Legal Tender and consumer contract law

DoaM

waamo said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Three hours and eleven minutes.

Anybody know anything about Pavlov?

That name rings a bell.

Did he invent Pavlova?

trusaiyan

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

Parking_Eyerate

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

trusaiyan

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

Parking_Eyerate

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

I don’t think it is. They are simplified summaries that aim to make situations comprehensible for the general public, they don’t go into details on the derivation of law or historical timelines.

AW618

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

Stop wasting your time.  Stop wasting the time of public officials.  Stop wasting public money in getting people to respond to your nonsense.  Just stop.

trusaiyan

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

I don’t think it is. They are simplified summaries that aim to make situations comprehensible for the general public, they don’t go into details on the derivation of law or historical timelines.

Then don't make the incredibly bold claim that it's a well established principle of English law if they can't back it up or confirm in a single element of the law that it exists. Simple really. They are making the assertion, so it's on them to reveal how they came to it, and they FAILED to do so in their pathetic FOI responses, which are a disgrace.

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

I don’t think it is. They are simplified summaries that aim to make situations comprehensible for the general public, they don’t go into details on the derivation of law or historical timelines.

Then don't make the incredibly bold claim that it's a well established principle of English law if they can't back it up or confirm in a single element of the law that it exists. Simple really. They are making the assertion, so it's on them to reveal how they came to it, and they FAILED to do so in their pathetic FOI responses, which are a disgrace.

IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE ADVICE GIVEN ON A WEBSITE THEN COMPLAIN TO THE WEBSITE OWNER

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

I don’t think it is. They are simplified summaries that aim to make situations comprehensible for the general public, they don’t go into details on the derivation of law or historical timelines.

Then don't make the incredibly bold claim that it's a well established principle of English law if they can't back it up or confirm in a single element of the law that it exists. Simple really. They are making the assertion, so it's on them to reveal how they came to it, and they FAILED to do so in their pathetic FOI responses, which are a disgrace.

@trusaiyan - Why oh why will you not answer the charge that I, and others, have put to you which is that you are weakening your own position by pursuing the argument in such a dogged fashion.  If there isn't a law that states legal tender has to be accepted in certain situations, then legal tender doesn't have to be accepted anywhere!  Well done!  We can now consider telling the next person who asks that there is no such thing as legal tender.

Parking_Eyerate

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

I never said he did. I was stating the Acts that do now include the terms 'legal tender' to note the denominations which are given this status, which would have been affected by that precedent (if it was established). I am assuming there were previous legislation before these which gave a similar 'legal tender' or similar status to some denominations of money.

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case myself. You seem to be of the view that a judge in a civil case cannot possibly have decided that a defendant acted reasonably by making an advanced settlement offer in a time before there was an Act of Parliament concerning denominations of legal tender. I disagree.

But that is essentially what the BofE and Royal Mint are suggesting in their wonderful (but unable to explain where they came from) legal opinions...

I don’t think it is. They are simplified summaries that aim to make situations comprehensible for the general public, they don’t go into details on the derivation of law or historical timelines.

Then don't make the incredibly bold claim that it's a well established principle of English law if they can't back it up or confirm in a single element of the law that it exists. Simple really. They are making the assertion, so it's on them to reveal how they came to it, and they FAILED to do so in their pathetic FOI responses, which are a disgrace.

I think others have explained that website owners don’t have to give detailed legal advice in response to a freedom of information request. Indeed it would be quite wrong of them to do so yet that is seemingly what you are asking. I imagine that the text on the website may not have derived from commissioned legal advice (it could have been a copy writer or such), and even if it did the Bank of England and Royal Mint may not have the relevant information. Whatever the background, they are not solicitor practices and you have not paid them to advise you and so I don’t see that they have to answer to you (or the person who submitted FOI requests) in the manner you suggest. As another poster advised, if you don’t like what they have said on their websites then try letting them know but I suspect they might not be overly concerned.