Legal Tender and consumer contract law

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

Manxman_in_exile

No-one can fault his determination.

Everyone please refrain from citing any relevant judgments or statutes - we don't want the thread coming to a premature end.

powerful_Rogue

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

Yet neither have you to say the opposite.

waamo

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment? That makes ZERO sense and I'm not convinced that is legally true. Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

You keep saying a £50 is "legal tender". That is not disputed but what is the legislation that governs legal tender? How is it legally defined? You say it has to be accepted so what is the legislation that says that? 

Andy_L

LilElvis said:

JJ_Egan said:

Anyone betting on a hundred page thread ??

I'll wager £50
You will accept a £50 note, won't you? 

but aren't gambling debts unenforceable in court?

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

But nobody's arguing with you - what you've described is contradictory and absurd.  I agree.  But you must surely understand that the law, like politics, religion and any other communal human activity, is full of contradictions and logical failings, fallacies and loop holes.  I'm sorry, but it's simply the best that we, as a species, can do.  If the law was perfect and made sense, there would be no need for lawyers and legislators.  It would be wonderful if we all agreed.  But I think in this case we sort of do - one man's legal tender is another's worthless bit of paper.

trusaiyan

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

But nobody's arguing with you - what you've described is contradictory and absurd.  I agree.  But you must surely understand that the law, like politics, religion and any other communal human activity, is full of contradictions and logical failings, fallacies and loop holes.  I'm sorry, but it's simply the best that we, as a species, can do.  If the law was perfect and made sense, there would be no need for lawyers and legislators.  It would be wonderful if we all agreed.  But I think in this case we sort of do - one man's legal tender is another's worthless bit of paper.

If true, this needs to be legislatively corrected such that the legal tender concept applies where there is any payment obligation. There is no reason this ridiculous and unfair situation must exist, so I think we can do a lot better if I'm honest (other countries like France do fine with hard legal tender, you can pay in 100 and 200 euros in most places and those rejecting it are breaking the law).

FWIW my friend has sent the enquiry to two separate lawyers, and is awaiting a response for a complete authoritative answer. I'll post it here once he receives it for anyone who wants to read it.

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile said:

JJ_Egan said:

Anyone betting on a hundred page thread ??

I can't see it myself.  While trusiyan has the real dogged single-mindedness and complete failure of imagination that a 100 page thread demands, I don't think anyone else can see it through to the end (unless responses are made in a relay fashion).

unholy_angel already seems to have dropped out (who can blame her - you can only enjoy banging your head against a solid brick wall so much), and although Ditzy_Mitzy has come back with some tasty "bilking" references, I don't think she's got 100 page stamina.  I may be wrong of course... or the OP may decide to ask for the thread to be deleted... hopefully.

It was as enjoyable the 1st time as it was the 12th (ie not at all) But I haven't dropped out. Just busy with work/life. I'm not going to entertain replies to the OP any further though, at least not as long as it still relates to misunderstanding of the meaning/application of legal tender. 

I try to stick to a general rule online not to get into a cycle of back & forth online. A few (around 3) attempts is normally suffice (might be up or down depending on my mood) and if there's no ground being made then cut your losses and move on.

I think I need to update my signature 

Spank said:

I'd lose the will to live before it gets that far

I already did around page 4 

MobileSaver

trusaiyan said:

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment?

No, there's no contradiction (embarrassing or otherwise), a restaurant is free to offer only those payment options it wishes and a customer is free to choose one of those options or take their business elsewhere; if you believe this statement to be false then please provide a link to the statute that forces restaurants to accept a particular payment method...

Your fundamental problem is, as @unholyangel's signature states, the words "legal tender" do not mean what you think they mean. There is no contradiction with the court accepting legal tender because that is literally the very definition of what legal tender is!

As you are obviously having a problem understanding this basic premise perhaps you will believe the very people who make the "legal tender" that you wrongly believe businesses should be forced to accept?

Royal Mint - What is legal tender?

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

Ditzy_Mitzy

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

trusaiyan said:

Takmon 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

 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...

Oh yes the countries of Denmark, Norway, France, China, State of Massachusetts (and Spain I think, among many others), are completely stupid having a hard legal tender concept *facepalm*... it is only supported by 51% of the British public (compared with 24% opposed).

There could be an exception to online payments if it was deemed impractical, but in all other circumstances where there is any type of payment obligation, the business or institution accepting payment should 100% be forced to accept the legal tender (whether instant payments or a debt, and not just in a court setting). It prevents the ludicrous situation of businesses outright rejecting cash as they please, which they shouldn't be allowed to do (unless they suspect fraud after examining). 

I feel this has become a political argument, rather than anything to do with the law or the money system.  The bottom line is very simple: legal tender doesn't have to be accepted by anyone, but if it is offered to settle a court awarded debt and not accepted in lieu of that debt, the debtor can no longer be sued for non-payment.  
A restaurant meal is not a court awarded debt.  Restaurants, or anyone else for that matter, can refuse refuse or accept any sort of payment.

That is my political opinion in response to some comments, but the purpose of the thread was not to do that.

So why couldn't the unpaid restaurant meal turn into a 'court awarded debt' if it is unpaid and he is pursued by the restaurant for this debt in the courts?

There's absolutely no reason why the unpaid bill couldn't become court awarded debt, but in order to do so it would need to go through the courts first.  You might even be able to discharge the eventual debt using 'legal tender'; but there's rather a large risk, that of a prison sentence, if you really want to try it in order to prove the point.

So you are saying it IS true that if his unpaid meal 'debt' becomes a court awarded debt, he could tender the £50 note (which is legal tender) and it must extinguish/prevent him being sued for the debt (because of the legal tender law).

That raises the obvious question (and embarrassing contradiction) as to why the restaurant is permitted to reject the legal tender payment for the 'debt' in the restaurant if in a court setting it could not reject it as suitable payment? That makes ZERO sense, but at the same time it does mean that the individual COULD ultimately pay for his debt in the legal tender he tendered in the restaurant if it could get to this stage (albeit with further court costs, but it could have been a £1000 meal in a fancy Soho restaurant...). Unless, as has already been posted, the bill is not considered a 'debt' in the eyes of the law at the point it is being paid in the restaurant.

I still haven't seen a single link to a legal precedent, court judgement or Act of Parliament which establishes the laws as espoused by people in this thread, who are so convinced in their answers yet provide very little to back them up...

But nobody's arguing with you - what you've described is contradictory and absurd.  I agree.  But you must surely understand that the law, like politics, religion and any other communal human activity, is full of contradictions and logical failings, fallacies and loop holes.  I'm sorry, but it's simply the best that we, as a species, can do.  If the law was perfect and made sense, there would be no need for lawyers and legislators.  It would be wonderful if we all agreed.  But I think in this case we sort of do - one man's legal tender is another's worthless bit of paper.

If true, this needs to be legislatively corrected such that the legal tender concept applies where there is any payment obligation. There is no reason this ridiculous and unfair situation must exist, so I think we can do a lot better if I'm honest (other countries like France do fine with hard legal tender, you can pay in 100 and 200 euros in most places and those rejecting it are breaking the law).

FWIW my friend has sent the enquiry to two separate lawyers, and is awaiting a response for a complete authoritative answer. I'll post it here once he receives it for anyone who wants to read it.

The French example isn't quite as simple as you present.  Whilst there is a legal obligation for banknotes to be accepted, there are reasonableness criteria attached such as the ability for the payee to insist upon the exact amount being tendered, or refusing the transaction if he or she doesn't have sufficient change or, crucially, feels the face value of the note is disproportionate to the transaction value.  There's more about it here: https://www.banque-france.fr/en/banknotes/how-recognise-and-use-euro-banknotes-and-coins/where-under-what-conditions-and-how-much-can-i-pay-cash#:~:text=Genuine%20euro%20banknotes%20and%20coins%20are%20legal%20tender,and%20limits%20which%20vary%20from%20country%20to%20country.
The principle isn't that different to here, in that someone in France attempting to pay for a 0.50 Euro pencil with a 200 Euro note can be turned away, much as the same person attempting to pay for a £0.50 pencil with a £50 note can here.  The key difference seems to be that someone in France is automatically entitled to purchase a 49.99 Euro CD player with a 50 Euro note, whereas someone in the UK isn't. 
If you really think it's that much of an issue then your recourse is to the general public.  I can't see how you could do it via legal case as you, as a private individual, wouldn't have any particular reason to require any of the acts relating to bank notes to be amended.  You'd probably need a new act passed, let's call it the 'Legal Tender Act 2020'; it would have to pass through both houses and gain royal assent.  There needs to be some sort of public demand for it, firstly, for parliament to even think of the issue as one worth debating.  You might consider starting a petition or canvassing in your local area, then making a case to your MP if you are able to adequately evidence your claim that the public wants a new law.    
The only question is 'why?'.  The majority of people aren't at all interested in cash these days and youngsters don't even carry it - I've had my purse commented on as if it's some mysterious remnant of a vanished civilisation.  Interest in extending the status of legal tender, therefore, is likely to be even smaller.