to pay taxes i.e. settle public debts but private merchants were not required to take it.  I assume it was taken by the then revenue in order to get it out of circulation.  Essentially, therefore, the requirement to accept this money in lieu of a private debt was taken away. 
Obviously this is ancient legislation applicable to colonies that no longer exist, and a currency that isn't the pound; but I can't help wondering whether that discrimination between public and private debt was carried forward into the Banking Charter Act of 1844, which gave the Bank of England monopoly on issuing banknotes.  It just seems remarkably similar to the modern definition of legal tender, the origins of which appear lost in time.

photome

trusaiyan said:

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. 

How many times are you going to post that.