Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

The amounts that qualify as being "legal tender" are set out in statute as you have been told, and given a link to the aforementioned statute, several times.

So if a car garage sold you a car on a credit basis and stated clearly they would NOT accept cash payments (or £50 notes which are legal tender) and you defaulted on your debt, and the courts awarded an order for you to pay the debt in a certain time (a CCJ) would the courts or the creditor be forced to accept legal tender denominations or not?

Alternatively, for any other instances where an individual has to pay money into the Courts Funds Office (to either settle a court case or make the 'tender before claim' defence), do the courts HAVE to accept legal tender denominations?

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

I noted, several pages back, that I'd found an historical source that does partially explain, albeit in oblique terms, the split between public and private debts in terms of legal tender.  It's an ancient artefact that, somehow and rather circuitously, seems to have made its way into the modern definition of legal tender.  

Yes but it wasn't conclusive, and I didn't see a copy of the law which made reference to the principle other than your words.

waamo

trusaiyan said:

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

The amounts that qualify as being "legal tender" are set out in statute as you have been told, and given a link to the aforementioned statute, several times.

So if a car garage sold you a car on a credit basis and stated clearly they would NOT accept cash payments (or £50 notes which are legal tender) and you defaulted on your debt, and the courts awarded an order for you to pay the debt in a certain time (a CCJ) would the courts or the creditor be forced to accept legal tender denominations or not?

Alternatively, for any other instances where an individual has to pay money into the Courts Funds Office (to either settle a court case or make the 'tender before claim' defence), do the courts HAVE to accept legal tender denominations?

The court accepts legal tender and is obliged to do so. Again you have been told this multiple times.

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

In the alternative, we need to find the law which regulates what denominations of legal tender must be mandatorily accepted by courts of law (or other parties) as they relate to the UK. Simply having an Act of Parliament (like the 1954 and 1971 Acts) which states the 'legal tender' denominations does not confirm or deny this quality. Does it bound the courts or parties to accept them or not?

You have been told this multiple times. Those acts define what legal tender is in the UK and the denominations of noises and coins that can be used. 

Then the court rulings provided above show cases where a judge has ruled that the tender must be accepted. 

But this is all irrelevant to your original post. The restaurant doesn’t need to accept anything specific as a layperson would accept there is no debt and payment on the spot is expected. 

Show me the law which EXPLICITLY STATES that the denominations of legal tender described as 'legal tender' means the courts (or creditors in court situations) MUST accept them. Show me that very law, because that is the law that the Royal Mint and BofE allegedly think exists, but we haven't found it...

Simply using the term 'legal tender' in those Acts already brought does NOT confirm this at all.

trusaiyan

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

The amounts that qualify as being "legal tender" are set out in statute as you have been told, and given a link to the aforementioned statute, several times.

So if a car garage sold you a car on a credit basis and stated clearly they would NOT accept cash payments (or £50 notes which are legal tender) and you defaulted on your debt, and the courts awarded an order for you to pay the debt in a certain time (a CCJ) would the courts or the creditor be forced to accept legal tender denominations or not?

Alternatively, for any other instances where an individual has to pay money into the Courts Funds Office (to either settle a court case or make the 'tender before claim' defence), do the courts HAVE to accept legal tender denominations?

The court accepts legal tender and is obliged to do so. Again you have been told this multiple times.

Show me the exact law which establishes this.

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

waamo said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

The amounts that qualify as being "legal tender" are set out in statute as you have been told, and given a link to the aforementioned statute, several times.

So if a car garage sold you a car on a credit basis and stated clearly they would NOT accept cash payments (or £50 notes which are legal tender) and you defaulted on your debt, and the courts awarded an order for you to pay the debt in a certain time (a CCJ) would the courts or the creditor be forced to accept legal tender denominations or not?

Alternatively, for any other instances where an individual has to pay money into the Courts Funds Office (to either settle a court case or make the 'tender before claim' defence), do the courts HAVE to accept legal tender denominations?

The court accepts legal tender and is obliged to do so. Again you have been told this multiple times.

Show me the exact law which establishes this.

Unfortunately, and I hope you realise this, the more you pursue this line of argument, the closer you come to invalidating your initial position.  Or: the further you push this, the less likely it seems that Pound Sterling banknotes are actually legal tender at all.  If that's your wish, then so be it but you seem to want to argue the opposite: that there should be some sort of enforcement of the status of legal tender. 
If, as you suggest, there is nothing in law which establishes Sterling's status as 'legal tender' in terms of payment to court; then it may have no such status.  If you challenged it somehow, and proved it to be the case, the legal tender defence might be removed in the context of the civil court.  
What you won't get, with this line of argument, is an upgrade of banknotes to a universal master payment method which cannot be refused.  You seem to want that, but in order to get it you need to start building from the ground up rather than further digging at your somewhat crumbly foundation of legal tender by social convention only.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

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. 

That is the defence of tender before claim which has been brought up before and is distinct conceptually from legal tender as defined by the Bank of England, Royal Mint or any person in the land, in that it concerns the ability or acceptance of cash (legal tender) to extinguish a debt or payment obligation. 

The fact a debtor according to the CPR 37.3 'can pay the disputed sum into court (under CPR 37.3) and file a defence alleged tender before action', tells us nothing about what legal tender will be accepted. Will £50's be accepted? Will they accept cash at all? Do they have to accept legal tender?

Yes, tender before claim......you might know it as "legal tender". Tender before claim is the defence, legal tender is paying into court in order to rely on the defence. 

Or do you really think its a coincidence that the page specifies that if you offer it to the other party (rather than paying it into court), that you can't rely on the defence and talks about having to pay into court to be able to rely on the defence, even if the other party rejects it? 

You seem to accept legal tender gives you a defence against a claim for non-payment. If what you think is true (that tender before claim & legal tender is distinct) then whats the distinction? Why do the CPRs state you need to pay the money into court in order to rely on the defence? If legal tender (in those words) exists as a defence distinct from tender before claim, prove it. I've given a judgement talking about tender before claim (and I can provide half a dozen more). Where's your proof? 

Unless the CPRs state exactly which legal tender denominations will be accepted, it is not the same concept. Saying that they must have paid the tender into the court for it to be successful, does not confirm that all denominations of 'legal tender' will be accepted by the courts (or is it subject to the particular contract terms, etc). 

Legal tender as espoused by Royal Mint and BofE alludes to it's quality that the legal tender denominations MUST be accepted to extinguish a debt (or said in another way, that you could not be sued for repayment if offered in legal tender).  

This specific quality is the crucial thing and we want to find in the law, but it has not been forthcoming...

In the alternative, we need to find the law which regulates what denominations of legal tender must be mandatorily accepted by courts of law (or other parties) as they relate to the UK. Simply having an Act of Parliament (like the 1954 and 1971 Acts) which states the 'legal tender' denominations does not confirm or deny this quality. Does it bound the courts or parties to accept them or not?

You have been told this multiple times. Those acts define what legal tender is in the UK and the denominations of noises and coins that can be used. 

Then the court rulings provided above show cases where a judge has ruled that the tender must be accepted. 

But this is all irrelevant to your original post. The restaurant doesn’t need to accept anything specific as a layperson would accept there is no debt and payment on the spot is expected. 

Show me the law which EXPLICITLY STATES that the denominations of legal tender described as 'legal tender' means the courts (or creditors in court situations) MUST accept them. Show me that very law, because that is the law that the Royal Mint and BofE allegedly think exists, but we haven't found it...

Simply using the term 'legal tender' in those Acts already brought does NOT confirm this at all.

Again THIS IS TWO SEPERATE THINGS

The acts set out what is legal tender and the denomination covered. This is a clear definition of what counts as legal tender in the UK.

There is no act of parliament (to my knowledge) that sets out when legal tender must be accepted, this is a matter of common law and judicial decisions.

Andy_L

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

Nope. A judge can make a decision, set a precedent based upon common law and then it can be case law. 

In some cases it may then become part of overall national Legislation but not always if the decision is routed in common law.  

ISTR that's how murder is defined in English law, ie there isn't a "Murder (its a bit illegal) Act 1068" but its based on centuries of judges saying "we won't have this sort of thing going on. You shall be taken from here to a place of execution etc etc"

jon81uk

I've found it for you.

Courts will take money in cheque (1.1) or cash (1.2)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37/pd_part37

jon81uk

Andy_L said:

jon81uk said:

trusaiyan said:

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.

Nope. A judge can make a decision, set a precedent based upon common law and then it can be case law. 

In some cases it may then become part of overall national Legislation but not always if the decision is routed in common law.  

ISTR that's how murder is defined in English law, ie there isn't a "Murder (its a bit illegal) Act 1068" but its based on centuries of judges saying "we won't have this sort of thing going on. You shall be taken from here to a place of execution etc etc"

Yep murder is an offence under common law, it isn't covered in legislation.

Law is full of these sort of oddities, such as legal tender being well defined as to what makes it up, but not when it can be used. But generally people then just need to do what the judge tells them to do.