Legal Tender and consumer contract law

Parking_Eyerate

I think it's immoral to try and force businesses to accept payment means they don't want to accept. As is the case now, a business should have the right to refuse cash (or credit/debit cards) if wished, the business then takes the risk if it loses/gains custom. Proposing that there should be legislation introduced to oblige retailers to accept £50 notes is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous.
Regarding the 'much lauded' situation in Massachusetts, I personally find that the US is fairly backward when it comes to matters like this and the legislation in Massachusetts reflects this. The US is the only country I have visited recently where retailers still require a signature rather than a PIN and where contactless payment is a relative rarity. To me it's regressive and annoying and necessitating the acceptance of notes/coins here would similarly be a backward step.
Buses, for one, work much more smoothly since change was removed as a payment option...

unholyangel

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?

Since you seem so hung up on what BoE & Royal Mint have to say....

I've explained scots law has no concept of legal tender, why do you think BoE say that english banknotes aren't legal tender in Scotland? Or what do you think they mean when they say that most people think legal tender means the shop has to accept the payment form, but this isn't the case? Or where they say that legal tender has a narrow technical meaning? You do understand what the words narrow and technical mean, right? 

Royal Mint say no such thing, they specifically say you can't be sued (which is wrong but we'll overlook that for now) if you pay into court in legal tender? Why would royal mint say that when that is exactly the same as tender before claim, if (according to you) they are not the same thing? 


Btw, I'm still waiting on one shred of proof from you:
1) That tender before claim & legal tender each have a distinct & different meaning
2) The legislation prohibiting retailers or traders from rejecting sums offered to them in denominations of legal tender

If legal tender exists as you say, then why do you think you're having such difficulty sourcing anything to prove or explain it? Is it perhaps because you're searching for the wrong term and that you should be searching for "defence of tender", "tender before action" or "tender before claim"? 

Jack_Cork

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Jack_Cork said:

In fact, a postage stamp is legal tender. A bus driver would have to accept that as currency, if he doesn't, report him

Correct; but you need to present yourself to the bus driver inside an envelope addressed to your destination, with the correct postage affixed to said envelope, in order for legal tender rules to apply.  The bus driver is also within his rights to drive you to a neighbour's house, leave you behind the conservatory or take you to a sorting office thirty miles away, as long as an illegible card attempting to explain this is put through the letterbox. 

You kind of missed it, but happy to see @powerful_Rogue got it

NBLondon

Parking_Eyerate said:

Regarding the 'much lauded' situation in Massachusetts, I personally find that the US is fairly backward when it comes to matters like this and the legislation in Massachusetts reflects this. The US is the only country I have visited recently where retailers still require a signature rather than a PIN and where contactless payment is a relative rarity. 

Funny - I had no problems with using a contactless card or a PIN card last year... in  erm...   Massachusetts.  Both Boston and rural.

I agree, there is no necessity to force business to accept cash (if they choose not to) or any other means of payment.   But it would be reasonable to oblige them to make it clear before the customer receives service.  Whether that be a handwritten sign over the till at the corner shop; the sign on the bus door that says "Cashless Only" or the restaurant menu that lists which cards they accept.  If there is no attempt to inform the customer otherwise; then I think it reasonable for the customer to  proffer a  (Bank of England) £50 note for a £45 bill.  If the restaurant will not accept it; it's up to the customer to offer an alternative if they have it or to invite the restaurant to invoice them for later payment in an agreed form..  The customer has made a valid offer to pay.  They are not "making off" unless they dishonestly intend to avoid paying the bill at a later point.

unholyangel

jon81uk said:

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

I've already quoted CPRs 37 several times to him. He apparently isn't aware the civil procedure rules are law 

powerful_Rogue

Jack_Cork said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Jack_Cork said:

In fact, a postage stamp is legal tender. A bus driver would have to accept that as currency, if he doesn't, report him

Correct; but you need to present yourself to the bus driver inside an envelope addressed to your destination, with the correct postage affixed to said envelope, in order for legal tender rules to apply.  The bus driver is also within his rights to drive you to a neighbour's house, leave you behind the conservatory or take you to a sorting office thirty miles away, as long as an illegible card attempting to explain this is put through the letterbox. 

You kind of missed it, but happy to see @powerful_Rogue got it

powerful_Rogue said:

...

Was there on page 3 (Which seems so long ago now)

trusaiyan

unholyangel 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?

Since you seem so hung up on what BoE & Royal Mint have to say....

I've explained scots law has no concept of legal tender, why do you think BoE say that english banknotes aren't legal tender in Scotland? Or what do you think they mean when they say that most people think legal tender means the shop has to accept the payment form, but this isn't the case? Or where they say that legal tender has a narrow technical meaning? You do understand what the words narrow and technical mean, right? 

Royal Mint say no such thing, they specifically say you can't be sued (which is wrong but we'll overlook that for now) if you pay into court in legal tender? Why would royal mint say that when that is exactly the same as tender before claim, if (according to you) they are not the same thing? 


Btw, I'm still waiting on one shred of proof from you:
1) That tender before claim & legal tender each have a distinct & different meaning
2) The legislation prohibiting retailers or traders from rejecting sums offered to them in denominations of legal tender

If legal tender exists as you say, then why do you think you're having such difficulty sourcing anything to prove or explain it? Is it perhaps because you're searching for the wrong term and that you should be searching for "defence of tender", "tender before action" or "tender before claim"? 

I keep having to repeat myself on this forum because evidently many posters simply ignore my previous posts or do not read them thoroughly. I suggest you actually read what I wrote, I'm not repeating what I've already written because you choose to ignore or miss what I've said.

1) I answered this question EXPLICITLY a few posts back, go read it instead of asking again

2) It's not legislation but the Bank of England's definition of legal tender would do just that on plain reading of it in some circumstances where a 'debt' exists (BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BE SUED FOR NON-PAYMENT IF YOU TENDERED IN LEGAL TENDER, SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE FORCED, IN EFFECT, TO ACCEPT THE CASH IF THAT WAS LITERALLY TRUE AND IF IT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS A 'DEBT', WHICH SOME RETAIL SALES ARE LIKE CAR LOANS ETC).

 

Parking_Eyerate

NBLondon said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Regarding the 'much lauded' situation in Massachusetts, I personally find that the US is fairly backward when it comes to matters like this and the legislation in Massachusetts reflects this. The US is the only country I have visited recently where retailers still require a signature rather than a PIN and where contactless payment is a relative rarity. 

Funny - I had no problems with using a contactless card or a PIN card last year... in  erm...   Massachusetts.  Both Boston and rural.

I agree, there is no necessity to force business to accept cash (if they choose not to) or any other means of payment.   But it would be reasonable to oblige them to make it clear before the customer receives service.  Whether that be a handwritten sign over the till at the corner shop; the sign on the bus door that says "Cashless Only" or the restaurant menu that lists which cards they accept.  If there is no attempt to inform the customer otherwise; then I think it reasonable for the customer to  proffer a  (Bank of England) £50 note for a £45 bill.  If the restaurant will not accept it; it's up to the customer to offer an alternative if they have it or to invite the restaurant to invoice them for later payment in an agreed form..  The customer has made a valid offer to pay.  They are not "making off" unless they dishonestly intend to avoid paying the bill at a later point.

Seems that you have been markedly more fortunate than I was, or it has changed somewhat since I last visited (which admittedly was 2018 rather than 2019). I can't remember a single restaurant or hotel where I was able to pay by CHIP&PIN rather than signing a receipt (I do wonder if it's so it's easier to add in an 'acceptable' tip). I also found establishments taking contactless payment were very few and far between (I can definitely recall one coffee shop, where they had also adapted to the tip aspect by adding special on-screen buttons relating to different tip levels, but reckon there might have been a few others). Anyway, we have had different experiences, that's life.

That said, I certainly do agree that retailers should clearly show/intimate what their payment policy is and I didn't suggest otherwise.

I really don't think, however, that the situation in question merits anything like the level of aggravation and indignation that the OP has displayed. (I think at one point he suggested that he would sue the restaurant if his legal advice turns out as he hopes, whereas I think such a suit would stand a good chance of simply annoying the poor judge tasked with hearing it, if it even got that far...)

unholyangel

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel 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?

Since you seem so hung up on what BoE & Royal Mint have to say....

I've explained scots law has no concept of legal tender, why do you think BoE say that english banknotes aren't legal tender in Scotland? Or what do you think they mean when they say that most people think legal tender means the shop has to accept the payment form, but this isn't the case? Or where they say that legal tender has a narrow technical meaning? You do understand what the words narrow and technical mean, right? 

Royal Mint say no such thing, they specifically say you can't be sued (which is wrong but we'll overlook that for now) if you pay into court in legal tender? Why would royal mint say that when that is exactly the same as tender before claim, if (according to you) they are not the same thing? 


Btw, I'm still waiting on one shred of proof from you:
1) That tender before claim & legal tender each have a distinct & different meaning
2) The legislation prohibiting retailers or traders from rejecting sums offered to them in denominations of legal tender

If legal tender exists as you say, then why do you think you're having such difficulty sourcing anything to prove or explain it? Is it perhaps because you're searching for the wrong term and that you should be searching for "defence of tender", "tender before action" or "tender before claim"? 

I keep having to repeat myself on this forum because evidently many posters simply ignore my previous posts or do not read them thoroughly. I suggest you actually read what I wrote, I'm not repeating what I've already written because you choose to ignore or miss what I've said.

1) I answered this question EXPLICITLY a few posts back, go read it instead of asking again

2) It's not legislation but the Bank of England's definition of legal tender would do just that on plain reading of it (BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BE SUED FOR NON-PAYMENT IF YOU TENDERED IN LEGAL TENDER, SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE FORCED, IN EFFECT, TO ACCEPT THE CASH IF THAT WAS LITERALLY TRUE AND IF IT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS A 'DEBT', WHICH SOME RETAIL SALES ARE LIKE CAR LOANS ETC).

 

No need to shout. 

My point is you keep asking us to prove that they don't need to accept cash. As I explained to you way back at the start of this thread, law is either prescriptive (gives you the specific right to do something - such as pay in "legal tender") or prohibitive (restricts you from doing something - such as refusing cash in a shop). So it's never going to cover a situation where retailers can accept something but don't have to. Which is why it is only you who can provide legislation to prove your point. 

As for point 1, no you didn't answer it. You deflected by (yet again) repeating your flawed understanding of the term "legal tender" and denominations. You have never explained what you think the difference between the two is, never mind provided proof of it. 

Tbh I don't think you even know yourself what you think the difference is, you're just hell bent on refusing to accept we're right. Why, I have no idea. Not like there's any face to save by this point. 

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel 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?

Since you seem so hung up on what BoE & Royal Mint have to say....

I've explained scots law has no concept of legal tender, why do you think BoE say that english banknotes aren't legal tender in Scotland? Or what do you think they mean when they say that most people think legal tender means the shop has to accept the payment form, but this isn't the case? Or where they say that legal tender has a narrow technical meaning? You do understand what the words narrow and technical mean, right? 

Royal Mint say no such thing, they specifically say you can't be sued (which is wrong but we'll overlook that for now) if you pay into court in legal tender? Why would royal mint say that when that is exactly the same as tender before claim, if (according to you) they are not the same thing? 


Btw, I'm still waiting on one shred of proof from you:
1) That tender before claim & legal tender each have a distinct & different meaning
2) The legislation prohibiting retailers or traders from rejecting sums offered to them in denominations of legal tender

If legal tender exists as you say, then why do you think you're having such difficulty sourcing anything to prove or explain it? Is it perhaps because you're searching for the wrong term and that you should be searching for "defence of tender", "tender before action" or "tender before claim"? 

I keep having to repeat myself on this forum because evidently many posters simply ignore my previous posts or do not read them thoroughly. I suggest you actually read what I wrote, I'm not repeating what I've already written because you choose to ignore or miss what I've said.

1) I answered this question EXPLICITLY a few posts back, go read it instead of asking again

2) It's not legislation but the Bank of England's definition of legal tender would do just that on plain reading of it in some circumstances where a 'debt' exists (BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BE SUED FOR NON-PAYMENT IF YOU TENDERED IN LEGAL TENDER, SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE FORCED, IN EFFECT, TO ACCEPT THE CASH IF THAT WAS LITERALLY TRUE AND IF IT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS A 'DEBT', WHICH SOME RETAIL SALES ARE LIKE CAR LOANS ETC).

 

A car loan is not a retail transaction.
you get finance with car finance company Ltd, who pay the sum to car dealer Ltd.

There are very few consumer retail transactions that generate a debt. Most that do, clearly set out the terms of sale and the payment terms and methods.