Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

Spank said:

LOL I had one of my posts deleted.
I'm not emailing admin (it's stupid that I can't reply to the message they sent me), so here is my reply.

Really? you had a problem with that? Apart from jokingly suggesting the OP needs to increase the dosage of their meds what was wrong?

I haven't reported to my knowledge any comments in this thread... But if they moderated a trolly, unnecessarily childish post, then good on them.

Spank

I knew it wasn't you, anybody as belligerent as you've been has a thick skin.

trusaiyan

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the responses to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

There are three things here: 1) their responses merely show they are giving an opinion as to what they THINK the law is (and this opinion may of course be wrong), 2) their responses do not in any capacity establish or point to where the law establishes or confirms the existence of the legal tender concepts as they have defined them, 3) in regards to the Bank of England's response, the definition they have stated in their response DIFFERS from their website definition, in that they have added a further clause to weaken the concept of legal tender!

It is truly farcical and shows why the British public have a problem with this concept - because the law, which cannot even be clarified or confirmed as to where it exists by the main institutions who should know it, is at complete odds with common sense and other comparable legal systems.

Royal Mint's response:

"Thank you for your recent enquiry. We will of course not comment on the source of information on which the Bank of England based their statement or its intended meaning, and we note you are writing to them separately. Our statement is based on our understanding of legal tender within the body of laws of England and Wales. In particular, in respect of coins, please refer to section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971 for which coins will constitute legal tender.

It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be resolved. In relation to coinage, any amounts tendered must fall within the boundaries specified for each denomination as laid down by Royal Proclamation or under the 1971 Coinage Act. For example, pennies are only legal tender up to a certain value, whereas one pound coins have unlimited legal tender status."

Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971 does not in any capacity establish the definition of legal tender as relating to its acceptance when presented for payment for any debt (even as they relate to coins). It establishes that coins are legal tender, but not how legal tender is accepted or rejected and the terms which govern this (so it does not in any way establish their stated definitions).

And the Bank of England's response is not the same as their website! They responded stating:

"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender. " 

They've added the "including terms permitting payment in legal tender" which suggests even in a court of law they would NOT have a defence if the creditor clearly stated they will not accept legal tender as payment, which differs from their own stated definition. And if their legal tender concept was that well established, they should state anything in the law which confirms the existence of their conception of the term, but they were UNABLE TO DO SO (or chose not to do so, but if it's so well established it would be easy to do!)!

The individual who was asking the Bank of England about legal tender should have responded: EXPLICITLY which area of law, be it a court decision, legal precedent or Act of Parliament establishes the definition of legal tender as espoused by the BofE in their definition. He did not do this in his second response to them and this is where he has let them off the hook.

For the British public to tolerate such appalling treatment and farce by the political and legal system around them, which allows the rejection of their hard earned cash, says so much about the sheep in this country. It is truly mesmerising. I cannot wait for a socialist government to put a big fat WRECKING BALL through the legal tender law of this land, and establish it as mandatory acceptance in all payment obligations, or face SEVERE penalties. God that will be a satisfying day.

davidmcn

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the respons Quotees to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

To be fair, they don't need to. That's not the point of FOI.

trusaiyan

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the respons Quotees to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

To be fair, they don't need to. That's not the point of FOI.

I doubt that's true. They don't have to give legal advice, as his second question could be construed as requesting, but I don't agree they shouldn't have to explain where they got or how they determined their conceptions of legal tender are established in British law. They are ultimately public bodies and we want to know!

trusaiyan

Does anyone want to have a go at showing a single court judgement, legal precedent or Act of Parliament that CONCLUSIVELY CONFIRMS the existence of legal tender as defined by either the Bank of England or Royal Mint? It has to be case law or written legislation and not a wishy washy we think it exists.

And it must discuss the acceptance and ability of legal tender to extinguish a debt (or confirm the inability to be sued successfully once tendered), and confirm at what point it must be tendered and if it concerns only court-awarded debt as opposed to general debt.

This should be easy considering it is apparently so well established (hahaha)! 

davidmcn

trusaiyan said:

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the respons Quotees to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

To be fair, they don't need to. That's not the point of FOI.

I doubt that's true. They don't have to give legal advice, as his second question could be construed as requesting, but I don't agree they shouldn't have to explain where they got or how they determined their conceptions of legal tender are established in British law. They are ultimately public bodies and we want to know!

No, FOI just requires them to disclose the requested information, if they already hold it. If the truthful answer is "dunno", that's all they need to say. And legal advice (if they did have any) is generally exempt from being disclosed anyway.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

Does anyone want to have a go at showing a single court judgement, legal precedent or Act of Parliament that CONCLUSIVELY CONFIRMS the existence of legal tender as defined by either the Bank of England or Royal Mint? It has to be case law or written legislation and not a wishy washy we think it exists.

And it must discuss the acceptance and ability of legal tender to extinguish a debt (or confirm the inability to be sued successfully once tendered), and confirm at what point it must be tendered and if it concerns only court-awarded debt as opposed to general debt.

This should be easy considering it is apparently so well established (hahaha)! 

You are asking for two things. 

In answer to the first one there is a clear definition as to what counts as legal tender in the UK as defined by the relevant acts of 1954 and 1971 showing what coins and notes are legal tender. 

What is not defined is when legal tender has to be accepted in payment. 

But in practice the advice of exact sums of legal tender being suitable for repayment would make sense. If you owed money and gave someone the exact sum in legal tender and they tried t refuse it, a judge would certainly rule you have attempted to sensibly repay the debt. 

trusaiyan

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the respons Quotees to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

To be fair, they don't need to. That's not the point of FOI.

I doubt that's true. They don't have to give legal advice, as his second question could be construed as requesting, but I don't agree they shouldn't have to explain where they got or how they determined their conceptions of legal tender are established in British law. They are ultimately public bodies and we want to know!

No, FOI just requires them to disclose the requested information, if they already hold it. If the truthful answer is "dunno", that's all they need to say. And legal advice (if they did have any) is generally exempt from being disclosed anyway.

They did not, in my opinion, explain sufficiently where they got their definition of legal tender from.

Instead they claimed they think it's a well established principle of law, but they didn't present ANYWHERE in the law that would confirm it's existence. That is a total cop-out and crap answer, as they would know but couldn't care less. 

davidmcn

trusaiyan said:

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

davidmcn said:

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. I've just read through the respons Quotees to the Freedom of Information requests, and what totally embarrassing responses from the Royal Mint and Bank of England, who haven't in ANY CAPACITY explained or confirmed where they have got their definition of legal tender from in British law, other than a wishy washy they think it exists!!

To be fair, they don't need to. That's not the point of FOI.

I doubt that's true. They don't have to give legal advice, as his second question could be construed as requesting, but I don't agree they shouldn't have to explain where they got or how they determined their conceptions of legal tender are established in British law. They are ultimately public bodies and we want to know!

No, FOI just requires them to disclose the requested information, if they already hold it. If the truthful answer is "dunno", that's all they need to say. And legal advice (if they did have any) is generally exempt from being disclosed anyway.

They did not, in my opinion, explain sufficiently where they got their definition of legal tender from.

Instead they claimed they think it's a well established principle of law, but they didn't present ANYWHERE in the law that would confirm it's existence. That is a total cop-out and crap answer, as they would know but couldn't care less. 

They're allowed to give crap answers, as long as they're not unlawfully withholding information they actually have.