Legal Tender and consumer contract law

walesdave

trusaiyan said:

My point is illustrated in this blog post which contradicts what you are saying 

 ....that would be a blog post from the great legal advice website 'Chards'.....who are in no way a legal authority and happen to be bullion dealers....??? 

unholyangel

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

For cash designated as legal tender, I believe yes they should provide a list that they will not accept (as it generally would only relate to £50.00 notes, or a blanket 'no cash' policy). It would also be helpful to state the legal currency they won't accept, like Irish/Scottish £20 notes, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do this. If they wanted to accept Quavers crisps as payment, they wouldn't be expected to show this as it isn't 'legal tender' and so no one would assume it is accepted as payment by default. Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). Shops usually have stickers/signage showing other types of non-legal tender they accept like debit/credit cards etc.

I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Legal tender is not synonmous with currency or payment. Legal tender is ONLY a defence in law to a claim of non-payment. It has no meaning or application outside of that. 

I see your random blog with no credentials:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37

(1) Where a defendant wishes to rely on a defence of tender before claim he must make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered.
(2) If the defendant does not make a payment in accordance with paragraph (1), the defence of tender before claim will not be available to him until he does so.

And I raise you: 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article

The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.
In order for the defendant to rely on this defence, he must comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2, which requires the defendant to make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered, failing which the defendant cannot rely on the defence until the payment is made.

What the hell, I'll go all in:

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. 

So it doesn't matter what you offer the retailer. For you to rely on the defence of legal tender, you need to have paid it into court. 

You're also asking for an act of parliament to prove retailers don't need to accept "legal tender". That is not how the law functions. The law is either prescriptive or prohibitive. It either expressly gives you the right to do something or expressly forbids you from doing something. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to quote the legslation that says all retailers must accept "legal tender"? 

trusaiyan

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

For cash designated as legal tender, I believe yes they should provide a list that they will not accept (as it generally would only relate to £50.00 notes, or a blanket 'no cash' policy). It would also be helpful to state the legal currency they won't accept, like Irish/Scottish £20 notes, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do this. If they wanted to accept Quavers crisps as payment, they wouldn't be expected to show this as it isn't 'legal tender' and so no one would assume it is accepted as payment by default. Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). Shops usually have stickers/signage showing other types of non-legal tender they accept like debit/credit cards etc.

I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Legal tender is not synonmous with currency or payment. Legal tender is ONLY a defence in law to a claim of non-payment. It has no meaning or application outside of that. 

I see your random blog with no credentials:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37

(1) Where a defendant wishes to rely on a defence of tender before claim he must make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered.
(2) If the defendant does not make a payment in accordance with paragraph (1), the defence of tender before claim will not be available to him until he does so.

And I raise you: 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article

The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.
In order for the defendant to rely on this defence, he must comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2, which requires the defendant to make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered, failing which the defendant cannot rely on the defence until the payment is made.

What the hell, I'll go all in:

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. 

So it doesn't matter what you offer the retailer. For you to rely on the defence of legal tender, you need to have paid it into court. 

You're also asking for an act of parliament to prove retailers don't need to accept "legal tender". That is not how the law functions. The law is either prescriptive or prohibitive. It either expressly gives you the right to do something or expressly forbids you from doing something. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to quote the legislation that says all retailers must accept "legal tender"? 

If as you say it's a defence for non-payment then there you go, he can't be sued for non-payment of debt when it is correctly tendered, and he can tender it again at the point it gets to court (and they'll be forced to accept it if they want payment for the meal).

Listen to how contradictory your notion is. You've just admitted that it's a defence when used in court; i.e he can't be sued for non-payment if he offers to pay in the legal tender. So he can refuse to pay for the meal in other amounts than the legal tender he offered, then get brought to court, and offer it to court for payment of the debt (in a single £50 note which is legal tender in England).

In the alternative, he can explain to the court that he didn't pay because his legal tender was unlawfully refused to pay for his debt by the restaurant.

It STILL brings the same outcome that the legal tender principle has forced the restaurant to accept payment of the debt in legal tender, and couldn't force him to pay for his debt outside of that unless they take payment upfront.

unholyangel

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

For cash designated as legal tender, I believe yes they should provide a list that they will not accept (as it generally would only relate to £50.00 notes, or a blanket 'no cash' policy). It would also be helpful to state the legal currency they won't accept, like Irish/Scottish £20 notes, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do this. If they wanted to accept Quavers crisps as payment, they wouldn't be expected to show this as it isn't 'legal tender' and so no one would assume it is accepted as payment by default. Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). Shops usually have stickers/signage showing other types of non-legal tender they accept like debit/credit cards etc.

I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Legal tender is not synonmous with currency or payment. Legal tender is ONLY a defence in law to a claim of non-payment. It has no meaning or application outside of that. 

I see your random blog with no credentials:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37

(1) Where a defendant wishes to rely on a defence of tender before claim he must make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered.
(2) If the defendant does not make a payment in accordance with paragraph (1), the defence of tender before claim will not be available to him until he does so.

And I raise you: 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article

The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.
In order for the defendant to rely on this defence, he must comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2, which requires the defendant to make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered, failing which the defendant cannot rely on the defence until the payment is made.

What the hell, I'll go all in:

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. 

So it doesn't matter what you offer the retailer. For you to rely on the defence of legal tender, you need to have paid it into court. 

You're also asking for an act of parliament to prove retailers don't need to accept "legal tender". That is not how the law functions. The law is either prescriptive or prohibitive. It either expressly gives you the right to do something or expressly forbids you from doing something. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to quote the legislation that says all retailers must accept "legal tender"? 

If as you say it's a defence for non-payment then there you go, he can't be sued for non-payment of debt when it is correctly tendered, and he can tender it again at the point it gets to court (and they'll be forced to accept it if they want payment for the meal).

Listen to how contradictory your notion is. You've just admitted that it's a defence when used in court; i.e he can't be sued for non-payment if he offers to pay in the legal tender. So he can refuse to pay for the meal in other amounts than the legal tender he offered, then get brought to court, and offer it to court for payment of the debt (in a single £50 note which is legal tender in England).

In the alternative, he can explain to the court that he didn't pay because his legal tender was unlawfully refused to pay for his debt by the restaurant.

It STILL brings the same outcome that the legal tender principle has forced the restaurant to accept payment of the debt in legal tender, and couldn't force him to pay for his debt outside of that unless they take payment upfront.

No my notion isn't contradictory, because I understand it and know:
1) it's not the only thing basis they could bring a claim against you
2) it's only a defence to a certain type of damages. There are others

If you're not going to take on board any of the points people are making when you asked for their input then perhaps it's best you bite the bullet and pay for advice. You'll need more than one £50 note though. 

Also, the court might take the £50 from you but it's not like they'll be keeping it in a special file marked "trusaiyan's" so the note can be passed on to the claimant. So no, the restaurant won't be forced to accept it. 

trusaiyan

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

For cash designated as legal tender, I believe yes they should provide a list that they will not accept (as it generally would only relate to £50.00 notes, or a blanket 'no cash' policy). It would also be helpful to state the legal currency they won't accept, like Irish/Scottish £20 notes, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do this. If they wanted to accept Quavers crisps as payment, they wouldn't be expected to show this as it isn't 'legal tender' and so no one would assume it is accepted as payment by default. Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). Shops usually have stickers/signage showing other types of non-legal tender they accept like debit/credit cards etc.

I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Legal tender is not synonmous with currency or payment. Legal tender is ONLY a defence in law to a claim of non-payment. It has no meaning or application outside of that. 

I see your random blog with no credentials:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37

(1) Where a defendant wishes to rely on a defence of tender before claim he must make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered.
(2) If the defendant does not make a payment in accordance with paragraph (1), the defence of tender before claim will not be available to him until he does so.

And I raise you: 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article

The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.
In order for the defendant to rely on this defence, he must comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2, which requires the defendant to make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered, failing which the defendant cannot rely on the defence until the payment is made.

What the hell, I'll go all in:

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. 

So it doesn't matter what you offer the retailer. For you to rely on the defence of legal tender, you need to have paid it into court. 

You're also asking for an act of parliament to prove retailers don't need to accept "legal tender". That is not how the law functions. The law is either prescriptive or prohibitive. It either expressly gives you the right to do something or expressly forbids you from doing something. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to quote the legislation that says all retailers must accept "legal tender"? 

If as you say it's a defence for non-payment then there you go, he can't be sued for non-payment of debt when it is correctly tendered, and he can tender it again at the point it gets to court (and they'll be forced to accept it if they want payment for the meal).

Listen to how contradictory your notion is. You've just admitted that it's a defence when used in court; i.e he can't be sued for non-payment if he offers to pay in the legal tender. So he can refuse to pay for the meal in other amounts than the legal tender he offered, then get brought to court, and offer it to court for payment of the debt (in a single £50 note which is legal tender in England).

In the alternative, he can explain to the court that he didn't pay because his legal tender was unlawfully refused to pay for his debt by the restaurant.

It STILL brings the same outcome that the legal tender principle has forced the restaurant to accept payment of the debt in legal tender, and couldn't force him to pay for his debt outside of that unless they take payment upfront.

No my notion isn't contradictory, because I understand it and know:
1) it's not the only thing basis they could bring a claim against you
2) it's only a defence to a certain type of damages. There are others

If you're not going to take on board any of the points people are making when you asked for their input then perhaps it's best you bite the bullet and pay for advice. You'll need more than one £50 note though. 

Also, the court might take the £50 from you but it's not like they'll be keeping it in a special file marked "trusaiyan's" so the note can be passed on to the claimant. So no, the restaurant won't be forced to accept it. 

If the court takes the £50 note legal tender to pay for the debt, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COURT GIVES THE ACTUAL NOTE TO THE RESTAURANT OR PAYS THEM IN ANOTHER WAY, means the customer has ultimately been able to pay in the legal tender that he offered in the restaurant in the first place!

Or are you going to now say the court wouldn't accept the £50? Legal tender prevails going off your Royal Mint definition...

And if it IS true that the court must accept the £50 note which was tendered but rejected in the resturant setting, then we have a fundamentally ludicrous and ridiculous situation whereby: the customer can have his legal tender rejected lawfully in the restaurant (to pay for his debt), but can't have it rejected in a court setting when he is sued for non-payment of that very debt!

You can't see the obvious contradiction in this? What's the difference...

waamo

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

For cash designated as legal tender, I believe yes they should provide a list that they will not accept (as it generally would only relate to £50.00 notes, or a blanket 'no cash' policy). It would also be helpful to state the legal currency they won't accept, like Irish/Scottish £20 notes, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do this. If they wanted to accept Quavers crisps as payment, they wouldn't be expected to show this as it isn't 'legal tender' and so no one would assume it is accepted as payment by default. Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). Shops usually have stickers/signage showing other types of non-legal tender they accept like debit/credit cards etc.

I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Legal tender is not synonmous with currency or payment. Legal tender is ONLY a defence in law to a claim of non-payment. It has no meaning or application outside of that. 

I see your random blog with no credentials:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37

(1) Where a defendant wishes to rely on a defence of tender before claim he must make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered.
(2) If the defendant does not make a payment in accordance with paragraph (1), the defence of tender before claim will not be available to him until he does so.

And I raise you: 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article

The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.
In order for the defendant to rely on this defence, he must comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2, which requires the defendant to make a payment into court of the amount he says was tendered, failing which the defendant cannot rely on the defence until the payment is made.

What the hell, I'll go all in:

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. 

So it doesn't matter what you offer the retailer. For you to rely on the defence of legal tender, you need to have paid it into court. 

You're also asking for an act of parliament to prove retailers don't need to accept "legal tender". That is not how the law functions. The law is either prescriptive or prohibitive. It either expressly gives you the right to do something or expressly forbids you from doing something. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to quote the legislation that says all retailers must accept "legal tender"? 

If as you say it's a defence for non-payment then there you go, he can't be sued for non-payment of debt when it is correctly tendered, and he can tender it again at the point it gets to court (and they'll be forced to accept it if they want payment for the meal).

Listen to how contradictory your notion is. You've just admitted that it's a defence when used in court; i.e he can't be sued for non-payment if he offers to pay in the legal tender. So he can refuse to pay for the meal in other amounts than the legal tender he offered, then get brought to court, and offer it to court for payment of the debt (in a single £50 note which is legal tender in England).

In the alternative, he can explain to the court that he didn't pay because his legal tender was unlawfully refused to pay for his debt by the restaurant.

It STILL brings the same outcome that the legal tender principle has forced the restaurant to accept payment of the debt in legal tender, and couldn't force him to pay for his debt outside of that unless they take payment upfront.

No my notion isn't contradictory, because I understand it and know:
1) it's not the only thing basis they could bring a claim against you
2) it's only a defence to a certain type of damages. There are others

If you're not going to take on board any of the points people are making when you asked for their input then perhaps it's best you bite the bullet and pay for advice. You'll need more than one £50 note though. 

Also, the court might take the £50 from you but it's not like they'll be keeping it in a special file marked "trusaiyan's" so the note can be passed on to the claimant. So no, the restaurant won't be forced to accept it. 

If the court takes the £50 note legal tender to pay for the debt, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COURT GIVES THE ACTUAL NOTE TO THE RESTAURANT OR PAYS THEM IN ANOTHER WAY, means the customer has ultimately been able to pay in the legal tender that he offered in the restaurant in the first place!

Or are you going to now say the court wouldn't accept the £50? Legal tender prevails going off your Royal Mint definition...

And if it IS true that the court must accept the £50 note which was tendered but rejected in the resturant setting, then we have a fundamentally ludicrous and ridiculous situation whereby: the customer can have his legal tender rejected lawfully in the restaurant (to pay for his debt), but can't have it rejected in a court setting when he is sued for non-payment of that very debt!

You can't see the obvious contradiction in this? What's the difference...

You would have the ludicrous situation of the court not having a clue what to do with the £50 then trying to work out what form you need and how much processing this would cost. I would imagine it's a general application with a fee of £100 if the other party consents or £255 if they don't.

Luckily the court accepts cash.

DoaM

waamo said:

You would have the ludicrous situation of the court not having a clue what to do with the £50 then trying to work out what form you need and how much processing this would cost. I would imagine it's a general application with a fee of £100 if the other party consents or £255 if they don't.

I think you're confusing things with a set aside application ... that is £255 as standard, or £100 if by consent. A set aside only applies if there has already been a court judgment and the losing party (the defendant) wishes to contest it but previously had no opportunity to do so.

waamo

DoaM said:

waamo said:

You would have the ludicrous situation of the court not having a clue what to do with the £50 then trying to work out what form you need and how much processing this would cost. I would imagine it's a general application with a fee of £100 if the other party consents or £255 if they don't.

I think you're confusing things with a set aside application ... that is £255 as standard, or £100 if by consent. A set aside only applies if there has already been a court judgment and the losing party (the defendant) wishes to contest it but previously had no opportunity to do so.

It's a general application. The fee for any general application (where no other fee is specified) is either £100 or £255 if there is another party and they object.

The way I understand it that the person with the £50 would need to go to a court and submit it and have it passed on to the restaurant for it to be "legal tender". I can imagine a bemused look on the court officials faces when this happens and a complete lack of any formal paperwork or fee for this.

That would make it a general application where no fee is specified. That's £100. If the restaurant declined the payment then arguably it's a general application where one side objects at a fee of £255.

Either way it's cutting your nose of to spite your face to do it this way.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Right, forgetting legal tender for the moment as it's been explained exhaustively and impeccably by @unholyangel; let's examine the issue of payment for a meal in a restaurant.  The meal comes under services offered for which payment on the spot is required, as do taxi rides, hairdressing, beauty treatments, piano lessons - there are countless things which are offered in such a manner, almost any conventional business expecting payment immediately after the fact of rendering a service falls into this category.  'Payment on the spot', doesn't mean that the receiver of the service is in debt.  In fact the service: the meal, taxi ride or horse riding lesson, isn't actually complete until it's finished.  When the service is finished, therefore, payment is required; it's not entirely different to taking something to the counter in a shop - doing so initiates the transacting phase of the purchase.
At that point, payment is made.  If payment is dishonestly avoided, such as by the diner or passenger running away, then an offence is committed under Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978.  This is called 'Making off Without Payment' or bilking, probably other things too.  It was created to allow criminal liability to be placed on someone who hasn't taken 'property' as defined by other parts of the act but hasn't paid when payment is required on the spot.  The police and criminal courts can get involved; the abiding principle is this is criminal law rather than civil. 
Debt, in legal terms, is a civil matter and arises further to situations where goods and services are rendered without expectation of immediate payment.  The debt exists until the obligation is discharged by payment or agreement not to pay.  The usual. 
There is a defence for bilking related to the quality of the service.  If, hypothetically, a meal is inedible or a taxi breaks down or a hairdo is dreadful, then the receiver of the service can enter into a dispute with the party offering the service.  The matter then becomes civil and the parties can sue each other.  Note that the offence is also committed if forged banknotes are used; I assume that the payer has to know the notes are fakes otherwise the majority of the country would be in court!
Generally speaking, in a situation where it really is impossible for a customer to pay such as one where a diner in a restaurant has forgotten his wallet, the restaurant will allow the diner a fixed period of time to go home, get his chequebook or bank card, return and pay the bill.  If the diner doesn't return by the agreed deadline, the restaurant can report the matter to the police as bilking, as there is enough to suspect dishonesty at that point, and criminal proceedings begin.  
To the £50: the diner in this case sincerely believes his note is real, has no dishonest intent and has no other means of payment on him.  The restaurant owner, conversely, worries that the note is forged and refuses it.  She does not have to accept it and can, as noted above, insist that the diner pays by alternative means by a specific time.  It's still not a debt, per se, and she is able to report the making off without payment if the diner does not return.  The offer of the £50 does not get rid of the liability.  In this situation, the only difference between a real £50 note and a worthless forgery is the restaurant owner's willingness to accept it.  
What if the diner leaves the £50 note on the table and walks out?  If we assume that it's enough to cover the meal and the note is real, no crime is committed.  It's a bit silly, because the diner can't really expect to come back and demand change, but that's the end of it.  If, however, the owner takes the note to the bank and discovers that it's a forgery, she can report the matter as bilking.  It would then be up to the diner to prove that he did not know, or believe, the note was forged, which may or may not be difficult. 
What about debt?  Well, there's always the possibility of the restaurant owner issuing an invoice with payment terms to the diner.  Then it becomes a debt and can be pursued in the normal way if not paid.  The transaction type changes, at that point, from one in which payment is immediately required to one in which payment is not immediately required which, legally speaking, is a different matter entirely.

Takmon

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

trusaiyan said:

unholyangel said:

You are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Legal tender refers to the payment of debt into court only. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. 

ETA: Also, legal tender doesn't exist everywhere in the UK - there's no mechanism for legal tender in scots law/scotland. Even BoE notes aren't legal tender in scotland because of that. 

Thanks for the response.
So if my friend refused to pay in another way because he tendered the exact amount of legal tender (which for the purposes of argument was exactly £50), could he be sued for non-payment of the restaurant meal 'debt' in court?

Yes.
Put it this way. Legal tender does not dictate what denominations a retailer has to accept. It just means that if you perhaps agreed to pay USD, then you can't successfully be sued for non-payment, if you offer to pay into court the debt in legal tender. Despite it not being what was originally agreed. 

There can be exceptions that to that though. Particularly with cross border disputes. 

But there now exists a 'debt' (I assume), so surely at this point in these types of transactions (not merely instant transactions over the counter, but where services have already been used) the legal tendered cash must extinguish the debt?

If he can't successfully be sued in court because he offered legal tender, then surely this is the same as extinguishing the debt?
I.e. he could walk away having attempted to pay for his debt in exact legal tender, and he could not be successfully sued in court for non-payment (because he offered the correct legal tender)?

In the alternative, if the debt remains after walking away but he is brought to court by the restaurant, he could then pay in the exact legal tender he originally offered, which must by law legally extinguish the debt whether the restaurant accepts the payment in court or not?

What extinguishes the debt is paying the debt. Having a defence to any action for non-payment (which would make you liable for costs incurred) is not the same as saying you don't have to pay the original sum. 

If what you propose was correct, we'd all be paying everything with £100 notes in the hope they refused so we'd get it free. 

In a nutshell, your friend should spend less time trying to get a free lunch by misapplying technical legal arguments he doesn't understand and more time sorting out payment. Whether that be by card, having to go to the atm or, if he genuinely has no other means of payment on him at the time, then he should leave his details and/or some sort of security so he can arrange to pay later. 

I was under the impression legal tender must extinguish the debt when offered correctly in court.

My friend paid for the meal by other means of course, so no one is trying to scam anyone at all (that's a ridiculous assertion).
He merely tried to pay in legally designated legal tender (£50 note) and was rejected AFTER the service, with no instruction or signage prior to the meal that £50 note would be rejected. Retailers and restaurants should clearly state the legal tender they won't accept on signage around the shop if they intend to not accept it (I have seen some shops do this with Scottish £20's).

£50 note has been designated by government as legal tender, so it isn't wrong for him to want to know his rights and where he stands when this is rejected. Money and cash are a fundamentally important aspect of our life and we appear to have a truly ridiculous system in the UK where we let businesses decide which parts of our legal tender they will accept (completely defeating the purpose of legal tender).

You must surely see the contradiction if what you have said is true: on the one hand retailers can refuse legal tender, but on the other hand you couldn't be successfully sued in court for non-payment if you tendered to pay off the debt in the correct legal tender. It therefore begs the obvious question: why would it not extinguish the debt at the point being tendered, if in a court situation it would in effect do just that?

According to the Bank of England: "It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay." I therefore fail to see how it does not in effect extinguish the debt by offering the legal tender, if it is not possible for him to be successfully sued for non-payment (unless it is NOT a debt in the eyes of the law). 

Interestingly, according to this opinion which is based on US law (so may not apply here and I don't know if these are legal experts so could be completely wrong), the meal would not be considered a 'debt' under the eyes of the law so wouldn't be protected by the legal tender principle which only protects debts (at least in the US). 

Responses to the parts in bold, in order:
1) I made no such assertion
2) You're still not understanding what legal tender actually is. It has no bearing on a contract between two parties. While they may not have stated they don't accept £50 notes (are they really supposed to give a list of everything they won't accept? that would be one hell of a long list and undoubtedly would still be non-exhaustive), the flip side of that argument is that neither did they state they would accept them. 
3) He doesn't have any - the only way he would have any rights is if they had stated they would accept £50 notes then, after the fact, tried to change their mind. 
4) See point 2.
5) There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the distinction. 


Try searching for "tender before claim defence" and that might hopefully help clear up your misunderstanding. Or look at the CPRs 37.2

 Legal tender should be the minimum they will accept for any payment obligation (whether instant retail payments or debts). 

Just imagine how stupid it would be if all online retailers had to accept cash as payment because it's legal tender because that's what your saying...