Legal Tender and consumer contract law

Parking_Eyerate

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).

Never mind that you haven't provided any reasons for your 'interpretation' of the Freedom of Information Act, you've essentially just railed against the information on their websites. Nor have you provided any evidence that either organisation is "misstating the law" (whether in upper or lower case).
I am not making excuses for any "grossly unfair arrangements". To me it would be grossly unfair to compel retailers to accept notes/coins if they don't want to. My position is also not against my own interests; I can't remember the last time I used a cash machine and it would be a notable inconvenience for me if I had to do so with any regularity. There is nothing atrocious and unfair about letting private enterprises make their own business decisions on such matters. On the contrary, introducing an unnecessary and outmoded requirement to satisfy your 'moral' crusade would be atrocious and unfair.
I do wonder if the 'incident' actually involved a friend of yours or if you were in fact the protagonist. If the 'event' happened to a friend of mine I might have been interested enough to discuss the situation for a few minutes but I certainly would not have taken it as personally as you appear to have done. If I had been personally involved in such an exciting incident I might have been mildly irritated if the restaurant hadn't made its policy clear before I ordered, but I think my displeasure would probably have faded a few minutes after paying by card and I doubt I would have then have even brought it up in conversation with any friends. (Admittedly that last sentence assumes I might have been carrying a £50, which itself is incredibly unlikely because I personally find cash to be inconvenient.)

KeithP

trusaiyan said:

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...

Here we go again...

The Bank of England and the Royal Mint were asked in a Freedom of Information Request to state where they got the information published on their websites.

They responded that they didn't have that information.

You really must try and understand that an FOI request is a request for information that is already in the records of that organisation. It is not a request to the organisation to go away and ask all and sundry about where the statements may have come from.

I'll say it again... if they do not have a record of what those website statements are based on, then a reply of "I'm sorry, we don't hold that information" is perfectly acceptable as a response to a Freedom of Information request.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are 'unable to explain'. They simply have no need to explain. Have you asked them, outside of a FOI, to explain?

Manxman_in_exile

Spank said:

I've got a headache can everybody stop shouting

HE STARTED IT!!!

Manxman_in_exile

SEVENTY- ONE PA.... (sorry)... seventy-one pages to go...

DoaM

Are things so bad you've had to resort to making a parody of So Solid Crew?

Ditzy_Mitzy

DoaM said:

Are things so bad you've had to resort to making a parody of So Solid Crew?

So Solid Crew was a parody of So Solid Crew.... 

Manxman_in_exile

If that's for me I'm afraid it's a low flying Whhhooooosh!!!

DoaM

Manxman_in_exile said:

If that's for me I'm afraid it's a low flying Whhhooooosh!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhofoV3qs 😉

jon81uk

Manxman_in_exile said:

If that's for me I'm afraid it's a low flying Whhhooooosh!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhofoV3qs

Manxman_in_exile

Thanks for that.  I'm afraid my musical education ended with Alan Vega and Martin Rev in about 1978.  (I actually had to go back to what I'd posted to see the connection).

But, getting back to business, eight hours and no action.  Is it Kaput?