Legal Tender and consumer contract law

NBLondon

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

To be honest, I was quite expecting it to be different between Boston/towns with tourist trade and smaller places and took cash for the latter.    Maybe the availability of cheaper and simple cashless terminals for small businesses is the driver?

I was reminded of being in Florida years back and seeing signs saying "local cheques only"  meaning not just they didn't take cheques from an out of state bank but neither from a bank outside the county line.  They did take Travellers Cheques though - even though issued in London, these were considered to be as safe as a $20 bill.

Over here - it's also the one-way thing that a BoE note is acceptable (to most) anywhere in UK - and also Isle of Man and Channel Islands - but not the other way round.  I have come back from business trips with Scots fivers and not even tried to spend them; I just popped into a branch of RBS who swapped them with not a glance (even though the wording actually says they promise to pay Five Pounds Sterling at Head Office in Edinburgh).  What to do with a States of Jersey note, I don't know...

trusaiyan

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

Oh I'll be letting them know don't worry about that. I don't agree with the majority of what you have said for the reasons already provided.

It's clear people in this thread are adament on maintaining and making excuses for these grossly unfair arrangements (even if it's against their own interests!): 1) the atrocious and unfair law of this land that will one day be radically changed, including this legal tender SHAMBLES, 2) the fact BofE and Royal Mint are possibly MISSTATING the law, 3) and the fact they did NOT sufficiently answer their FOI requests (in my opinion). 

That's my last comment on this matter, no further posts from me in this thread unless there is overwhelming compelling reason to do so, because I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree and will not persuade anyone here (fortunately, the vast majority of Brits surveyed agree with me that cash should be legally protected in all transactions, and that will one day be the case).

Spank

I'll put money on that not being your last post

jon81uk

trusaiyan said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

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.

Oh I'll be letting them know don't worry about that. I don't agree with the majority of what you have said for the reasons already provided.

It's clear people in this thread are adament on maintaining and making excuses for these grossly unfair arrangements (even if it's against their own interests!): 1) the atrocious and unfair law of this land that will one day be radically changed, including this legal tender SHAMBLES, 2) the fact BofE and Royal Mint are possibly MISSTATING the law, 3) and the fact they did NOT sufficiently answer their FOI requests (in my opinion). 

That's my last comment on this matter, no further posts from me in this thread unless there is overwhelming compelling reason to do so, because I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree and will not persuade anyone here (fortunately, the vast majority of Brits surveyed agree with me that cash should be legally protected in all transactions, and that will one day be the case).

1) If you want the law of the land changed, write to your MP and fill out this petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/320311 Personally I think you have an uphill battle, use of cash is in significant decline I'm personally more likely to go the other way and insist businesses accept debit card transactions. Of places I regularly go in the UK only one is cash only but several are card only.

2) They are not mis-stating the law, just an interpretation of common law and their definition of the terms. Again complain to them if you don't like their content, or create your own website with your own content. The owner of this website is using the same definition https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1296056/Martin-lewis-money-saving-expert-cash as are many other people.

3) Freedom of Information means just that, they need to give over information they have in their possession, not explanations. If they don't have they information they can't provide it. A complaint about content is different.

davidmcn

trusaiyan said:

That's my last comment on this matter, no further posts from me in this thread

That's what you said 17 pages ago!

unless there is overwhelming compelling reason to do so

Aha!

DoaM

davidmcn said:

unless there is overwhelming compelling reason to do so

Aha!

Well, there's the 100 pages challenge for a start ......  

Jack_Cork

powerful_Rogue said:

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)

Sorry I was late to the party, still trying to figure out the chicken, bag of corn and fox conundrum and thinking about Gareth watching the twins  

Manxman_in_exile

waamo said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Three hours and eleven minutes.

Anybody know anything about Pavlov?

That name rings a bell.

Every time I see there's been a new post on this thread, I dribble down my chin for some reason...

Manxman_in_exile

jon81uk said:

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

DON'T FORGET IT'S ALSO AN "IMMORAL SHAMBLES" AND PROBABLY ALSO AN AFFRONT TO CENTURIES OF WESTERN CIVILISATION.  IT'S THE END OF DAYS.

Spank

I've got a headache can everybody stop shouting