Legal Tender and consumer contract law

KeithP

trusaiyan said:

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

If they do not have a record of "where they got their definition of legal tender from", then an acceptable answer to a FOI request is "we do not hold that information".

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

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. 

jon81uk said:

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. 

We already know that the law recognises 'legal tender' as the denominations of cash in those Acts, but that doesn't formulate what is meant by legal tender as espoused by BofE, Royal Mint or ANYONE who uses the term, whereby it refers to it's ability to be accepted in payments/debts.

This is what we care about and want to find in the law, which is apparently 'well established', but not a single person on this site, including those two institutions, is able to confirm it exists citing actual LAW. That is quite honestly a total farce, as their lawyers should easily be able to confirm where it is established or confirmed. 

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

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. 

jon81uk said:

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. 

We already know that the law recognises 'legal tender' as the denominations of cash in those Acts, but that doesn't formulate what is meant by legal tender as espoused by BofE, Royal Mint or ANYONE who uses the term, whereby it refers to it's ability to be accepted in payments/debts.

This is what we care about and want to find in the law, which is apparently 'well established', but not a single person on this site, including those two institutions, is able to confirm it exists citing actual LAW. That is quite honestly a total farce, as their lawyers should easily be able to confirm where it is established or confirmed. 

As I said,
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 to refuse it, a judge would certainly rule you have attempted to sensibly repay the debt. 

I would expect this happens and I don’t ever expect a judge will rule against someone trying to pay someone else in cash. But it’s not a “law” thing.

You could always test it yourself. Leave exact payment in legal tender and see if you get taken to court. 

trusaiyan

KeithP said:

trusaiyan said:

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

If they do not have a record of "where they got their definition of legal tender from", then an acceptable answer to a FOI request is "we do not hold that information".

It is fundamentally RIDICULOUS the main institution in the land which is advertising a definition of legal tender should not have a record of how it came to create it's advertised definition of that very concept on review of the law of the land (which it must have done to create it's definition). UTTERLY SHAMBOLIC.

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

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. 

jon81uk said:

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. 

We already know that the law recognises 'legal tender' as the denominations of cash in those Acts, but that doesn't formulate what is meant by legal tender as espoused by BofE, Royal Mint or ANYONE who uses the term, whereby it refers to it's ability to be accepted in payments/debts.

This is what we care about and want to find in the law, which is apparently 'well established', but not a single person on this site, including those two institutions, is able to confirm it exists citing actual LAW. That is quite honestly a total farce, as their lawyers should easily be able to confirm where it is established or confirmed. 

As I said,
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 to refuse it, a judge would certainly rule you have attempted to sensibly repay the debt. 

I would expect this happens and I don’t ever expect a judge will rule against someone trying to pay someone else in cash. But it’s not a “law” thing.

That in no way establishes the law at all. The acceptance of the legal tender must at some level be codified in the law.

KeithP

trusaiyan said:

KeithP said:

trusaiyan said:

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

If they do not have a record of "where they got their definition of legal tender from", then an acceptable answer to a FOI request is "we do not hold that information".

It is fundamentally RIDICULOUS the main institution in the land which is advertising a definition of legal tender should not have a record of how it came to create it's advertised definition of that very concept on review of the law of the land (which it must have done to create it's definition). UTTERLY SHAMBOLIC.

Talk about an over-the-top reaction.

Maybe they did once have a record of where that information came from. 

Please try and remember what a Freedom of Information request is.

It is a request for information held. If they no longer hold that information then, as I said, the correct answer is "we do not hold that information".

They did more than that and tried to offer useful information, but they did not need to do that.

unholyangel

trusaiyan said:

Yes, I'm completely aware of that, hence why I never referred to those denominations as legal tender but legal currency (which they are and which means Parliament has sanctioned their use).

Of course the distinction is again utterly ridiculous and for the purposes of the law, any legal currency accepted by Parliament should be granted legal tender status. It's more, you guessed it, BAD LAW.

Btw, notes (whether scottish or english) aren't really legal tender in scotland because scots law doesn't follow the concept of legal tender. No point giving something legal tender status when the scottish courts would expect you to take any currency of value - as long as it was adequate. 

You also asked for case law on "legal tender". https://dominicdesaulles.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/defence-of-tender-rsm-bentley-jennison-v-ayton-2015-ewca-civ-1120/

Note specifically the application part:

Suppose,
A owes £100,000 to B. B demands payment of that amount plus interest.
A tenders that amount. B refuses the amount tendered.
A has a complete defence at law to the claim and, if proceedings are issued, can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action.  

And also this part:

Of course A can, if it wants, send an amount offered in full and final settlement hoping that B will accept it. If B does not accept it however there is no defence of tender on which to fall back.

So, exactly as we've been telling you all along. Fancy that. 

trusaiyan

The fact they would be legally allowed to NOT hold a record of where that came from in the context of the fact they are the second institution in the land which is advertising and should know what legal tender means is....wait for it... an IMMORAL SHAMBLES.

Spank

You have to remember that some of our laws date back centuries and have been happily used since then.

unholyangel

davidmcn said:

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.

Often the responses they'll give is (paraphrasing) "we need to provide the information, we do not need to explain or interpret it for you". And they are absolutely right on that point.