Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

jon81uk said:

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.

Not going to waste any time arguing about what is considered a debt, but you agree that some transactions do create this in the eyes of the law.

Well plain reading of Bank of England's definition would suggest if you offered to pay for this debt in legal tender denominations, i.e cash, you basically can't be sued for non-payment (which would in effect mean mandatory acceptance of legal tender cash for debt payments).

But as has been fairly conclusively established, this is false, so the Bank of England appear to be misstating the law.

Manxman_in_exile

What if somebody started a thread asking for the legal foundation for the concept of "common-law wife"?  I How many pages would that run to?  Would it be longer than this thread?

trusaiyan

Manxman_in_exile said:

What if somebody started a thread asking for the legal foundation for the concept of "common-law wife"?  I How many pages would that run to?  Would it be longer than this thread?

Completely and utterly different, because the concept as defined by BofE and Royal Mint cannot be found in the law brought in this thread (and perhaps DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, so they are possibly misstating the law), which is totally embarrassing to both those institutions, and those in this thread defending them.

If it was that well established, it would be easy to reference a single court case, judges opinion or Act which confirms their conceptions of legal tender exist, but no one has been able to do it. 

And no, the fact the term 'legal tender' is referenced in various Acts to refer to some denominations of money, or the fact there exists a defence of tender before claim, ARE NOT THE SAME CONCEPTIONS OF LEGAL TENDER AS THOSE INSTITUTIONS REFERRED TO. 

In order to confirm the existence of their conceptions of legal tender, there MUST EXIST written into the law (case law or statutes) a protection of money (i.e the denominations deemed legal tender) such that it MUST BE ACCEPTED by courts of law (and thus creditors) for the settlement of debts. That is the intended meaning of their definitions it would strongly seem (even though that very definition is at odds with how the rest of the world views it generally, where it refers to mandatory acceptance of money to settle ANY payment obligation or owing, including retail transactions).

The tender before claim defence DOES NOT ESTABLISH what denominations of legal tender must be accepted or not. If the parties can accept or reject whatever denominations of money even when settling a debt in court, WE DO NOT HAVE EXISTING THE CONCEPTION OF LEGAL TENDER AS ESPOUSED BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND AND ROYAL MINT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE REFERRING TO THIS QUALITY.

However, the CPR's prove that courts DO NOT, even for court awarded debt which requires payment into court, have to accept legal tender denominations to settle those debts, as they can exclude everyone with a bank account (but for those who qualify it doesn't state whether all legal tender denominations would be accepted or not). However, does this mean CCJs that are paid directly to the creditor would not be protected by the legal tender principle though if it's been established as the BofE and RM claim? 

Manxman_in_exile

Three hours and eleven minutes.

Anybody know anything about Pavlov?

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What if somebody started a thread asking for the legal foundation for the concept of "common-law wife"?  I How many pages would that run to?  Would it be longer than this thread?

Completely and utterly different, because the concept as defined by BofE and Royal Mint cannot be found in the law brought in this thread (and perhaps DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, so they are possibly misstating the law), which is totally embarrassing to both those institutions, and those in this thread defending them.

If it was that well established, it would be easy to reference a single court case, judges opinion or Act which confirms their conceptions of legal tender exist, but no one has been able to do it. 

And no, the fact the term 'legal tender' is referenced in various Acts to refer to some denominations of money, or the fact there exists a defence of tender before claim, ARE NOT THE SAME CONCEPTIONS OF LEGAL TENDER AS THOSE INSTITUTIONS REFERRED TO. 

In order to confirm the existence of their conceptions of legal tender, there MUST EXIST written into the law (case law or statutes) a protection of money (i.e the denominations deemed legal tender) such that it MUST BE ACCEPTED by courts of law (and thus creditors) for the settlement of debts. That is the intended meaning of their definitions it would strongly seem (even though that very definition is at odds with how the rest of the world views it generally, where it refers to mandatory acceptance of money to settle ANY payment obligation or owing, including retail transactions).

The tender before claim defence DOES NOT ESTABLISH what denominations of legal tender must be accepted or not. If the parties can accept or reject whatever denominations of money even when settling a debt in court, WE DO NOT HAVE EXISTING THE CONCEPTION OF LEGAL TENDER AS ESPOUSED BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND AND ROYAL MINT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE REFERRING TO THIS QUALITY.

However, the CPR's prove that courts DO NOT, even for court awarded debt which requires payment into court, have to accept legal tender denominations to settle those debts, as they can exclude everyone with a bank account (but for those who qualify it doesn't state whether all legal tender denominations would be accepted or not). However, does this mean CCJs that are paid directly to the creditor would not be protected by the legal tender principle though if it's been established as the BofE and RM claim? 

I’ve said it multiple times already. If you don’t like the BoE and RM websites then complain to them instead of shouting here. 

The information on their sites is mainly so that people don’t shout at shopkeepers for not accepting Legal Tender (as defined in the banknotes and coinages acts). They are giving a broad guide so that an average person goes “oh I can’t be angry at a shop for not taking legal tender as it’s a term only important when in front of a judge”.

waamo

Manxman_in_exile said:

Three hours and eleven minutes.

Anybody know anything about Pavlov?

That name rings a bell.

Parking_Eyerate

Making a statement in a string of capital letters doesn’t make it any more true or sensible. 

Over and above that, if the tender before claim defence was established through civil case law then I personally wouldn’t expect any of the judgments to have “established what denominations of legal tender must be accepted or not”. I would expect quite the reverse, in fact; that a judge would decide the question before him/her (whether the defendant had acted appropriately in the circumstances) but not over-reach and tack-on a specific and definitive list of notes/coins that he/she considered equated to legal tender.
Moreover, had any judge done this, unless they referred to any circulating note issued by the Bank of England and/or any circulating coin produced by the Royal Mint (perhaps restricted proportionately), then I don’t see what use it would be to the OP anyway (and if they had I don’t see how that would change the legal position re retailers rights regardless). I imagine relevant cases are somewhat dated and presumably the judgments would have referred to currency in use at the time. In the OP’s world that may then lead to the question of whether retailers should also be compelled to accept all forms of pre-decimalisation currency and notes/coins not presently in circulation, just because a judge at some point had mentioned that they could be used as legal tender.

trusaiyan

Parking_Eyerate said:

Making a statement in a string of capital letters doesn’t make it any more true or sensible. 

Over and above that, if the tender before claim defence was established through civil case law then I personally wouldn’t expect any of the judgments to have “established what denominations of legal tender must be accepted or not”. I would expect quite the reverse, in fact; that a judge would decide the question before him/her (whether the defendant had acted appropriately in the circumstances) but not over-reach and tack-on a specific and definitive list of notes/coins that he/she considered equated to legal tender.
Moreover, had any judge done this, unless they referred to any circulating note issued by the Bank of England and/or any circulating coin produced by the Royal Mint (perhaps restricted proportionately), then I don’t see what use it would be to the OP anyway (and if they had I don’t see how that would change the legal position re retailers rights regardless). I imagine relevant cases are somewhat dated and presumably the judgments would have referred to currency in use at the time. In the OP’s world that may then lead to the question of whether retailers should also be compelled to accept all forms of pre-decimalisation currency and notes/coins not presently in circulation, just because a judge at some point had mentioned that they could be used as legal tender.

It makes people see it better, as apparently some can't read my responses in this thread. 

Secondly, I dont agree, a judge could have stated that any denominations of money given 'legal tender' status by the legislation (i.e 1954, 1971 Acts etc) must be deemed satisfactory to settle a debt. This would have held with time, unless it could be overruled by other legislation, which is possibly what has happened. But the BofE or Royal Mint have not presented where such a law was established.

IvanOpinion

I can just imagine the conversation
Shopkeeper: That will be £8.99 please
Customer: Here is a £50 note [flashes it to his girlfriend thinking he looks big]
Shopkeeper:  Sorry we do not take those, do you have any other means of payment
Customer:  You have to it is legal tender [girlfriend walks off in sheer embarrassment]
Shopkeeper:  I don't have enough change available
Customer: Well you better find it then - you have to take my £50 note it is legal tender
Shopkeeper:  [takes £50 note from customer, places it in till and closes the drawer] OK thank you and have a nice day
Customer: Where is my change?
Shopkeeper:  The onus is on you to proffer the correct amount, not for me to give you change - and I told you I have no change
Customer:  I want my change 
Shopkeeper:  I can't give you change
Customer:  [goes off on infantile rant about legal tender]
Shopkeeper: Tell you what, I will take it to the bank at the end of the week and if it is a genuine note then you can come back for your change
Customer:  Not acceptable, that is a 50,000 mile round trip for me .... I want my change or my £50 back
Shopkeeper:  Certainly here is your £50 note
Customer:  [meek as a mouse] and here is my debit card

Parking_Eyerate

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Making a statement in a string of capital letters doesn’t make it any more true or sensible. 

Over and above that, if the tender before claim defence was established through civil case law then I personally wouldn’t expect any of the judgments to have “established what denominations of legal tender must be accepted or not”. I would expect quite the reverse, in fact; that a judge would decide the question before him/her (whether the defendant had acted appropriately in the circumstances) but not over-reach and tack-on a specific and definitive list of notes/coins that he/she considered equated to legal tender.
Moreover, had any judge done this, unless they referred to any circulating note issued by the Bank of England and/or any circulating coin produced by the Royal Mint (perhaps restricted proportionately), then I don’t see what use it would be to the OP anyway (and if they had I don’t see how that would change the legal position re retailers rights regardless). I imagine relevant cases are somewhat dated and presumably the judgments would have referred to currency in use at the time. In the OP’s world that may then lead to the question of whether retailers should also be compelled to accept all forms of pre-decimalisation currency and notes/coins not presently in circulation, just because a judge at some point had mentioned that they could be used as legal tender.

It makes people see it better, as apparently some can't read my responses in this thread. 

Secondly, I dont agree, a judge could have stated that any denominations of money given 'legal tender' status by the legislation (i.e 1954, 1971 Acts etc) must be deemed satisfactory to settle a debt. This would have held with time, unless it could be overruled by other legislation, which is possibly what has happened. But the BofE or Royal Mint have not presented where such a law was established.

A judge couldn’t possibly have referred to an act that didn’t exist at the time.