Legal Tender and consumer contract law

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

OMFG well isn't this a farce. ... 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,

It is amusing to see you yet again get all worked up because a phrase doesn't mean what you think it means; a response to a FOI request only has to include information they have a record of. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

trusaiyan said:

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,

There are two reasons why your ridiculous demands won't happen:

1) Corbyn and Momentum have damaged the Labour so much it will be years before they are ever back in power.

2) Despite your protestations, "common sense" dictates that a business should be free to accept or refuse any payment method for obvious common sense reasons, for example:

• a) Are you suggesting all BT payphones should be redesigned to accept notes, including of course your infamous £50 "legal tender"?
• b) All Tesco Pay At Pump petrol pumps should be converted to accept both notes and coins?
• c) All UK online businesses should be forced to accept cash?
• d) All newsagents should be forced to accept a £50 note for a 65p Daily Mail, even if you are the second, third or fourth person to demand such that morning?

MobileSaver

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Unfortunately, and I hope you realise this, the more you pursue this line of argument, the closer you come to invalidating your initial position.

Whoops, too late!

jon81uk said:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37/pd_part37

Thanks to some great detective work by @jon81uk, the law appears to further restrict when you can force an entity to accept "legal tender". So even in a court setting you can only pay with cash if the following three things are true:

1. You don't use a solicitor
2. You pay into the court where the case is proceeding, not just any court
3. Crucially, you don't have a current account that allows you to otherwise write a cheque

Your chances of getting the law changed just went from unbelievably slim to zero...

Parking_Eyerate

I wonder if the use of the term "legal tender" in common parlance (e.g. re consumer purchases in the nature of the OP's interest) is in essence a 'corruption' (or misunderstood extension) of the tender before claim concept. Breaking the term down, legal relates to 'of the law' and tender concerning an 'offer', so perhaps the term in the sense of 'valid payment' was based initially on the understanding of common law court judgments regarding a pre-claim offer, but it has since been more loosely 'adapted' by more general application among the broader population. Maybe asserting that something is 'legal tender' was initially a short-hand way of saying that a court would accept it in the relevant circumstances.

I'd also be interested to know if the OP considers that paying with a debit/credit card is distinct from using legal tender. After all, the consequence of using a debit/credit card is that it costs the customer £ and the retailer gains £, it is just a different means of transmission. How about a bank transfer in £, is that a transfer of legal tender? Do none of the retailers that only accept cards  operate businesses in legal tender? If they pay tax by online transfer does HMRC not receive legal tender?

Further, assuming the OP has a job, would he be happy to accept his salary only in notes/coins?

Lastly, with respect to some of the more bizarre assertions which seemingly need to be highlighted by the use of capital letters, I do also wonder if the relevant legislators in Massachusetts consider(ed) themselves to be socialist.

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

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.

The Act sets out that some denominations of cash are 'legal tender', it does NOT explain what legal tender is outside of this, so going off these Acts, the formulation from the Bank of England and Royal Mint that legal tender refers to it's ability to be accepted by courts/creditors in extinguishing debt CANNOT BE THE SOURCE of this conception.

A simple line stating how legal tender is to be accepted in the legislation would have resolved it, but it isn't within these Acts.

No one has yet been able to find this conception or definition of legal tender in the law, but the Royal Mint AND the Bank of England are both claiming it has been established. 

The tender before claim defence DOES NOT ESTABLISH THIS, as it does not establish what legal tender denominations MUST be accepted and in what circumstances (even in a court of law), but the legal tender principle as espoused by those institutions is supposed to do that.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

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.

The Act sets out that some denominations of cash are 'legal tender', it does NOT explain what legal tender is outside of this, so going off these Acts, the formulation from the Bank of England and Royal Mint that legal tender refers to it's ability to be accepted by courts/creditors in extinguishing debt CANNOT BE THE SOURCE of this conception.

A simple line stating how legal tender is to be accepted in the legislation would have resolved it, but it isn't within these Acts.

No one has yet been able to find this conception or definition of legal tender in the law, but the Royal Mint AND the Bank of England are both claiming it has been established. 

The tender before claim defence DOES NOT ESTABLISH THIS, as it does not establish what legal tender denominations MUST be accepted and in what circumstances (even in a court of law), but the legal tender principle as espoused by those institutions is supposed to do that.

Then write to bank of england and royal mint and tell them their understanding of common law is wrong.

DoaM

Give the OP his due ... he's trying his best to get to 100 pages.  

@Parking_Eyerate the Tender Before Claim point was raised and discussed a few pages back.

DoaM

MobileSaver said:

• a) Are you suggesting all BT payphones should be redesigned to accept notes, including of course your infamous £50 "legal tender"?
• b) All Tesco Pay At Pump petrol pumps should be converted to accept both notes and coins?

And given that there's no requirement in law for a seller to return any change at all, if you make a phone call that costs £2 but had put in your mythical £50 note, would you be happy to suck up the £48 "loss" you'd just made?  

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

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.

In regards to your first point, yes I'm aware of that. But I am sure you are aware that globally, the WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE LEGAL TENDER CONCEPT is it's ability to make cash (or whatever is deemed legal tender) to be mandatorily accepted by creditors or courts to discharge the obligation when tendered (or ideally any payment obligation, as it is in some countries with hard legal tender).

The BofE and Royal Mint allege in their loose definitions that a similar concept HAS been established at some level in UK law, but they have not told us where, which is a gross cop-out and ridiculous situation. THEY are telling us it exists, but won't tell us where (i.e a single court case, judge opinion or Act that establishes/confirms it's existance). That is totally absurd on something that is so important when they are the main establishments in the land that claim they know!

In regards to your final comment, as I have ALREADY CLEARLY STATED I obviously support a strict hard legal tender law implemented in the UK (of course I do), because that is the morally correct choice to make in regards to consumer choice, privacy and the value of the cash. Cash is devauled in the UK because many places choose not to accept it. This is absurd and fundametally immoral, and over 50% of the population agree with me, even if many in this thread don't. Thanks for your opinion about what will happen politically, but of course you do not know what will happen for certain.as the world is going cashless, more places are implementing hard legal tender laws, and rightly so.

Ditzy_Mitzy

http://sohomint.info/Gazette%201806%20Coinage%2015916.pdf
There ya go!  No mention of legal tender whatsoever, only 'current and lawful Money'.  Was it ever legal tender?  Is this all just an enormous conspiracy?  
@trusaiyan draws ever closer to winning the war for the other side!

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

jon81uk said:

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.

The Act sets out that some denominations of cash are 'legal tender', it does NOT explain what legal tender is outside of this, so going off these Acts, the formulation from the Bank of England and Royal Mint that legal tender refers to it's ability to be accepted by courts/creditors in extinguishing debt CANNOT BE THE SOURCE of this conception.

A simple line stating how legal tender is to be accepted in the legislation would have resolved it, but it isn't within these Acts.

No one has yet been able to find this conception or definition of legal tender in the law, but the Royal Mint AND the Bank of England are both claiming it has been established. 

The tender before claim defence DOES NOT ESTABLISH THIS, as it does not establish what legal tender denominations MUST be accepted and in what circumstances (even in a court of law), but the legal tender principle as espoused by those institutions is supposed to do that.

Also you have yet again missed the point. The acts set out what is legal tender. Everything else is either common law or decided as required. Those relevant acts of parliament exist so that if someone writes in a contract I want payment in legal tender, they know what to get.
This is all entirely unrelated to your original post where it has been established payment on the spot would be expected.
If you owed someone some money, you could offer them, your car for example in payment, they could accept if they wish. 

As said if you don't like the other institution webpages, complain to them. But the overall definition of legal tender has been found and who (no-one it seems) needs to accept it.