Who knew a £20 coin was legal tender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12593053/I-arrested-trying-pay- petrol-20-COIN-Moment-cops-handcuff-driver-legal-tender-row.html
On 8 Oct 2023 at 17:28:36 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Who knew a £20 coin was legal tender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12593053/I-arrested-trying-pay-
petrol-20-COIN-Moment-cops-handcuff-driver-legal-tender-row.html
As has been discussed in this group a number of times, the garage does not have to accept payment in a form it does not want. Evan if it was legal tender
a private firm does not have to accept it. If the driver refused to give his details to the garage, which is not clear from the article, then he was entirely in the wrong in his dealings with the garage. The fact the police did
not appear to understand the criminal law doesn't make his behaviour towards the garage lawful.
Exactly who does have to accept legal tender I leave as an exercise for the reader, but it definitely does not include garages.
Exactly who does have to accept legal tender I leave as an exercise for the reader, but it definitely does not include garages.
On 08/10/2023 18:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Exactly who does have to accept legal tender I leave as an exercise for the >> reader, but it definitely does not include garages.
That's all very well if you want to buy a chocolate bar, and the garage refuse the payment offered. It's a bit late to do that if it's petrol
that's already in the car.
Who knew a £20 coin was legal tender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12593053/I-arrested-trying-pay- petrol-20-COIN-Moment-cops-handcuff-driver-legal-tender-row.html
Exactly who does have to accept legal tender I leave as an exercise
for the
reader, but it definitely does not include garages.
The whole point about 'legal tender' is that it is valid settlement for
a debt, and I don't think can be legitimately refused unless the debt is being waived.
And it seems the £20 coin is legal tender:
https://www.cash4coins.co.uk/are-20-coins-legal-tender/#:~:text=Whilst%20the%20%C2%A320%20has,exchange%20for%20goods%20or%20services.
Why do you think it 'definitely does not include garages'?
Who knew a £20 coin was legal tender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12593053/I-arrested-trying-pay- petrol-20-COIN-Moment-cops-handcuff-driver-legal-tender-row.html
The whole point about 'legal tender' is that it is valid settlement for
a debt, and I don't think can be legitimately refused unless the debt is
being waived.
And it seems the £20 coin is legal tender:
https://www.cash4coins.co.uk/are-20-coins-legal-tender/#:~:text=Whilst%20the%20%C2%A320%20has,exchange%20for%20goods%20or%20services.
Why do you think it 'definitely does not include garages'?
As has been stated here on many occasions the definition of Legal Tender
is very narrow, and does not mean that everyone is forced to accept
'legal tender' as payment for a debt.
In effect legal tender only applies for payments into court.
Anyone else can place whatever restriction they like on forms of
payment: Card only, or like the advert, "No Mate it's Crypto only".
On 08/10/2023 17:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
Who knew a £20 coin was legal tender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12593053/I-arrested-trying-pay-
petrol-20-COIN-Moment-cops-handcuff-driver-legal-tender-row.html
To be honest, with a 'pen name/screen name' with "audit " in it he
strikes me as someone who deliberately causes a ruckus so he can 'audit'
the Police's actions (bit like those who film outside police stations
hoping someone will tell them to move on [yes it is legal but WHY?]).
Who on earth uses (what is basically) a commemorative coin to try and
pay for fuel? Apart from someone TRYING to cause a scene to which the
police will be called.
The £4,000 pay out seems excessive for two hours (wrongful ?) detention. IAONAL
That's all a bit muddled. The reason people can set restrictions on
how they accept payment is because there *isn't* a debt. The seller
can quite easily say "I'll sell you these widgets for £20 but you
have to pay up front by crypto". They can't say "You owe me £20 for
those widgets I sold you last week, and I'll only accept settlement
of the debt by crypto".
On 09/10/2023 11:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
That's all a bit muddled. The reason people can set restrictions on
how they accept payment is because there *isn't* a debt. The seller
can quite easily say "I'll sell you these widgets for £20 but you
have to pay up front by crypto". They can't say "You owe me £20 for
those widgets I sold you last week, and I'll only accept settlement
of the debt by crypto".
To which the response would be, "Ok, fair enough, you'd better suck the petrol out then."
On 2023-10-09, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/10/2023 11:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
That's all a bit muddled. The reason people can set restrictions on
how they accept payment is because there *isn't* a debt. The seller
can quite easily say "I'll sell you these widgets for £20 but you
have to pay up front by crypto". They can't say "You owe me £20 for
those widgets I sold you last week, and I'll only accept settlement
of the debt by crypto".
To which the response would be, "Ok, fair enough, you'd better suck the
petrol out then."
Hence the word "can't" (short for "cannot") in my final sentence above.
On 09/10/2023 13:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-09, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/10/2023 11:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
That's all a bit muddled. The reason people can set restrictions on
how they accept payment is because there *isn't* a debt. The seller
can quite easily say "I'll sell you these widgets for £20 but you
have to pay up front by crypto". They can't say "You owe me £20 for
those widgets I sold you last week, and I'll only accept settlement
of the debt by crypto".
To which the response would be, "Ok, fair enough, you'd better suck the
petrol out then."
Hence the word "can't" (short for "cannot") in my final sentence above.
Yes, it was intended to reinforce your point. Hence the word 'would'
rather than 'should' :-)
Exactly who does have to accept legal tender I leave as an exercise
for the
reader, but it definitely does not include garages.
The whole point about 'legal tender' is that it is valid settlement
for a debt, and I don't think can be legitimately refused unless the
debt is being waived.
And it seems the £20 coin is legal tender:
https://www.cash4coins.co.uk/are-20-coins-legal-tender/#:~:text=Whilst%20the%20%C2%A320%20has,exchange%20for%20goods%20or%20services.
Why do you think it 'definitely does not include garages'?
As has been stated here on many occasions the definition of Legal Tender
is very narrow, and does not mean that everyone is forced to accept
'legal tender' as payment for a debt.
In effect legal tender only applies for payments into court.
Anyone else can place whatever restriction they like on forms of
payment: Card only, or like the advert, "No Mate it's Crypto only".
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
On 2023-10-09, Kofi Libon <kofi@example.net> wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
I wouldn't take what that web site says too literally. They've tried
to explain "legal tender" in a single sentence, and done it badly.
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
On 09/10/2023 09:39, Jeff wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal tender
for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
I am pretty sure that is incorrect, legal tender only applies to paying
funds *into court* to settle a debt. and by the way has to be the exact amount; no change given.
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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." >>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the necessary debt.
Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of
the debt, no more and no less.
Third, in the UK legal tender is only
Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England
and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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." >>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal tender
for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the necessary debt.
Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of the debt, no
more and no less.
Third, in the UK legal tender is only Royal Mint coins (with a 20p
limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England and Wales only, Bank of
England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing
the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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." >>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>> offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for
non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the
necessary debt.
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
Filling a car up
with petrol is no different to eating a meal in a restaurant. The goods
are no longer returnable. As long as you could pay, it's a civil matter
if you don't, and the legal procedure is then an action for recovery of
the debt.
Any retailer is entitled to refuse to sell you anything for any reason,
and that includes if he doesn't like £20 coins. But that of course
doesn't apply with petrol or restaurant food.
Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of the debt, no
more and no less.
Who says, and where?
Third, in the UK legal tender is only Royal Mint coins (with a 20p
limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England and Wales only, Bank of
England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing
the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
I know the £20 coin is a Royal Mint coin that has been decreed legal
tender.
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency
and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of
hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing
the point.
Third, in the UK legal tender is only Royal Mint coins (with a 20p
limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England and Wales only, Bank of
England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing
the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
I know the £20 coin is a Royal Mint coin that has been decreed legal
tender.
As have £50 and £100 coins, but that does not change what I have written.
On 09/10/2023 12:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 09:39, Jeff wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
The BoE also says:
"You might have heard someone in a shop say: “But it’s legal tender!”. Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case.
A shop owner can choose what payment they accept. If you want to pay for
a pack of gum with a £50 note, it’s perfectly legal to turn you down.
Likewise for all other banknotes, it’s a matter of discretion. If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they’d probably lose customers. "
<https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender>
Jeff
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency
and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of
hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing
the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
Third, in the UK legal tender is only Royal Mint coins (with a 20p
limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England and Wales only, Bank of
England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing
the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
I know the £20 coin is a Royal Mint coin that has been decreed legal
tender.
As have £50 and £100 coins, but that does not change what I have written.
It does make what you have written completely redundant however, since
nobody has contradicted it.
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency
and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of
hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing
the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with
them.
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency >>>> and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of
hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing
the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with
them.
You represent the Royal Mint? Consider me impressed.
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: >>>> nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency >>>>> and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of >>>>> hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing >>>>> the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with
them.
You represent the Royal Mint? Consider me impressed.
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
Their definition also matches what I have always understood to be the
case.
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep
enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, they cant sue you for failing to repay."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:20:44 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
Why ?
they don't know what they are talking about.Hardly comparable. I don't believe anything a politician says until
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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." >>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of
the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only
Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England
and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on >>>>>> legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you >>>>> are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender >>>>>> works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the >>>>> Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: >>>>> nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or Currency >>>>>> and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of >>>>>> hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like arguing >>>>>> the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with >>>> them.
You represent the Royal Mint? Consider me impressed.
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
That is clearly an unsafe assumption, given the Bank of England
contradicts them (not to mention their claim contradicts itself).
Their definition also matches what I have always understood to be the
case.
No it doesn't. You've been saying that if I offer legal tender in
payment of a debt and it is refused then the debt is extinguished.
The Royal Mint says that legal tender has no relevance except for
payments into court.
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep
enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint,
not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this group.
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender
works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:16:06 -0000 (UTC), Kofi Libon <ko...@example.net> wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legalThat's rather porly worded, and is missing some extremely important context. If you really want a one-sentance summary, then I think this would be
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
better:
It means that if you make a binding offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, but the creditor declines to accept it, they
can't sue you for failing to repay.
There are two key things there that the BoE's website is missing. Firstly, the offer to pay must be binding on the offerer. It must be more than a mere suggestion. The person making the offer must be in a position to fulfil
their tender. And the second is that the creditor has to decline the offer. If the creditor accepts the offer, but the debtor subsequently fails to make good on their tender, then they can be sued.
One of the things that's often missed is that in the phrase "legal tender", "legal" is an adverb and "tender" is a verb. That is, it's not the money which is legal tender, it's the offer of payment which is a legal tender.
The Coinage Act 1870 puts it like this:
A tender of payment of money, if made in coins which have been issued by
the Mint in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and have not been called in by any proclamation made in pursuance of this Act, and have not become diminished in weight, by wear or otherwise, so as to be of less
weight than the current weight, that is to say, than the weight (if any) specified as the least current weight in the first schedule to this Act,
or less than such weight as may be declared by any proclamation made in pursuance of this Act, shall be a legal tender.[1]
So it's not the money which is legal tender, it's the tender of payment in certain coins (and, as added later, notes) which is a legal tender. Over time, "legal tender" has come to mean the money itself, but, legally, it's still the offer of payment via certain means.
So what it really boils down to is, what is "a tender of payment of money"? That's something for case law rather than legislation, and if anyone can
find it, then they've spent more time searching than I have :-)
[1] Oddly enough, this Act isn't on legislation.gov.uk (presumably because they haven't got round to digitising it), but, as Ireland was, at the time, part of the UK, it is on the Irish equivalent: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1870/act/10/enacted/en/print.html
Mark
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:16:06 -0000 (UTC), Kofi Libon <ko...@example.net> wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legalThat's rather porly worded, and is missing some extremely important context. If you really want a one-sentance summary, then I think this would be
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
better:
It means that if you make a binding offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, but the creditor declines to accept it, they
can't sue you for failing to repay.
There are two key things there that the BoE's website is missing. Firstly, the offer to pay must be binding on the offerer. It must be more than a mere suggestion. The person making the offer must be in a position to fulfil
their tender. And the second is that the creditor has to decline the offer. If the creditor accepts the offer, but the debtor subsequently fails to make good on their tender, then they can be sued.
One of the things that's often missed is that in the phrase "legal tender", "legal" is an adverb and "tender" is a verb. That is, it's not the money which is legal tender, it's the offer of payment which is a legal tender.
The Coinage Act 1870 puts it like this:
A tender of payment of money, if made in coins which have been issued by
the Mint in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and have not been called in by any proclamation made in pursuance of this Act, and have not become diminished in weight, by wear or otherwise, so as to be of less
weight than the current weight, that is to say, than the weight (if any) specified as the least current weight in the first schedule to this Act,
or less than such weight as may be declared by any proclamation made in pursuance of this Act, shall be a legal tender.[1]
So it's not the money which is legal tender, it's the tender of payment in certain coins (and, as added later, notes) which is a legal tender. Over time, "legal tender" has come to mean the money itself, but, legally, it's still the offer of payment via certain means.
So what it really boils down to is, what is "a tender of payment of money"? That's something for case law rather than legislation, and if anyone can
find it, then they've spent more time searching than I have :-)
[1] Oddly enough, this Act isn't on legislation.gov.uk (presumably because they haven't got round to digitising it), but, as Ireland was, at the time, part of the UK, it is on the Irish equivalent: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1870/act/10/enacted/en/print.html
Mark
On 10/10/2023 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1833/370.pdf - Dean v James (1833) "the defendant proved a tender to plaintiff of 201, 9s. 6d. in bank notes and silver, and obtained a verdict, the Lord Chief Justice being of opinion that this proof was sufficient.
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with >>>>> them.
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on >>>>>>> legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you >>>>>> are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with >>>>>> legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender >>>>>>> works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the >>>>>> Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as >>>>>> sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days >>>>>> ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or >>>>>>> Currency
and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of >>>>>>> hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like
arguing
the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it. >>>>>
You represent the Royal Mint? Consider me impressed.
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
That is clearly an unsafe assumption, given the Bank of England
contradicts them (not to mention their claim contradicts itself).
Their definition also matches what I have always understood to be the
case.
No it doesn't. You've been saying that if I offer legal tender in
payment of a debt and it is refused then the debt is extinguished.
The Royal Mint says that legal tender has no relevance except for
payments into court.
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep
enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint,
not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law
are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted
if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a creditor
must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and
financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that there are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.It's as clear as mud. Can you provide any examples of case law where
legal tender has been offered but refused, for a court to then strike
out a claim?
When you've done that there may be come clarity.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:16:06 -0000 (UTC), Kofi Libon <kofi@example.net>
wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
That's rather porly worded, and is missing some extremely important context. If you really want a one-sentance summary, then I think this would be
better:
It means that if you make a binding offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, but the creditor declines to accept it, they
can't sue you for failing to repay.
There are two key things there that the BoE's website is missing. Firstly, the offer to pay must be binding on the offerer. It must be more than a mere suggestion.
The person making the offer must be in a position to fulfil
their tender. And the second is that the creditor has to decline the offer. If the creditor accepts the offer, but the debtor subsequently fails to make good on their tender, then they can be sued.
One of the things that's often missed is that in the phrase "legal tender", "legal" is an adverb and "tender" is a verb.
That is, it's not the money which is legal tender,
it's the offer of payment which is a legal tender.
The Coinage Act 1870 puts it like this:
A tender of payment of money,
On 10/10/2023 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep
enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint,
not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law
are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be
accepted if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment
of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a creditor
must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money
and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and
financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that
there are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.
It's as clear as mud.
Can you provide any examples of case law where
legal tender has been offered but refused, for a court to then strike
out a claim?
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 14:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on >>>>>>> legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you >>>>>> are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with >>>>>> legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The Royal Mint gives a much better description of how legal tender >>>>>>> works than the Bank of England:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the >>>>>> Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as >>>>>> sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days >>>>>> ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
I can't be bothered to look up which particular Finance Act or
Currency
and Bank Notes Act etc. that have been enacted in the past couple of >>>>>>> hundred years might define that, simply because you feel like
arguing
the point.
You're making an unsupported claim. It's up to you to support it.
The Royal Mint is making the claim. If you dispute it, take it up with >>>>> them.
You represent the Royal Mint? Consider me impressed.
I am simply accepting that they know what they are talking about.
That is clearly an unsafe assumption, given the Bank of England
contradicts them (not to mention their claim contradicts itself).
Their definition also matches what I have always understood to be the
case.
No it doesn't. You've been saying that if I offer legal tender in
payment of a debt and it is refused then the debt is extinguished.
The Royal Mint says that legal tender has no relevance except for
payments into court.
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep
enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint,
not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law
are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted
if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a creditor
must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and
financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that there
are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means when
in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance.
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of Halsbury's Laws https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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." >>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>> offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in
legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment. >>>
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the
necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of
the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only
Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England
and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the
conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed schedule of repayments.
On 09/10/2023 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-09, Kofi Libon <kofi@example.net> wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal
action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the
offer.
I wouldn't take what that web site says too literally. They've tried
to explain "legal tender" in a single sentence, and done it badly.
Well, it does come from a pretty authoritative source, indeed from the
equine itself, whereas you have just stated a conflicting view with no support at all. Do you have any?
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of
Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly authoritative
(yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
On 2023-10-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before
payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
If they're paying into court then they must already have been sued.
So the idea that they "cannot be sued" makes no sense whatsoever.
"A thing that has already happened cannot happen."
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means when
in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance.
Their statements contradict each other. So at the very least, one of
them doesn't know what it means.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuibnmu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
If they're paying into court then they must already have been sued.
So the idea that they "cannot be sued" makes no sense whatsoever.
"A thing that has already happened cannot happen."
I'm sorry, who suggested anyone "cannot be sued" ?
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: >>>> nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means when >>> in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance.
Their statements contradict each other. So at the very least, one of
them doesn't know what it means.
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
However, in confirmation of the above...
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuibnmu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on
legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you
are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
If they're paying into court then they must already have been sued.
So the idea that they "cannot be sued" makes no sense whatsoever.
"A thing that has already happened cannot happen."
I'm sorry, who suggested anyone "cannot be sued" ?
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the
Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days ago: >>>> nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means when >>> in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance.
Their statements contradict each other. So at the very least, one of
them doesn't know what it means.
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
However, in confirmation of the above...
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4
This idea of being able to refuse any particular form of payment,
more especially payment in Legal Tender which most people wrongly
assume is precisely what *must* be accepted, being of course the crux
of the matter.*
On 10/10/2023 21:38, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2023 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That
suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep >>>>> enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint, >>>> not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this
group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law
are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary
debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be
accepted if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment
of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a
creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money
and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and
financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that
there are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.
It's as clear as mud.
Only if what you mean by 'mud' is actually 'day'. They all say the same.
Can you provide any examples of case law where legal tender has been
offered but refused, for a court to then strike out a claim?
It's not a question of case law but of simple English.
On 2023-10-10, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in >>>>>>> everyday life. 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." >>>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal >>>>>> action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>>> offer.
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in >>>>> legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If
they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment. >>>>
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20? >>>
necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of
the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only
Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England
and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the
conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met. >>>
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and
usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed
schedule of repayments.
I am sure your omission of a cite to support this idea is an
unfortunate oversight which you are about to rectify.
On 10/10/2023 22:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 21:38, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2023 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That >>>>>> suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep >>>>>> enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try.
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint, >>>>> not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this
group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law
are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary
debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be
accepted if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment
of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a
creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money
and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and
financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that
there are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.
It's as clear as mud.
Only if what you mean by 'mud' is actually 'day'. They all say the same. >>
Can you provide any examples of case law where legal tender has been
offered but refused, for a court to then strike out a claim?
It's not a question of case law but of simple English.
It may be for you, but this is a legal group and the legal meaning of
legal tender hasn't been properly demonstrated, or perhaps tested in the courts.
On 2023-10-11, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuibnmu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on >>>>>> legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you >>>>> are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with
legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
If they're paying into court then they must already have been sued.
So the idea that they "cannot be sued" makes no sense whatsoever.
"A thing that has already happened cannot happen."
I'm sorry, who suggested anyone "cannot be sued" ?
It is helpful if you read a thread before participating in it. The Royal Mint, the Bank of England, and our own Colin Bignell have all said it.
I am pretty sure they are all wrong.
I would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the >>>>> Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as
sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days
ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means
when
in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance.
Their statements contradict each other. So at the very least, one of
them doesn't know what it means.
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
i.e. "at the very least, one of them doesn't know what it means",
as I just said. My point is that two sources of essentially equal
authority contradict each other, meaning that neither of them can
be used to resolve the question as we have no way of knowing which
of them is correct (or if neither of them is correct, which is what
I believe to be the case).
However, in confirmation of the above...
In confirmation of what above?
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
What are you suggesting that means?
It doesn't confirm anything except
that the Royal Mint has no clue what they're talking about given that
it directly contradicts what they're published on their web site. That paragraph is just meaningless word soup.
On 11/10/2023 00:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal >>>>>>> action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>>>> offer.
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in >>>>>>>> everyday life. 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." >>>>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender >>>>>>>
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in >>>>>> legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If >>>>>> they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment. >>>>>
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20? >>>>
necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of
the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only
Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England >>>> and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the >>>> conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met. >>>>
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and >>> usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed >>> schedule of repayments.
I am sure your omission of a cite to support this idea is an
unfortunate oversight which you are about to rectify.
<https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/document/393747/612G-VY03-GXFD-806M-00000-00/Debt_claims_overview>
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuid105.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-11, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuibnmu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiaksu.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> on 10/10/2023 11:53, norman wells wrote:
Where the goods have passed into your possession and control before >>>>>>>> payment is made, I think it exactly creates a debt.
It creates *a* debt, but not one that is necessary for the rules on >>>>>>> legal tender to apply.
What does that mean? What are these different kind of debts that you >>>>>> are suggesting exist, some of which can one can demand to pay with >>>>>> legal tender and some of which one cannot?
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
If they're paying into court then they must already have been sued.
So the idea that they "cannot be sued" makes no sense whatsoever.
"A thing that has already happened cannot happen."
I'm sorry, who suggested anyone "cannot be sued" ?
It is helpful if you read a thread before participating in it. The Royal
Mint, the Bank of England, and our own Colin Bignell have all said it.
I am pretty sure they are all wrong.
Whether they are or not, I'm simply curious as to why you were trying
to convince me of something - " the idea that they "cannot be sued"
makes no sense whatsoever " which I never raised, and which has no
bearing on the particular point I was myself making.
It's almost as if you were replying to someone else, entirely.
Their statements contradict each other. So at the very least, one ofI would suggest that given the Bank of England's description and the >>>>>> Royal Mint's description contradict each other, they are useless as >>>>>> sources and that leaves us in the situation I described a few days >>>>>> ago:
nobody knows what "legal tender" means.
Not true. The fact that many people believe they know what it means
when
in fact they don't, doesn't mean that nobody does.
Much the same could be said of the theory of relativity for instance. >>>>
them doesn't know what it means.
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
i.e. "at the very least, one of them doesn't know what it means",
as I just said. My point is that two sources of essentially equal
authority contradict each other, meaning that neither of them can
be used to resolve the question as we have no way of knowing which
of them is correct (or if neither of them is correct, which is what
I believe to be the case).
One phrase/situation which seems to crop up in many of these
explanations, even allowing that some may be parasitizing on others
is "Paying/paid into Court". Are you suggesting that this phrase
and situation is simply a figment of somebody's imagination ?
However, in confirmation of the above...
In confirmation of what above?
That in common law unless a specific form of payment is agreed
beforehand, then none is *necessarily implied* in any contract.
Which may indeed have led to problems when physical coins were
in short supply
quote:
Many debts, even if they were recorded as a monetary sum, might
often be paid off, in part or in total, with other goods
particularly when physical coins were in limited supply. Meals,
animals, wool and other items were used to settle debts
although arguments over their actual value often ended up in
court.
:unquote
https://castellogy.com/history/medieval-money
Only "another website" but it would seem to make sense nevertheless. Presumably "meal" means grain in this context.
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
What are you suggesting that means?
The meaning is quite straightforward.
a) As noted above unless a specific form of payment is agreed beforehand
then the creditor is under no obligation to accept payment in any specific form.
b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court where
the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of payment
of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
A 20 coin *is* a Royal Mint coin.
On 2023-10-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 22:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 21:38, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2023 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Legal tender is an accepted concept in the Currency Act 1764. That >>>>>>> suggests that it dates from even earlier legislation and digging deep >>>>>>> enough to find that simply isn't interesting enough for me to try. >>>>>>
Nobody is saying that "legal tender" as a concept doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that nobody knows what it means. Not the Royal Mint, >>>>>> not the Bank of England, not Michael McIntyre, not anyone in this
group.
Wikipedia defines legal tender as 'a form of money that courts of law >>>>> are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary
debt'.
Oxford Languages define it as 'coins or banknotes that must be
accepted if offered in payment of a debt'.
Merriam-Webster say it's 'money that is legally valid for the payment >>>>> of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered'.
Collins says it's 'currency in specified denominations that a
creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt'.
Dictionary.com says it's 'currency that may be lawfully tendered in
payment of a debt'.
Study.com defines it as 'the national currency, such as paper money
and coins, that is declared by law to be valid payment for debts and >>>>> financial obligations'.
And so on, and so on.
There's no dissent, only complete agreement. It's very clear that
there are many, indeed most, who know exactly what it means.
It's as clear as mud.
Only if what you mean by 'mud' is actually 'day'. They all say the same. >>>
Can you provide any examples of case law where legal tender has been
offered but refused, for a court to then strike out a claim?
It's not a question of case law but of simple English.
It may be for you, but this is a legal group and the legal meaning of
legal tender hasn't been properly demonstrated, or perhaps tested in the
courts.
Indeed. It's all very well saying it's "money that must be accepted
in payment for a debt" but what does that *mean*? It tells us almost
nothing.
What does "accept" mean? Who must accept it? Any creditor, or only
courts? (The Bank of England and the Royal Mint disagree on this point.)
If the latter, how is the concept of legal tender *ever* relevant in
real life? (i.e. we're right back to "what does it mean?")
What does "debt" mean? I think that point is obvious, but some here
have suggested that there are different categories of debts, some of
which the concept of legal tender does not apply to and some of which
it does.
What does "must" mean?
Any "must" involves an implicit "or else what?".
If the creditor refuses the legal tender regardless of the rule saying
they mustn't, I doubt the hand of God reaches down from the heavens to
force their hand open to take it. Nor is the creditor liable to be sent
to prison to punish them for not following the rules. So what is the
legal effect if they don't take it? (Some think it means the debt is immediately extinguished,
I think it does not.)
Is all this inextricably linked to the defence of "tender before claim"?
Does that defence require the debtor to have offered legal tender? That
would seem straightforward if so, but when this has been discussed in
this group before, knowledgable people were confident that it was not
the case and the tender instead had to be "reasonable".
£1 coins are legal tender "for any amount". If I owe you £100k and
while driving around town I spot you out for a walk and I pull up
and dump almost a tonne of £1 coins at your feet, does that mean
you must accept them, the debt is now satisfied, and how on earth
you're going to get those coins to a bank is your problem?
On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of
Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly authoritative (yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the RoyalI don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do with non-payment.
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash (obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
In message <slrnuiadn3.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
A £20 coin *is* a Royal Mint coin.
Although its face value is only £20, it's probably worth more on the
open market.
On 2023-10-11, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:^^^^^ above
In message <slrnuiadn3.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
A £20 coin *is* a Royal Mint coin.
Although its face value is only £20, it's probably worth more on the
open market.
Perhaps. It's difficult to tell because googling for things like
"coin market" just brings up endless crypto bullshit. Even googling
for "physical coin market" brings up some nonsense about "physical
bitcoins" for chrissake. But I think that modern commemorative coins
are issued in sufficient quantities that their value about their
face value is rarely anything other than absolutely derisory (except
if they're one of the gold ones, in which case their value is the
value of the gold they're made of rather than anything else).
(I can see someone trying to sell one of the £5 millennium coins
I have on ebay for £1,650. But good luck to them, because I can
also see the "Britannia Coin Company" selling them in a special "commemorative folder" for £9.99.)
On 11/10/2023 19:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
£1 coins are legal tender "for any amount". If I owe you £100k and
while driving around town I spot you out for a walk and I pull up
and dump almost a tonne of £1 coins at your feet, does that mean
you must accept them, the debt is now satisfied, and how on earth
you're going to get those coins to a bank is your problem?
I have to accept them in settlement of the debt owed to me. Whether you
are contravening any law by dumping them at my feet, eg littering or obstruction, is another matter entirely.
On 2023-10-11, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the >>>>> necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of >>>>> the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only >>>>> Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England >>>>> and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the >>>>> conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met. >>>>>
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal >>>>>>>> action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>>>>> offer.
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in >>>>>>>>> everyday life. 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." >>>>>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender >>>>>>>>
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in >>>>>>> legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If >>>>>>> they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal
tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20? >>>>>
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and >>>> usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed >>>> schedule of repayments.
I am sure your omission of a cite to support this idea is an
unfortunate oversight which you are about to rectify.
<https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/document/393747/612G-VY03-GXFD-806M-00000-00/Debt_claims_overview>
That supports not a single word of what you claimed.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:is paid into court"
On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of trying to flatten porridge)
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:I don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do with
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of
Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly authoritative >>> (yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
non-payment.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash
(obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if the amount of the debt
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money", not to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".
On 11/10/2023 22:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 19:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
£1 coins are legal tender "for any amount". If I owe you £100k and
while driving around town I spot you out for a walk and I pull up
and dump almost a tonne of £1 coins at your feet, does that mean
you must accept them, the debt is now satisfied, and how on earth
you're going to get those coins to a bank is your problem?
I have to accept them in settlement of the debt owed to me. Whether
you are contravening any law by dumping them at my feet, eg littering
or obstruction, is another matter entirely.
You may feel obliged to accept the payment, however feel free to quote
case law on the matter that the debt will be automatically settled by
such an absurd action.
I know you won't.
On 12/10/2023 00:21, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 22:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 19:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
£1 coins are legal tender "for any amount". If I owe you £100k and
while driving around town I spot you out for a walk and I pull up
and dump almost a tonne of £1 coins at your feet, does that mean
you must accept them, the debt is now satisfied, and how on earth
you're going to get those coins to a bank is your problem?
I have to accept them in settlement of the debt owed to me. Whether
you are contravening any law by dumping them at my feet, eg littering
or obstruction, is another matter entirely.
You may feel obliged to accept the payment, however feel free to quote
case law on the matter that the debt will be automatically settled by
such an absurd action.
I know you won't.
Payment settles a debt. It's axiomatic.
On 11/10/2023 23:01, Graham Truesdale wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote: >>> On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of trying toOn 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:I don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do with
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of >>>>> Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly
authoritative
(yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
non-payment.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash
(obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be sued, >>> by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
flatten porridge)
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is not
discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled with
continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a subsequent
action for non-payment if the amount of the debt is paid into court"
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money", not
to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".
If 'tender' merely means an 'offer to pay' some time in the future, I agree. If it means 'here's the cash now, in legal currency', that must surely discharge the debt.
On 11/10/2023 19:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-11, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the >>>>>> necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of >>>>>> the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only >>>>>> Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England >>>>>> and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the >>>>>> conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal >>>>>>>>> action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>>>>>> offer.
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in >>>>>>>>>> everyday life. 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." >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender >>>>>>>>>
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in >>>>>>>> legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If >>>>>>>> they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal >>>>>>> tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20? >>>>>>
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and >>>>> usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed >>>>> schedule of repayments.
I am sure your omission of a cite to support this idea is an
unfortunate oversight which you are about to rectify.
<https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/document/393747/612G-VY03-GXFD-806M-00000-00/Debt_claims_overview>
That supports not a single word of what you claimed.
Try
<https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-finance-manual/cfm31030>,
or do your own research FFS.
The point is that debt has a specific legal definition where legal
tender is involved. It's not the same as the common use of the term eg
when you buy stuff in a shop or your kid's pocket money is overdue.
On 12/10/2023 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 23:01, Graham Truesdale wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote: >>>> On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of tryingOn 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:I don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do with >>>> non-payment.
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of >>>>>> Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly
authoritative
(yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal >>>>> Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if >>>>> they do. They just won't win on costs.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment' >>>> it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash
(obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be
sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
to flatten porridge)
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is
not discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled with
continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a subsequent
action for non-payment if the amount of the debt is paid into court"
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money",
not to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".
If 'tender' merely means an 'offer to pay' some time in the future, I
agree. If it means 'here's the cash now, in legal currency', that
must surely discharge the debt.
Surely not.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be accepted.
If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free to cite such
a case.
On 12/10/2023 07:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2023 00:21, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 22:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 19:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
£1 coins are legal tender "for any amount". If I owe you £100k and >>>>> while driving around town I spot you out for a walk and I pull up
and dump almost a tonne of £1 coins at your feet, does that mean
you must accept them, the debt is now satisfied, and how on earth
you're going to get those coins to a bank is your problem?
I have to accept them in settlement of the debt owed to me. Whether
you are contravening any law by dumping them at my feet, eg
littering or obstruction, is another matter entirely.
You may feel obliged to accept the payment, however feel free to
quote case law on the matter that the debt will be automatically
settled by such an absurd action.
I know you won't.
I knew you wouldn't.
Payment settles a debt. It's axiomatic.
Quite, but the payment must be accepted to settle a debt.
It you were
empathetic with this thread you would not have made such an disjointed
and unhelpful statement.
I also don't see how your post got through moderation.
On 2023-10-12, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 19:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-11, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 09:43, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 10/10/2023 07:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2023 00:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:16, Kofi Libon wrote:
On 2023-10-09 Mon 11:25 GMT, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
According to the bank, I need only *offer* and I'm safe from legal >>>>>>>>>> action? I would have guessed that payment would need to follow the >>>>>>>>>> offer.
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in >>>>>>>>>>> everyday life. 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender >>>>>>>>>>
In this conteext, offer means present the exact sum of money owed in >>>>>>>>> legal tender. If the person accepts the money, the debt is paid. If >>>>>>>>> they reject it, that is when they lose the right to sue for non-payment.
So, in your view, a £20 coin offered along with some other legal >>>>>>>> tender for a fill-up would have to be accepted or they waive that £20?
First, there has to be a debt. Retail transactions do not create the >>>>>>> necessary debt. Second, what is proffered must be the exact amount of >>>>>>> the debt, no more and no less. Third, in the UK legal tender is only >>>>>>> Royal Mint coins (with a 20p limit on 1p and 2p coins) and, in England >>>>>>> and Wales only, Bank of England bank notes. Offer anything else and the >>>>>>> conditions for losing the right to sue for non-payment have not been met.
However, I expect you know this already.
This. "Debt" also has a specific meaning in relation to legal tender and >>>>>> usually requires a written agreement, a loan of some sort, and an agreed >>>>>> schedule of repayments.
I am sure your omission of a cite to support this idea is an
unfortunate oversight which you are about to rectify.
<https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/document/393747/612G-VY03-GXFD-806M-00000-00/Debt_claims_overview>
That supports not a single word of what you claimed.
Try
<https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-finance-manual/cfm31030>,
That also supports nothing whatsoever of what you said. Come on.
It doesn't even contain the word "tender"!
or do your own research FFS.
I have done, and I have found nothing to suggest that you are correct.
You're the one who's making a claim. It's you that needs to back that
claim up with something more than just your say-so.
The point is that debt has a specific legal definition where legal
tender is involved. It's not the same as the common use of the term eg
when you buy stuff in a shop or your kid's pocket money is overdue.
If you're backing down from your original claim that a written
agreement and agreed schedule of repayments are required and are
now simply saying that debts aren't usually created during everyday
retail transactions for goods in shops, then that is non-controversial
and has already been stated several times in this thread. (A "pocket
money" situation is not relevant due to lack of consideration, lack
of intent to create legal relations, or both.)
On 12/10/2023 10:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/10/2023 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 23:01, Graham Truesdale wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of trying
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:I don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of >>>>>>> Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly
authoritative
(yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal >>>>>> Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if >>>>>> they do. They just won't win on costs.
with
non-payment.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of
payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash
(obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be
sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
to flatten porridge)
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is
not discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled with
continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a subsequent
action for non-payment if the amount of the debt is paid into court"
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money",
not to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".
If 'tender' merely means an 'offer to pay' some time in the future, I
agree. If it means 'here's the cash now, in legal currency', that
must surely discharge the debt.
Surely not.
Why not? You seem to have neglected to say.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be accepted.
If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free to cite
such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt.
Ok. I don't think that was said "above". What does it mean?
Are you saying that if no method of payment is specified then
there is no method of payment a debtor can use to be sure of
satisfying their debt?
Which may indeed have led to problems when physical coins were
in short supply
quote:
Many debts, even if they were recorded as a monetary sum, might
often be paid off, in part or in total, with other goods
particularly when physical coins were in limited supply. Meals,
animals, wool and other items were used to settle debts
although arguments over their actual value often ended up in
court.
:unquote
https://castellogy.com/history/medieval-money
Only "another website" but it would seem to make sense nevertheless.
Presumably "meal" means grain in this context.
What's your point? Debts can of course be paid off in any manner
whatsoever if both creditor and debtor agree on it.
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
What are you suggesting that means?
The meaning is quite straightforward.
a) As noted above unless a specific form of payment is agreed beforehand
then the creditor is under no obligation to accept payment in any
specific
form.
b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court where
the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of payment
of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
Are you now resiling from your position that the "payment into court"
part is crucial? Because you're contradicting it. Who is receiving
the payment - the court, or the creditor?
(Not to mention the Royal Mint and the Bank of England both claim
that using legal tender means you "cannot be sued", but in the
situation you're describing the debtor has *already been* sued,
so their statements would be complete nonsense.)
On 12/10/2023 11:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/10/2023 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 23:01, Graham Truesdale wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of trying
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the firstI don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do >>>>>> with
edition of
Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly
authoritative
(yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the
Royal
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal >>>>>>> tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their
money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
non-payment.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of
payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash >>>>>> (obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt >>>>>> remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be >>>>>> sued,
by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
to flatten porridge)
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is
not discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled
with continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a
subsequent action for non-payment if the amount of the debt is paid
into court"
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money",
not to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".
If 'tender' merely means an 'offer to pay' some time in the future,
I agree. If it means 'here's the cash now, in legal currency', that
must surely discharge the debt.
Surely not.
Why not? You seem to have neglected to say.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be
accepted. If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free
to cite such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt.
You make silly claims like this and yet cannot find case law to support
your hypothesis.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuidugl.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Ok. I don't think that was said "above". What does it mean?
Are you saying that if no method of payment is specified then
there is no method of payment a debtor can use to be sure of
satisfying their debt?
That would indeed appear to be what was implied in the contract,
would it not ?
b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court where
the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of payment
of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
Are you now resiling from your position that the "payment into court"
part is crucial? Because you're contradicting it. Who is receiving
the payment - the court, or the creditor?
It's first paid into the Court who then pay the creditor.
Because this is the only way of being perfectly sure that payment has
been offered. It's no longer simply a case of one person's word against another.
The Court simply acts as a middleman or stakeholder as well as arbiter
in the dispute
(Not to mention the Royal Mint and the Bank of England both claim
that using legal tender means you "cannot be sued", but in the
situation you're describing the debtor has *already been* sued,
so their statements would be complete nonsense.)
If you're referring to the Royal Mint website, surely you appear to be missing out one crucial word - "successfully" ?
In other words, the creditor can indeed bring an action, sue. But if as result, the debtor pays the appropriate sum into court in legal tender
before the case is heard, then the judgement will go against the
creditor and they will not be successful.
On 2023-10-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuidugl.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Ok. I don't think that was said "above". What does it mean?
Are you saying that if no method of payment is specified then
there is no method of payment a debtor can use to be sure of
satisfying their debt?
That would indeed appear to be what was implied in the contract,
would it not ?
Um, no? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
By the way, there's this thing called "legal tender" that may be
relevant here. Perhaps you've heard of it?
the principle, you are now quibbling about the precise details.b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court where >>>> the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of payment >>>> of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
Are you now resiling from your position that the "payment into court"
part is crucial? Because you're contradicting it. Who is receiving
the payment - the court, or the creditor?
It's first paid into the Court who then pay the creditor.
So at what point in that process does legal tender come into it?
It's highly unlikely that the court is going to pay the creditor
with the same physical money the debtor paid in (if they even paid
in using physical money in the first place).
From which it might reasonably be concluded surely, that having conceded
(I'd say that the court was not going to be difficult about how you
pay money into it, but I just remembered that courts are in fact
extremely difficult about how you pay money into them. I've had to
resort to using a Postal Order before!)
Because this is the only way of being perfectly sure that payment has
been offered. It's no longer simply a case of one person's word against
another.
The Court simply acts as a middleman or stakeholder as well as arbiter
in the dispute
Are you proposing that anyone can go to court and say "I'd like to use
your money transfer service please"? Or are you supposing that some
sort of claim has been issued?
(Not to mention the Royal Mint and the Bank of England both claim
that using legal tender means you "cannot be sued", but in the
situation you're describing the debtor has *already been* sued,
so their statements would be complete nonsense.)
If you're referring to the Royal Mint website, surely you appear to be
missing out one crucial word - "successfully" ?
But that word isn't crucial at all. If someone says "you can't sue"
they don't literally mean that. Anyone (bar vexatious litigants) can
sue anyone at any time for anything. I could sue you right now for
falsely claiming to be a bookcase. I wouldn't win, but I could issue
the claim.
"You can't sue" and "you can't successfully sue" are
effectively the same statement.
In other words, the creditor can indeed bring an action, sue. But if as
result, the debtor pays the appropriate sum into court in legal tender
before the case is heard, then the judgement will go against the
creditor and they will not be successful.
What do you mean by "judgement will go against the creditor and they
will not be successful"? They'll get their money, won't they? (Why
else would the debtor have to pay it into court?) Sounds pretty
"successful" to me.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuig147.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuidugl.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Ok. I don't think that was said "above". What does it mean?
Are you saying that if no method of payment is specified then
there is no method of payment a debtor can use to be sure of
satisfying their debt?
That would indeed appear to be what was implied in the contract,
would it not ?
Um, no? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Oh really ?
So if I handed you a box, and claimed "there's a £10 note in this
box", and you opened the box and it was completely empty
( absent of £10 ) you wouldn't thereby conclude that this was
irrefutable evidence of there being no £10 note in the box ?
By the way, there's this thing called "legal tender" that may be
relevant here. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Yes. And ?
b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court where >>>>> the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of payment >>>>> of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
Are you now resiling from your position that the "payment into court"
part is crucial? Because you're contradicting it. Who is receiving
the payment - the court, or the creditor?
It's first paid into the Court who then pay the creditor.
So at what point in that process does legal tender come into it?
It's highly unlikely that the court is going to pay the creditor
with the same physical money the debtor paid in (if they even paid
in using physical money in the first place).
From which it might reasonably be concluded surely, that having conceded
the principle, you are now quibbling about the precise details.
All of which questions, a cursory examination would suggest,
are satisfactorily answered here
quote:
Pay money into the Court Funds Office
unquote:
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
(I'd say that the court was not going to be difficult about how you
pay money into it, but I just remembered that courts are in fact
extremely difficult about how you pay money into them. I've had to
resort to using a Postal Order before!)
See Above
Because this is the only way of being perfectly sure that payment has
been offered. It's no longer simply a case of one person's word against
another.
The Court simply acts as a middleman or stakeholder as well as arbiter
in the dispute
Are you proposing that anyone can go to court and say "I'd like to use
your money transfer service please"? Or are you supposing that some
sort of claim has been issued?
See above
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
quote:
Inform the claimant that youve made a payment to the Court Funds Office
by giving them a copy of your completed request for deposit form (CFO 100) (sometimes called serving the form).
(Not to mention the Royal Mint and the Bank of England both claim
that using legal tender means you "cannot be sued", but in the
situation you're describing the debtor has *already been* sued,
so their statements would be complete nonsense.)
If you're referring to the Royal Mint website, surely you appear to be
missing out one crucial word - "successfully" ?
But that word isn't crucial at all. If someone says "you can't sue"
they don't literally mean that. Anyone (bar vexatious litigants) can
sue anyone at any time for anything. I could sue you right now for
falsely claiming to be a bookcase. I wouldn't win, but I could issue
the claim.
"You can't sue" and "you can't successfully sue" are
effectively the same statement.
Oh really ? Despite the fact that in winning a successful claim for defamation a plaintiff might be thousands of pounds better-off ?
In other words, the creditor can indeed bring an action, sue. But if as
result, the debtor pays the appropriate sum into court in legal tender
before the case is heard, then the judgement will go against the
creditor and they will not be successful.
What do you mean by "judgement will go against the creditor and they
will not be successful"? They'll get their money, won't they? (Why
else would the debtor have to pay it into court?) Sounds pretty
"successful" to me.
How can they be "successful" if they're suing the debtor for non-payment
and the case is thrown out ?
They may eventually have been successful in their original intention
of getting paid, but they've not been successful in Court because the
debtor has forestalled them.
I must admit I find myself rather disappointed at this stage as I was anticipating at some point some killer precedents which would render
all further argument on my part superfluous. Instead of which all we have
is this desperate scratching around over the finer details of paying
money into Court, even to the extent of mentioning postal orders.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be accepted.
If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free to cite
such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt. And that applies whether the creditor 'accepts' it or not. He has no right to refuse it as
settlement, though he can of course abandon it if he doesn't want it.
It's not up to the creditor to
decide unilaterally on the method of payment, and certainly not if it's
been made in legal tender.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be accepted. >>> If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free to cite
such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt. And that applies whether the
creditor 'accepts' it or not. He has no right to refuse it as
settlement, though he can of course abandon it if he doesn't want it.
The coin can be refused as payment, however, if the case then goes to
court the debtor may pay into court the *exact amount* in any legal
tender to settle the debt.
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are involved.
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be
accepted. If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free
to cite such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt. And that applies whether
the creditor 'accepts' it or not. He has no right to refuse it as
settlement, though he can of course abandon it if he doesn't want it.
The coin can be refused as payment,
however, if the case then goes to
court the debtor may pay into court the *exact amount* in any legal
tender to settle the debt.
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are involved.
On 2023-10-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuig147.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuidugl.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Ok. I don't think that was said "above". What does it mean?
Are you saying that if no method of payment is specified then
there is no method of payment a debtor can use to be sure of
satisfying their debt?
That would indeed appear to be what was implied in the contract,
would it not ?
Um, no? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Oh really ?
So if I handed you a box, and claimed "there's a 10 note in this
box", and you opened the box and it was completely empty
( absent of 10 ) you wouldn't thereby conclude that this was
irrefutable evidence of there being no 10 note in the box ?
If something is supposed to be in a small box and I can open the box and
look inside and verify that it is empty, that is "evidence". "Evidence"
is the opposite of "absence of evidence". So what on earth are you
talking about?
By the way, there's this thing called "legal tender" that may be
relevant here. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Yes. And ?
Well, just imagine for a moment that a country exists where contracts creating debts are frequently entered into, and that those contracts frequently do not specify precisely how those debts should be paid.
Said country might, in our imaginations, want to avoid wide-scale
problems caused by this situation and hence might make default rules
as to how debts should be satisfied, in the absence of any statements
to the contrary in the contract. Perhaps those rules might involve
something called 'legal tender'. Perhaps that imaginary country might
be called 'England'.
b) In the event of a dispute the matter may be resolved in Court
where
the creditor has no option but to accept on offer or tender of
payment
of the sum involved in Legal Tender. When any such offer whether
accepted or not, discharges the debt.
Where exactly do you see the problem ?
Are you now resiling from your position that the "payment into court" >>>>> part is crucial? Because you're contradicting it. Who is receiving
the payment - the court, or the creditor?
It's first paid into the Court who then pay the creditor.
So at what point in that process does legal tender come into it?
It's highly unlikely that the court is going to pay the creditor
with the same physical money the debtor paid in (if they even paid
in using physical money in the first place).
From which it might reasonably be concluded surely, that having conceded
the principle, you are now quibbling about the precise details.
What are you talking about? What "principle" have I conceded?
Answer the question: where does legal tender come into it, in your
scheme?
All of which questions, a cursory examination would suggest,
are satisfactorily answered here
quote:
Pay money into the Court Funds Office
unquote:
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
What are you on about now? That doesn't answer anything.
(I'd say that the court was not going to be difficult about how you
pay money into it, but I just remembered that courts are in fact
extremely difficult about how you pay money into them. I've had to
resort to using a Postal Order before!)
See Above
See what above and why?
Because this is the only way of being perfectly sure that payment has
been offered. It's no longer simply a case of one person's word against >>>> another.
The Court simply acts as a middleman or stakeholder as well as arbiter >>>> in the dispute
Are you proposing that anyone can go to court and say "I'd like to use
your money transfer service please"? Or are you supposing that some
sort of claim has been issued?
See above
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
quote:
Inform the claimant that youve made a payment to the Court Funds Office
by giving them a copy of your completed request for deposit form (CFO
100)
(sometimes called serving the form).
So a claim has been issued. I guess the creditors can sue after all.
And the debtor is having to pay money as a result. Seems a bit...
successful.
(Not to mention the Royal Mint and the Bank of England both claim
that using legal tender means you "cannot be sued", but in the
situation you're describing the debtor has *already been* sued,
so their statements would be complete nonsense.)
If you're referring to the Royal Mint website, surely you appear to be >>>> missing out one crucial word - "successfully" ?
But that word isn't crucial at all. If someone says "you can't sue"
they don't literally mean that. Anyone (bar vexatious litigants) can
sue anyone at any time for anything. I could sue you right now for
falsely claiming to be a bookcase. I wouldn't win, but I could issue
the claim.
"You can't sue" and "you can't successfully sue" are
effectively the same statement.
On 2023-10-13, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the
method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or
stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are involved.
That's a meaningless statement though. They only time *any* legal rule
"comes into play" is when the courts, the police, or some other state
agency is involved.
On 13/10/2023 09:25, Jeff wrote:
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be
accepted. If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel free
to cite such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several in
this thread, say it would settle the debt. And that applies whether
the creditor 'accepts' it or not. He has no right to refuse it as
settlement, though he can of course abandon it if he doesn't want it.
The coin can be refused as payment,
So you say, but sadly you have given no reason why that should be so. £1 coins are deemed to be legal tender for settlement of a debt in any amount.
however, if the case then goes to court the debtor may pay into court
the *exact amount* in any legal tender to settle the debt.
But he won't. He will say the debt has been settled, his creditor
therefore has no cause of action against him and his case should simply
be thrown out. Which it would be.
On 13/10/2023 11:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-13, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the >>> method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or
stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are
involved.
That's a meaningless statement though. They only time *any* legal rule
"comes into play" is when the courts, the police, or some other state
agency is involved.
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option
but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
An English shop may quite legitimately refuse to accept a Scottish bank
note for example or an English £50 note used for a £1 purchase.
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option but
to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option but >> to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option but >>> to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by cheque, >> postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
On 13/10/2023 11:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:25, Jeff wrote:
Dumping a ton of £1 coins to settle a £100k debt need not be
accepted. If you can provide case law to suggest otherwise feel
free to cite such a case.
All the definitions of 'legal tender', of which I've given several
in this thread, say it would settle the debt. And that applies
whether the creditor 'accepts' it or not. He has no right to refuse
it as settlement, though he can of course abandon it if he doesn't
want it.
The coin can be refused as payment,
So you say, but sadly you have given no reason why that should be so.
£1 coins are deemed to be legal tender for settlement of a debt in any
amount.
however, if the case then goes to court the debtor may pay into court
the *exact amount* in any legal tender to settle the debt.
But he won't. He will say the debt has been settled, his creditor
therefore has no cause of action against him and his case should
simply be thrown out. Which it would be.
Not correct.
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.
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option but >> to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal
tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by
arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal.
None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory
notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - >>> which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment
if it chooses to.
On 2023-10-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal
tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by
arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal.
None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory
notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - >>>> which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment
if it chooses to.
Of course - as is anyone. But my point is that billy is claiming that
if you pay in a cheque, it gets "converted into Legal Tender". I am
trying to understand what confusion of ideas has resulted in this
mistaken statement.
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option but >>>> to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by cheque, >>> postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - >>> which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment if it chooses to.
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option
but
to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque,
postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
On 14/10/2023 09:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2023 11:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-13, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on
the
method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or >>>> stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are
involved.
That's a meaningless statement though. They only time *any* legal rule
"comes into play" is when the courts, the police, or some other state
agency is involved.
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option
but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
So must the original creditor. That's your misunderstanding.
On 15 Oct 2023 at 00:40:02 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal >>>>>> tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by
arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal.
None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory
notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - >>>>> which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's >>>>> Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment
if it chooses to.
Of course - as is anyone. But my point is that billy is claiming that
if you pay in a cheque, it gets "converted into Legal Tender". I am
trying to understand what confusion of ideas has resulted in this
mistaken statement.
It seems fair to suggest that any payment *accepted* by the court has
exactly the same effect on both the plaintiff and defendant as would a payment of legal tender.
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 00:40:02 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal >>>>>>> tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by >>>>>> cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by
arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. >>>>>> None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory >>>>>> notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's >>>>>> Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment
if it chooses to.
Of course - as is anyone. But my point is that billy is claiming that
if you pay in a cheque, it gets "converted into Legal Tender". I am
trying to understand what confusion of ideas has resulted in this
mistaken statement.
It seems fair to suggest that any payment *accepted* by the court has
exactly the same effect on both the plaintiff and defendant as would a
payment of legal tender.
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced
a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry given it is the entire point of this thread!
On 14/10/2023 10:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but
to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque,
postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been made before
he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a form
acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is obliged to
accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually exists or exists
in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the part of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is dependent on what the court decides
he should be paid.
So you say, but sadly you have given no reason why that should be so.
£1 coins are deemed to be legal tender for settlement of a debt in
any amount.
however, if the case then goes to court the debtor may pay into
court the *exact amount* in any legal tender to settle the debt.
But he won't. He will say the debt has been settled, his creditor
therefore has no cause of action against him and his case should
simply be thrown out. Which it would be.
Not correct.
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.
This only applies where the debt has not been settled. An 'offer',
whether unconditional or not, is not the same as actual payment.
Once the creditor has actually been paid, there is no debt, so there
there is no case, so no defence is required. It would be met by a
motion to strike any case out.
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.
But the debt has been settled already.
including in 'legal tender' which he is obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to answer.
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced
a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry given it is the entire point of this thread!
On 14/10/2023 10:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/10/2023 09:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2023 11:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-13, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of >>>>>> payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally
on the
method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both
parties, or
stipulated by contract.
The only time legal tender comes into play is if the courts are
involved.
That's a meaningless statement though. They only time *any* legal rule >>>> "comes into play" is when the courts, the police, or some other state
agency is involved.
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal
tender.
So must the original creditor. That's your misunderstanding.
Cite?
Or should we just declare it now to be "Norman True" which all sane individuals can take to be false and end this hair splitting thread.
Well, the Bank of England, who should know, says:
"Legal tender ... 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kp0jfrFtiarU2@mid.individual.net...
including in 'legal tender' which he is obliged to accept to settle it,
there is no case for the debtor to answer.
No he isn't. That's the whole point.
In everyday life, people have agreed amongst themselves to use
legal tender as the easiest way of paying for things. As the
Govt has provided us with the stuff, made it a criminal offence
to forge. etc etc. It also allows them to stick the soverereign's
head on, to show us what they looked like. Or what he'd have liked
people to think he looked like, in the case of Alexander the Great.
Then admittedly, things went a bit skewiff for the next 1600 odd
years.
But we're not legally obliged to use it.
Just in most contexts we're not legally obliged to follow the
meaning other people attach to words. Words can mean whatever we
choose them to mean.
So that as with language so with legal tender. So that if we want to
be able to buy things in shops its best to describe cornflakes
as simply "cornflakes"and pay with legal tender rather calling them
"idunnos" and attempting to pay for them with cowrie shells.
So you say, but sadly you have given no reason why that should be
so. £1 coins are deemed to be legal tender for settlement of a debt
in any amount.
however, if the case then goes to court the debtor may pay into
court the *exact amount* in any legal tender to settle the debt.
But he won't. He will say the debt has been settled, his creditor
therefore has no cause of action against him and his case should
simply be thrown out. Which it would be.
Not correct.
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.
This only applies where the debt has not been settled. An 'offer',
whether unconditional or not, is not the same as actual payment.
Yes, and in the case under consideration the debt has not been settled
as the method of payment has been refused by the the creditor.
Once the creditor has actually been paid, there is no debt, so there
there is no case, so no defence is required. It would be met by a
motion to strike any case out.
So CPR 37.2 is a waste of time!!!
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.
But the debt has been settled already.
Only by payment under 'tender before claim' by payment into court (CPR
37.2).
On 14/10/2023 23:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/10/2023 10:16, billy bookcase wrote:Not correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the defence
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but
to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque,
postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal
Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been made
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the part
of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is dependent on
what the court decides he should be paid.
of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
On 15 Oct 2023 at 12:40:32 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 00:40:02 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no >>>>>>>> option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal >>>>>>>> tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by >>>>>>> cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by >>>>>>> arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. >>>>>>> None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory >>>>>>> notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's >>>>>>> Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>>>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment >>>>> if it chooses to.
Of course - as is anyone. But my point is that billy is claiming that
if you pay in a cheque, it gets "converted into Legal Tender". I am
trying to understand what confusion of ideas has resulted in this
mistaken statement.
It seems fair to suggest that any payment *accepted* by the court has
exactly the same effect on both the plaintiff and defendant as would a
payment of legal tender.
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced
a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry
given it is the entire point of this thread!
Not if you regard legal tender as what the court *must* accept, rather
than being the only thing it *may* accept.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuinjtg.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced
a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry
given it is the entire point of this thread!
Here is part of my original post in this thread.
quote:
The debt to which the term Legal Tender specifically applies is
the debt a debtor "Pays into Court", either as a result of a
judgement, or in order to forestall such a judgement.
unquote:
Now that is the "Legal Definition".
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuim3ed.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no option >>>> but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque,
postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement.
Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case
of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender - >>> which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's
Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to
accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Er no. The appropriate sum (if available) is entered into the Debtor's Account.*
As with the debtor depositing money into their account, it will
doubtless fall on the creditor to arrange for a suitable method
of payment from that Account, quite possibly a promissory note
from the Court for the appropriate sum to be paid in legal tender.
Q: So are banks obliged to honour Cheques issued by the Courts
in actual legal tender ? See A: below.
* As to what this actually consists of see " In defence of the
nominalist ontology of money".
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755
As from a historical perspective, in theory at least, to satisfy
a tender before claim there's no reason why, in anticipation of an
upcoming livestock auction anyway, a deposit might not in fact be
made into Court of say a Flock of Sheep. Although the "exact"
amount rule might not in that instance apply.
A: And that this association between Courts of Law and Legal Tender
is no accident. * But rather, that "Legal Tender" has nothing to do
with coins, banknotes etc in this context at all, but simply
refers to moneys held in accounts with our Royal Courts.* The highest arbiter, the final authority/ Or something. Whether as a result of
auctioning sheep, cashing postal orders for 7/6d, or whatever.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kp28a7F81c1U1@mid.individual.net...
Well, the Bank of England, who should know, says:
"Legal tender ... 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."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
They also say
quote:
You might have heard someone in a shop say: "But it's legal tender!". Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that's
not the case.
A shop owner can choose what payment they accept. If you want to pay for a pack of gum with a Ł50 note, it's perfectly legal to turn you down.
Likewise for all other banknotes, it's a matter of discretion. If your
local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they'd probably lose
customers.
[ To repeat ]
" If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they'd probably lose customers."
:unquote
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
However ...
if the Pokemon Cards shopkeeper sold goods on credit and you refused
to pay off your debt in Pokemon cards, but offered instead to pay in
Legal Tender, which you could only prove by paying it into Court, then
if they decided to sue you by taking you to Court, then they'd lose.
Now what could be simpler ?
To repeat.
" If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too"
< snipped erroneous examples >
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 12:40:32 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 00:40:02 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2023-10-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2023 at 22:53:17 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no >>>>>>>>> option but to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal >>>>>>>>> tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by >>>>>>>> cheque, postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by >>>>>>>> arrangement. Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. >>>>>>>> None of which constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory >>>>>>>> notes in the case of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's >>>>>>>> Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>>>>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
Er. Are you imagining that when the court deposits the cheque,
the bank couriers physical notes and coins to the court?
Even if the court (rather than the plaintiff) must accept legal
tender, the court is surely entitled to accept other forms of payment >>>>>> if it chooses to.
Of course - as is anyone. But my point is that billy is claiming that >>>>> if you pay in a cheque, it gets "converted into Legal Tender". I am
trying to understand what confusion of ideas has resulted in this
mistaken statement.
It seems fair to suggest that any payment *accepted* by the court has
exactly the same effect on both the plaintiff and defendant as would a >>>> payment of legal tender.
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced
a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry >>> given it is the entire point of this thread!
Not if you regard legal tender as what the court *must* accept, rather
than being the only thing it *may* accept.
No? Even if that's true, which I don't think it is, if you pay a cheque
into court they don't "convert it into Legal Tender" - which doesnt mean "valid cleared Sterling" or anything like that, it means physical coins
and notes - they convert it into numbers in a computer. And when they
pay it to the creditor it will almost certainly again be a cheque or an electronic transfer. There is no "legal tender" involved in any way at
any point.
On 15 Oct 2023 at 22:23:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 12:40:32 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
Sure, but that isn't what he suggested, unless he's suddenly introduced >>>> a new definition of "legal tender" without having mentioned doing so.
And being specific about the meaning of that phrase is not mere pedantry >>>> given it is the entire point of this thread!
Not if you regard legal tender as what the court *must* accept, rather
than being the only thing it *may* accept.
No? Even if that's true, which I don't think it is, if you pay a cheque
into court they don't "convert it into Legal Tender" - which doesnt mean
"valid cleared Sterling" or anything like that, it means physical coins
and notes - they convert it into numbers in a computer. And when they
pay it to the creditor it will almost certainly again be a cheque or an
electronic transfer. There is no "legal tender" involved in any way at
any point.
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over
what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept
legal tender. I think it is a concept of no importance nowadays. The
rules for paying into court to avoid costs or settle disputes over the
sum owed (another reason for creditors refusing payment is that they
claim a greater sum) are well established and do not usually involve
legal tender. For that matter, anyone who seriously wants to settle a
debt with a creditor who seriously wants it settled is going to agree
a method of payment which is most unlikely to include coins and notes.
So I don't actually think the concept of legal tender has any common use nowadays except for staged confrontations on YouTube, as in the OP; or AP Herbert pastiches.
On 15/10/2023 09:32, Jeff wrote:
On 14/10/2023 23:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/10/2023 10:16, billy bookcase wrote:Not correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the defence
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ugditg$3oub1$1@dont-email.me...
The point is that unlike the original creditor the court has no
option but
to accept a payment of their debt if it is made in legal tender.
Er not quite. The Court will accept, and actually prefer payment by
cheque,
postal order, money transfer etc even foreign currency by arrangement. >>>> Although no longer flocks of sheep nor sacks of meal. None of which
constitute Legal Tender in themselves but promissory notes in the case >>>> of cheques, any of which could bounce.
It's only once these have been successfully converted into Legal
Tender -
which in some cases can take days, and are entered into the Debtor's >>>> Account that its the creditor who then no longer has any option but to >>>> accept the payment.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office.
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been made
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the part
of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is dependent on
what the court decides he should be paid.
of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such
defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kp3572Fda5gU1@mid.individual.net...
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over
what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept
legal tender.
It's not what the Court will accept.. It's what the creditor will have to accept.
By arrangement, Courts will accept foreign currency which is then
converted into sterling and then transferred into the debtor's
Courts Fund Office account. When it then becomes Legal Tender
in the legal sense.
A debtor can deposit funds into a Courts Fund Office account
as a " Defence of Tender before Action."
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
This rather belies the claim that creditors are duty bound to accept ordinarily defined legal tender. Because if they were, then there
would be little point in debtors going to this trouble.
However once they've done so, the contents of their Courts Fund
Office Account now becomes legal tender in the legal sense.
Which the creditor is now bound to accept.,
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
However apparently its not; and so its not.
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over
what
the court will accept (which as many have said was much more likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept legal tender.
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been madeNot correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the
part of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is
dependent on what the court decides he should be paid.
defence of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kp3572Fda5gU1@mid.individual.net...
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over
what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept
legal tender.
It's not what the Court will accept.. It's what the creditor will have to
accept.
By arrangement, Courts will accept foreign currency which is then
converted into sterling and then transferred into the debtor's
Courts Fund Office account. When it then becomes Legal Tender
in the legal sense.
A debtor can deposit funds into a Courts Fund Office account
as a " Defence of Tender before Action."
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
This rather belies the claim that creditors are duty bound to accept
ordinarily defined legal tender. Because if they were, then there
would be little point in debtors going to this trouble.
However once they've done so, the contents of their Courts Fund
Office Account now becomes legal tender in the legal sense.
Which the creditor is now bound to accept.,
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
However apparently its not; and so its not.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's imagination. However everything else you've written above appears to
be a figment of your's.
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's imagination.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kp3572Fda5gU1@mid.individual.net...
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over >>>> what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept
legal tender.
It's not what the Court will accept.. It's what the creditor will have to >>> accept.
By arrangement, Courts will accept foreign currency which is then
converted into sterling and then transferred into the debtor's
Courts Fund Office account. When it then becomes Legal Tender
in the legal sense.
A debtor can deposit funds into a Courts Fund Office account
as a " Defence of Tender before Action."
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
This rather belies the claim that creditors are duty bound to accept
ordinarily defined legal tender. Because if they were, then there
would be little point in debtors going to this trouble.
However once they've done so, the contents of their Courts Fund
Office Account now becomes legal tender in the legal sense.
Which the creditor is now bound to accept.,
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
However apparently its not; and so its not.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination. However everything else you've written above appears to
be a figment of your's.
As will be all too evident to anyone following this exchange,
it would appear that your sole contribution appears to lie
in making disparaging remarks about my explanation; without
in any way making a single substantive point of your own, of
any consequence whatsoever.
IOW according to you, the Royal Mint don't know what they're
talking about; The Bank of England don't know what they're
talking about; in fact the only people who know what they're
talking about appear to be yourself and Norman Wells.
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been madeNot correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the
part of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is
dependent on what the court decides he should be paid.
defence of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such
defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
The Royal Mint don't seem to agree with you, note the "cases which come before the courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or
where no set method of payment has been contractually stipulated" :
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C £200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp £20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense),
in that many people wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless
of any contract C is bound to accept the £200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
b) Whereupon D deposits the £200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly. Which is then [a] legal tender
in indeed, the legal sense.
In that B has either to accept the
offered £200 in payment or simply cancel the debt.
So that's three definitions. The informal and in the UK at least
incorrect definition based on a false assumption, the practical
definition relating to 5p coins etc, and the strictly legal
definition. Which may well describe the action itself, rather
that the actual money.
In all honesty I can't see how anyone can have any real difficulty
in acknowledging that these three definitions can and do apply
in different situations.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
On 16/10/2023 10:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply >>>> a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the
debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To which
the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
On 16 Oct 2023 at 13:54:26 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply >>>>> a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
Dictionaries don't decide what the law is.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
A common reason is that the creditor sayst the debt is more than 200GBP and won't accept part payment. In legal tender or shirt buttons, he can still refuse part payment, your dictionary says so.
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the
debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To which
the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
On 11/10/2023 23:01, Graham Truesdale wrote:is paid into court"
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:To reinstate the piece which you snipped (and at the risk of trying to flatten porridge)
On 2023-10-10, Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:I don't think the above is saying anything of the sort. It's to do with
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the first edition of >>>> Halsbury's Laws
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei07hals_0/page/417/mode/1up?view=theater
(page 418) "Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of
money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment,
but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the
debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if
the amount of the debt is paid into court (d) [Dixon v.
Clark (1848), 5 0. B. 365; E. S. 0., Ord. 22, r. 3;
County Court Rules, Ord. 10, r. 20. Where money has been
paid into court with a plea of tender the plaintiif may take
the money out, but is not entitled to the costs of the
action, because if the plea is substantiated the action ought
not to have been brought (E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 7 ;
Griffiths v. Ystradyfodivg School Board (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
307).
Exactly my point all along. So, contrary to the supposedly authoritative >>> (yet contradictory) statements from the Bank of England and the Royal
Mint, the creditor absolutely *can* sue even if payment in "legal
tender" has been unconditionally offered, and will get their money if
they do. They just won't win on costs.
non-payment.
In saying 'Where ... the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment'
it is clearly saying that a tender of payment, ie offering the cash
(obviously in a legal form), does discharge the debt.
And in that case, if the offer to pay is declined, there is no debt
remaining on which to sue.
Why should a debtor be given the runaround, and indeed possibly be sued, >> by a creditor who for some spurious reason won't take his money?
"Where, however, the promise is to pay a sum of money, the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment, but such tender, coupled with continued readiness to pay the debt, is an answer to a subsequent action for non-payment if the amount of the debt
The word "where" refers to "the promise is to pay a sum of money", not to "the debt is not discharged by a tender of payment".If 'tender' merely means an 'offer to pay' some time in the future, I
agree. If it means 'here's the cash now, in legal currency', that must
surely discharge the debt.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply
a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly. Which is then [a] legal tender
in indeed, the legal sense. In that B has either to accept the
offered Ł200 in payment or simply cancel the debt.
Dictionaries don't decide what the law is.
If you think the law is other than the many dictionaries say, do please
quote it.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
A common reason is that the creditor sayst the debt is more than
200GBP and
won't accept part payment. In legal tender or shirt buttons, he can still
refuse part payment, your dictionary says so.
Not in the scenario outlined, where the payment offered exactly equals
the debt.
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the
debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To which >>> the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
Well? Do you think he does?
On 11/10/2023 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
However, in confirmation of the above...
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4
This idea of being able to refuse any particular form of payment,
more especially payment in Legal Tender which most people wrongly
assume is precisely what *must* be accepted, being of course the crux
of the matter.*
But that is exactly the 'method of payment [that] needs to be
available'. If my creditor refuses to accept my legal tender, the most
that can possibly happen is that I will be ordered to pay him by that
method, ie in legal tender.
I can't see that makes him any better off personally.
On 16/10/2023 10:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply >>>> a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
You missed out a step. C refuses his offer and then commences
proceedings against D
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly. Which is then [a] legal tender
in indeed, the legal sense. In that B has either to accept the
offered Ł200 in payment or simply cancel the debt.
No, the debt still exists, but D now has a complete defence against the
claim when the matter comes to court, unless C can show that there was
some other valid reason in law that he cannot accept the payment.
On 2023-10-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2023 at 22:23:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
No? Even if that's true, which I don't think it is, if you pay a cheque
into court they don't "convert it into Legal Tender" - which doesnt mean >>> "valid cleared Sterling" or anything like that, it means physical coins
and notes - they convert it into numbers in a computer. And when they
pay it to the creditor it will almost certainly again be a cheque or an
electronic transfer. There is no "legal tender" involved in any way at
any point.
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over
what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept
legal tender. I think it is a concept of no importance nowadays. The
rules for paying into court to avoid costs or settle disputes over the
sum owed (another reason for creditors refusing payment is that they
claim a greater sum) are well established and do not usually involve
legal tender. For that matter, anyone who seriously wants to settle a
debt with a creditor who seriously wants it settled is going to agree
a method of payment which is most unlikely to include coins and notes.
So I don't actually think the concept of legal tender has any common use
nowadays except for staged confrontations on YouTube, as in the OP; or AP
Herbert pastiches.
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
I just find it interesting that nobody seems to know what it actually
does (or did) mean. Various people (including the authorities)
confidently state what they think it means, but upon even cursory
examination it turns out that either they have no basis for their
belief or their belief leads nowhere (e.g. "creditors must accept
it in payment for debts" which even if true simply leads immediately
to the question "but what if they don't?").
It even illuminates the fact that nobody even seems able to decide what
it means to "win" (or "lose") a court case! (Someone may respond saying
"you win if the judgement is in your favour" but that merely provokes
the question of what *that* means and is at best superficial anyway.
If judgement is that you win £100 but are down £1,000 in costs then in
what sense can you really be said to have "won"?)
On 16/10/2023 10:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To which the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
On 15/10/2023 09:32, Jeff wrote:
On 14/10/2023 23:36, Norman Wells wrote:
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been madeNot correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the
part of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is
dependent on what the court decides he should be paid.
defence of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
Dictionaries don't decide what the law is.
If you think the law is other than the many dictionaries say, do
please quote it.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
A common reason is that the creditor sayst the debt is more than
200GBP and
won't accept part payment. In legal tender or shirt buttons, he can
still refuse part payment, your dictionary says so.
Not in the scenario outlined, where the payment offered exactly equals
the debt.
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the >>>> debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To
which the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
Well? Do you think he does?
Lord Chief Justice Wilde in Dixon V Clarke seems to disagree with you.
On 11/10/2023 12:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2023 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
The fact that their statements contradict each other doesn't
necessarily mean that "nobody knows what "legal tender" means"
as you claim above. Although neither does it necessarily mean
that anybody does. They could all be wrong.
However, in confirmation of the above...
In answer to a FOI request to the Royal Mint in pursuit of a
"definition" of Legal Tender, rather than simply a list of what
constitutes Legal Tender, Vin Wijeratne the Chief Financial
Officer, or one of their minions, explains as follows
" It might be helpful to you if we further clarify our understanding
of common law, namely that any party is free to accept or refuse any
form of payment when this is tendered to them. As a result, a method
of payment needs to be available so that cases which come before the
courts, whereby one party is refusing to accept payment or where no
set method of payment has been contractually stipulated, can be
resolved."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4
This idea of being able to refuse any particular form of payment,
more especially payment in Legal Tender which most people wrongly
assume is precisely what *must* be accepted, being of course the crux
of the matter.*
But that is exactly the 'method of payment [that] needs to be
available'. If my creditor refuses to accept my legal tender, the most
that can possibly happen is that I will be ordered to pay him by that
method, ie in legal tender.
I can't see that makes him any better off personally.
Allow me to furnish you with an example to assist your understanding.
More often than not, on a Saturday morning I meet with a bunch of
friends in a local independent coffee shop.
The coffee shop only takes payment by card. It has no facilities
whatsoever for taking cash, they absolutely hate the stuff. I've had
many conversations with the owner over the years and discussed this with
him. There are a number of reasons why they do not take cash payments amongst which are: It means there is no need for a till on the premises
which is one less thing to sanitise each day. Ditto for the handling of
cash - staff never handle germ ridden cash which is better for them and
their customers too from a sanitary point of view. Likewise, there can
be no issues of "I gave you a £20 note and you've only given me change
for £10." Similarly, as there's no cash on the premises, there is no
risk of somebody attempting to steal the cash which reduces their
insurance costs somewhat. And no cash means nobody needs to take the
cash to the bank each day so there are no "cash in transit" risks
either. Additionally, they have one of the new breed of "on-line only" branch-less business bank accounts which penalises cash transactions by levying large charges for paying in cash. And last, but by no means
least, there's no possibility of a member of staff stealing money from
the till as there is neither a till nor any money.
They have a sign prominently displayed on the wall stating that they
only accept payment by card and do not accept cash.
In short, they state quite prominently, (although not in these precise terms), that they do not and will not accept legal tender.
Let us assume you decide to join us for a coffee one Saturday morning.
Let us further assume that I have neglected to tell you about the card
only payment and you only have cash on you. I, or someone else in the
party, will doubtless offer to pay. You refuse and insist on paying
cash. They have no facility to accept the payment and so refuse your
cash. You really want to join us for coffee so you leave your name and address and promise to pay by card once you've returned home.
For reasons that don't matter and for the purposes of this example, you
never make the payment and the coffee shop subsequently issue against
you (despite it being more logical and certainly cheaper just to write
off what you owe).
You pay the money into court (as required by CPR 37.2 [1]) and rely on a defence of tender before claim.
There are two methods by which the court will transfer that money to the claimant:
(1) by paying it into their bank account; or
(2) by paying it into their solicitor's bank account.
The coffee shop will have achieved what they wanted all along which is
an electronic payment into their bank account.
In short, this hypothetical situation leaves them "better off" despite
their refusing payment by legal tender.
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
I just find it interesting that nobody seems to know what it actually
does (or did) mean. Various people (including the authorities)
confidently state what they think it means, but upon even cursory
examination it turns out that either they have no basis for their
belief or their belief leads nowhere (e.g. "creditors must accept
it in payment for debts" which even if true simply leads immediately
to the question "but what if they don't?").
You could do worse than research Order XXII rule 5 of the then rules
when Davys v Richardson (1888) 21 QBD 202 was determined.
And the answer to your final question is that the creditor can either:
(a) write off the debt;
(b) allow the debt to become statute barred, (which is similar to (a)
but different enough to get its own mention);
(c) try to enforce the debt informally; (which may well lead to (b) with
a knowledgeable (or just plain intransigent) debtor); or
(d) try to enforce the debt through the courts.
Should they choose option (d), the defence of tender before action,
(formerly tender before claim) becomes available to the debtor (now defendant) leaving the claimant "on the hook", so to speak, for the defendant's costs up to the point where they accept the payment into
Court, which is likely to be prior to allocation meaning small claims
track rules will not apply.
It even illuminates the fact that nobody even seems able to decide what
it means to "win" (or "lose") a court case! (Someone may respond saying
"you win if the judgement is in your favour" but that merely provokes
the question of what *that* means and is at best superficial anyway.
If judgement is that you win £100 but are down £1,000 in costs then in
what sense can you really be said to have "won"?)
I believe the term "Pyrrhic victory" should be used for just such circumstances. (Ditto for neighbours that argue over a few inches of
land between their properties worth no more than a few thousand pounds
and spend tens, or even hundreds, of thousands getting a judgment
enforcing their right to the land.)
On 15/10/2023 21:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/10/2023 09:32, Jeff wrote:
On 14/10/2023 23:36, Norman Wells wrote:
This only applies where payment to the creditor has not been madeNot correct, its is required if the debtor wishes to rely on the
before he launched his action. Where the debtor has paid him in a
form acceptable to him, including in 'legal tender' which he is
obliged to accept to settle it, there is no case for the debtor to
answer.
Paying money into court is just a precautionary measure usually
employed where there is a dispute over whether the debt actually
exists or exists in the amount claimed. It shows goodwill on the
part of the debtor, but payment out of it to the creditor is
dependent on what the court decides he should be paid.
defence of Tender before Claim. CPR 37.5
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such
defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
Please explain how you think that "The creditor's case won't even get
off the ground."?
If C issues against D, D must defend the claim, or risk judgment being entered against him.
Am I correct in stating that you are arguing that D should file a
defence of "No cause of action declared because the debt was
extinguished when D proffered C the money owed in legal tender and C
refused to accept it." (or similar)?
If so, do you have any case law to
cite in your proposed defence?
Why do you suggest that the defendant should use your proposed defence
rather than paying the amount previously proffered into court and filing
a defence of tender before claim?
Defending a claim, even a spurious one that is entirely without merit,
incurs costs - a fact borne out by the case of Hulbert v Rice with which
some here will be all too familiar.
On 16/10/2023 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination.
Right.
So D owes C Ł200.
Which he attempts to pay him, with 10 crisp Ł20 notes straight out of
the bank.
a) Which is of course "legal tender" in the more informal sense.
(Rather than the practical 5 p. pieces sense), in that many people
wrongly assume that in the UK at least regardless of any contract
C is bound to accept the Ł200. When in fact he isn't.
So that C refuses his offer.
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
This is ulm. As previously advised, alt.usage.english is over there.
Suppose, for a second, that the creditor believes that the £20 note the debtor is offering is in fact forged.
Is the creditor *obliged* to accept the payment to relieve the debt? Or
is he entitled to say, "I'm accepting that £20 note."
Suppose the debtor insists that the note is genuine as he had just
withdrawn it from an ATM and has the consecutively numbered note in his wallet?
But the creditor still believes that the note is forged?
What then?
And please provide relevant references to case law, the CPR
or similar in your answer as I have better things to do at present than
try and correct your erroneous understanding of statutory
interpretation, despite having attempted to correct it previously.
However, I reserve the right to try and correct it later should I have
more time available.
Going to the coffee shop I mentioned in a previous post, if you leave
the correct amount of change on the counter, you claim that they must
accept it, despite having no means of storing it on the premises, or depositing it in their bank.
b) Whereupon D deposits the Ł200 into a Court Funds Account
and informs C accordingly.
Why on earth would he do that?
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating the
debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money. To
which the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
You think incorrectly, unfortunately for you, as the example with the presumed forged £20 note above and coffee shop clearly demonstrate.
Tangentially, unlike many, if not all, making contributions to the
thread, I've actually relied upon the defence of tender before claim in
court so have experience in the matter. Do you?
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
Cite please. And, again, for the avoidance of doubt, the cite will need
to come from the CPR, case law or similar rather than a dictionary or web-site, regardless of how authoritative you consider the web-site to be.
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used cheques as payment.
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
(d) try to enforce the debt through the courts.
Should they choose option (d), the defence of tender before action,
(formerly tender before claim) becomes available to the debtor (now
defendant) leaving the claimant "on the hook", so to speak, for the
defendant's costs up to the point where they accept the payment into
Court, which is likely to be prior to allocation meaning small claims
track rules will not apply.
You've already illustrated that the defence of tender doesn't rely on
the use of legal tender.
And I've seen nothing to support the idea
that use of legal tender guarantees the success of this defence
(even assuming the other basic requirements are met such as the claim
being for liquidated damages).
So perhaps we should say that the "defence" of tender before claim is
not a defence to the claim, it is just a defence to the costs - because
the claimant will still be awarded what they claimed for. It's basically
a Part 36 offer to settle but made before the claim is even issued.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuigppq.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
But that word isn't crucial at all. If someone says "you can't sue"
they don't literally mean that. Anyone (bar vexatious litigants) can
sue anyone at any time for anything. I could sue you right now for
falsely claiming to be a bookcase. I wouldn't win, but I could issue
the claim.
"You can't sue" and "you can't successfully sue" are
effectively the same statement.
<snippage>
Here's what it says on the Royal Mint Website
quote:
" It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender.
unquote:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
Which according to you means the same as
" It means that a debtor cannot be sued for non-payment if he
pays into court in legal tender."
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used cheques as payment.
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
I just find it interesting that nobody seems to know what it actually
does (or did) mean. Various people (including the authorities)
confidently state what they think it means, but upon even cursory
examination it turns out that either they have no basis for their
belief or their belief leads nowhere (e.g. "creditors must accept
it in payment for debts" which even if true simply leads immediately
to the question "but what if they don't?").
You could do worse than research Order XXII rule 5 of the then rulesI'm not aware I have any access to those, other than brief excerpts that
when Davys v Richardson (1888) 21 QBD 202 was determined.
I have already read such as in the Law Gazette article you mention.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuigppq.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:r8ScncOtgaexqLT4nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
But that word isn't crucial at all. If someone says "you can't sue"
they don't literally mean that. Anyone (bar vexatious litigants) can >>>>> sue anyone at any time for anything. I could sue you right now for
falsely claiming to be a bookcase. I wouldn't win, but I could issue >>>>> the claim.
"You can't sue" and "you can't successfully sue" are
effectively the same statement.
<snippage>
Here's what it says on the Royal Mint Website
quote:
" It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he >> pays into court in legal tender.
unquote:
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
Which according to you means the same as
" It means that a debtor cannot be sued for non-payment if he
pays into court in legal tender."
So just to be clear. Are you saying that the Royal Mint Website
are saying its impossible to sue someone for non payment, when
just now, you claimed it was possible "to sue anyone for anything" ?
On 2023-10-16, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kp3572Fda5gU1@mid.individual.net...
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over >>>>> what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept >>>>> legal tender.
It's not what the Court will accept.. It's what the creditor will have >>>> to
accept.
By arrangement, Courts will accept foreign currency which is then
converted into sterling and then transferred into the debtor's
Courts Fund Office account. When it then becomes Legal Tender
in the legal sense.
A debtor can deposit funds into a Courts Fund Office account
as a " Defence of Tender before Action."
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
This rather belies the claim that creditors are duty bound to accept
ordinarily defined legal tender. Because if they were, then there
would be little point in debtors going to this trouble.
However once they've done so, the contents of their Courts Fund
Office Account now becomes legal tender in the legal sense.
Which the creditor is now bound to accept.,
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply >>>> a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
However apparently its not; and so its not.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination. However everything else you've written above appears to
be a figment of your's.
As will be all too evident to anyone following this exchange,
it would appear that your sole contribution appears to lie
in making disparaging remarks about my explanation; without
in any way making a single substantive point of your own, of
any consequence whatsoever.
IOW according to you, the Royal Mint don't know what they're
talking about; The Bank of England don't know what they're
talking about; in fact the only people who know what they're
talking about appear to be yourself and Norman Wells.
That wasn't a request for you to provide us with more figments
of your imagination. Not one thing you have said above is true.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuiq9kc.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-16, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuiov0r.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kp3572Fda5gU1@mid.individual.net...
Indeed not. The point of legal tender is if there is any dispute over >>>>>> what the court will accept (which as many have said was much more
likely a few centuries ago) then the court will always have to accept >>>>>> legal tender.
It's not what the Court will accept.. It's what the creditor will have >>>>> to
accept.
By arrangement, Courts will accept foreign currency which is then
converted into sterling and then transferred into the debtor's
Courts Fund Office account. When it then becomes Legal Tender
in the legal sense.
A debtor can deposit funds into a Courts Fund Office account
as a " Defence of Tender before Action."
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
This rather belies the claim that creditors are duty bound to accept >>>>> ordinarily defined legal tender. Because if they were, then there
would be little point in debtors going to this trouble.
However once they've done so, the contents of their Courts Fund
Office Account now becomes legal tender in the legal sense.
Which the creditor is now bound to accept.,
Now fair enough if this " Defence of Tender before Action." was simply >>>>> a figment of somebody's imagination then Legal Tender in a legal
sense would indeed be a historical anachronism.
However apparently its not; and so its not.
The defence of "tender before claim" is not a figment of anyone's
imagination. However everything else you've written above appears to
be a figment of your's.
As will be all too evident to anyone following this exchange,
it would appear that your sole contribution appears to lie
in making disparaging remarks about my explanation; without
in any way making a single substantive point of your own, of
any consequence whatsoever.
IOW according to you, the Royal Mint don't know what they're
talking about; The Bank of England don't know what they're
talking about; in fact the only people who know what they're
talking about appear to be yourself and Norman Wells.
That wasn't a request for you to provide us with more figments
of your imagination. Not one thing you have said above is true.
But surely, as you haven't made any substantive point of your own
in response, but are simply repeating your disparaging remarks about
my explanation, you're simply confirming what I just said in my
penultimate paragraph ?
Can't you see that ?
I claimed you don't make any substantive points of your own.
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. 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."
In message <koi69sF767tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:25:49 on Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, they can’t
successfully
sue you for failing to repay."
They could indulge in a futile lawsuit.
On 17/10/2023 12:41, Simon Parker wrote:
On 15/10/2023 21:08, Norman Wells wrote:
Which of course he won't. If he has paid in legal tender there is no
debt remaining, no cause of action, and no need to rely on any such
defence. The creditor's case won't even get off the ground.
Please explain how you think that "The creditor's case won't even get
off the ground."?
If C issues against D, D must defend the claim, or risk judgment being
entered against him.
Am I correct in stating that you are arguing that D should file a
defence of "No cause of action declared because the debt was
extinguished when D proffered C the money owed in legal tender and C
refused to accept it." (or similar)?
No, he has to *pay* in legal tender, not just *offer* to. That means dumping it on his desk or thudding it through his letterbox. Which he cannot refuse to accept.
If so, do you have any case law to cite in your proposed defence?
It follows axiomatically from the definitions of legal tender oft
repeated in this thread that say it must be accepted if offered in
payment of a debt.
Case law is not to be expected, nor is it needed, where the stunningly obvious is the point at hand.
It's probably why there is no case law to the effect that the sun will
rise tomorrow.
Why do you suggest that the defendant should use your proposed defence
rather than paying the amount previously proffered into court and
filing a defence of tender before claim?
Defending a claim, even a spurious one that is entirely without merit,
incurs costs - a fact borne out by the case of Hulbert v Rice with
which some here will be all too familiar.
That's an occupational hazard of being alive. And it's why spurious
claims need to be struck out as soon as possible.
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used
cheques as payment.
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
I know of no law requiring it to be a 'reasonable tender of payment'.
(d) try to enforce the debt through the courts.
Should they choose option (d), the defence of tender before action,
(formerly tender before claim) becomes available to the debtor (now
defendant) leaving the claimant "on the hook", so to speak, for the
defendant's costs up to the point where they accept the payment into
Court, which is likely to be prior to allocation meaning small claims
track rules will not apply.
You've already illustrated that the defence of tender doesn't rely on
the use of legal tender.
Correct.
And I've seen nothing to support the idea
that use of legal tender guarantees the success of this defence
(even assuming the other basic requirements are met such as the claim
being for liquidated damages).
Legal tender has to be accepted if paid in settlement of a debt, but it
has to be for the full amount I think.
and the debt is settled. If it is refused, I say that repudiates the
debt, leaving no cause of action in which the defence of tender before
claim would be relevant. The defence is that there is no extant debt.
The creditor can't choose whether he's been paid, nor can he dictate unilaterally that he must be paid in any other way.
It does not have to be accepted in part payment, in which case it can be refused and the whole debt remains. Then, a defence of tender before
claim and payment into court may be appropriate.
So perhaps we should say that the "defence" of tender before claim is
not a defence to the claim, it is just a defence to the costs - because
the claimant will still be awarded what they claimed for. It's basically
a Part 36 offer to settle but made before the claim is even issued.
I think that's right.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
Apart of course from all the definitions I've given elsewhere in this
thread which make it pretty clear to me even if not to you. A typical
one from Oxford Languages is:
'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt'.
Are you alleging that is incorrect, unclear, or what? And how do you account for the fact that there are many others who are in complete agreement?
Section 6 of the Bank of England Act 1833 may (or may not) make it
somewhat clearer:
"And be it further enacted, That from and after the First Day of August
One thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, unless and until Parliament
shall otherwise direct, a Tender of a Note or Notes of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, expressed to be payable to Bearer on
Demand, shall be a legal Tender, to the Amount expressed in such Note or Notes, and shall be taken to be valid as a Tender to such Amount for all
Sums above Five Pounds on all Occasions on which any Tender of Money may
be legally made, ...
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used cheques as payment.
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
I just find it interesting that nobody seems to know what it actually
does (or did) mean. Various people (including the authorities)
confidently state what they think it means, but upon even cursory
examination it turns out that either they have no basis for their
belief or their belief leads nowhere (e.g. "creditors must accept
it in payment for debts" which even if true simply leads immediately
to the question "but what if they don't?").
You could do worse than research Order XXII rule 5 of the then rules
when Davys v Richardson (1888) 21 QBD 202 was determined.
I'm not aware I have any access to those, other than brief excerpts that
I have already read such as in the Law Gazette article you mention.
And the answer to your final question is that the creditor can either:
(a) write off the debt;
(b) allow the debt to become statute barred, (which is similar to (a)
but different enough to get its own mention);
(c) try to enforce the debt informally; (which may well lead to (b) with
a knowledgeable (or just plain intransigent) debtor); or
(d) try to enforce the debt through the courts.
Should they choose option (d), the defence of tender before action,
(formerly tender before claim) becomes available to the debtor (now
defendant) leaving the claimant "on the hook", so to speak, for the
defendant's costs up to the point where they accept the payment into
Court, which is likely to be prior to allocation meaning small claims
track rules will not apply.
You've already illustrated that the defence of tender doesn't rely on
the use of legal tender. And I've seen nothing to support the idea
that use of legal tender guarantees the success of this defence
(even assuming the other basic requirements are met such as the claim
being for liquidated damages).
It even illuminates the fact that nobody even seems able to decide what
it means to "win" (or "lose") a court case! (Someone may respond saying
"you win if the judgement is in your favour" but that merely provokes
the question of what *that* means and is at best superficial anyway.
If judgement is that you win £100 but are down £1,000 in costs then in >>> what sense can you really be said to have "won"?)
I believe the term "Pyrrhic victory" should be used for just such
circumstances. (Ditto for neighbours that argue over a few inches of
land between their properties worth no more than a few thousand pounds
and spend tens, or even hundreds, of thousands getting a judgment
enforcing their right to the land.)
So perhaps we should say that the "defence" of tender before claim is
not a defence to the claim, it is just a defence to the costs - because
the claimant will still be awarded what they claimed for. It's basically
a Part 36 offer to settle but made before the claim is even issued.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
The bit where they *do* contradict each other is where the Bank of
England says the relevant part is where you offer the legal tender
to the creditor,
the Royal Mint says you don't offer it to the creditor, you pay it
into court (which, as per my earlier post, isn't even possible
anyway).
On 17/10/2023 21:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <koi69sF767tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:25:49 on Mon, 9
Oct 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, they can’t
successfully
sue you for failing to repay."
They could indulge in a futile lawsuit.
Somewhat like the arguments in this thread that have taken hair
splitting dictionaryism to new dizzying heights of ludicrousness.
Lets just declare it "Norman true" and be done with it!
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of 1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
On 17/10/2023 21:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <koi69sF767tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:25:49 on Mon, 9 Oct
2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What the Bank of England says in fact is this:
"Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in
everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to
someone in legal tender, they can't
successfully
sue you for failing to repay."
They could indulge in a futile lawsuit.
Somewhat like the arguments in this thread that have taken hair splitting dictionaryism to new dizzying heights of ludicrousness.
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
I thought that had been answered previously?
Legal tender exists in common law to stop people playing, to use the vernacular, "silly buggers". It is, for want of a better phrase, the 'currency of last resort'.
Assume I agree to sell you my 1954 first edition issues of The Lord of
the Rings for £20,000. You agree and, as I trust you, I ship the books
to you so that you may inspect them before paying for them. You are
happy to proceed with the transaction and ask how I want to be paid. I
say I will only accept payment in Gondorian castar (mirian). (I am
going to assume that not only do you not have any castar but you are all
out of tharni (canath) too?) You attempt to discharge your debt by
offering to pay by bank transfer or by bringing the cash to my house in
£20 or £50 notes if I will give you either my bank details or home
address. I state again, that I will only accept payment in castar and
that if you do not discharge your debt in a manner acceptable to me, I
will enforce it through the courts.
I follow the pre-action protocol and send a letter before claim / action stating that you owe me £20,000 which I insist is paid in castar and
that if you do not pay me the castar I'm demanding, I will issue
proceedings against you.
You reply stating that you cannot pay in a fantasy currency and request
my bank details or home address so that you may pay the money you
acknowledge that you owe me in pounds sterling.
You subsequently receive a claim form at which point you pay the £20K
into court and file a defence of tender before claim. (To keep things simple, for the purposes of this example, assume I did not add costs or interest to my claim, and you are not claiming defence costs.)
I can either accept the money you've paid into court or proceed to
trial. Should I proceed to trial, I will likely lose at which point you would be a fool not to make an application for costs so I'd be a fool to proceed to trial, once you have paid the money into court.
In short, legal tender stops me playing silly buggers about insisting on stupid forms of payment to discharge the debt.
But it works the other way too. Assume you tried to pay me the £20K in
one pennies. I refuse to accept them and everything else proceeds as
before. However, when you attempt to pay your pennies into court, they
too are not obliged to accept them as they are not legal tender so you
cannot avail of a defence of tender before claim as you cannot comply
with CPR 37.2 whilst attempting to pay £20K worth of pennies into court.
Legal tender is what must be accepted by the Court and other
governmental institutions. So if you owe HMRC some money, they have to accept your payment, if it is proffered in legal tender but not if it
isn't. That means you cannot pay your £10K VAT bill in pennies, but you
can pay it in £1 coins.
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
Nobody, other than the government, is forced to accept legal tender and
post February 2022 when the Localism Act 2011 took effect, I'm not even
sure about them without reading the Act, which I haven't the time to do
right now.
This is all common law so I cannot give you cites for this but claims in
the thread that are contrary to this are easily debunked.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used
cheques as payment.
Indeed. The case I mentioned that I was personally involved with used
postal orders as payment. The court accepted payment in postal orders
and the defence of tender before claim was successful. (The creditor
had previously been sent the postal orders and had returned them to the debtor and subsequently sued claiming costs.)
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Legal tender only applies to the court, HMRC, and other such
institutions. Anyone else is free to negotiate what types of payment
they will accept.
I just find it interesting that nobody seems to know what it actually
does (or did) mean. Various people (including the authorities)
confidently state what they think it means, but upon even cursory
examination it turns out that either they have no basis for their
belief or their belief leads nowhere (e.g. "creditors must accept
it in payment for debts" which even if true simply leads immediately
to the question "but what if they don't?").
You could do worse than research Order XXII rule 5 of the then rules
when Davys v Richardson (1888) 21 QBD 202 was determined.
I'm not aware I have any access to those, other than brief excerpts
that I have already read such as in the Law Gazette article you mention.
I see that Graham Truesdale has posted a link to the judgment in Davys v Richardson for which I'm grateful.
Here's a link to the relevant rules in force at the time (you need page
1788 onwards): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nDo0AQAAMAAJ
So perhaps we should say that the "defence" of tender before claim is
not a defence to the claim, it is just a defence to the costs - because
the claimant will still be awarded what they claimed for. It's basically
a Part 36 offer to settle but made before the claim is even issued.
Pedantically, one cannot settle a claim before it is issued, but one can attempt to discharge a debt before a claim is issued, hence the
difference between a Part 36 offer and a defence of tender before claim.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
FSVO "we". :-)
On 17/10/2023 12:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
This is ulm. As previously advised, alt.usage.english is over there.
Are you saying all the dictionary definitions, that are all in fierce agreement, are all wrong? Or just that you think you know better?
Suppose, for a second, that the creditor believes that the £20 note
the debtor is offering is in fact forged.
Is the creditor *obliged* to accept the payment to relieve the debt?
Or is he entitled to say, "I'm accepting that £20 note."
He is obliged to accept 'legal tender' when offered, not illegal tender.
Suppose the debtor insists that the note is genuine as he had just
withdrawn it from an ATM and has the consecutively numbered note in
his wallet?
But the creditor still believes that the note is forged?
What then?
Since it is genuine, he has refused to accept legal tender in settlement
of a debt, which I say settles the debt to that extent. He is not
entitled to insist that the debtor pays in any other way.
And please provide relevant references to case law, the CPR or similar
in your answer as I have better things to do at present than try and
correct your erroneous understanding of statutory interpretation,
despite having attempted to correct it previously.
However, I reserve the right to try and correct it later should I have
more time available.
Going to the coffee shop I mentioned in a previous post, if you leave
the correct amount of change on the counter, you claim that they must
accept it, despite having no means of storing it on the premises, or
depositing it in their bank.
Yes. Their remedy if they don't want to take legal tender is not to
supply the goods without pre-payment in the form they deem acceptable.
In any establishment where the goods are supplied prior to payment and
cannot be unsupplied, a debt is created, which can be settled by legal
tender even if they don't like it. As well as coffee shops, that
applies to restaurants and petrol filling stations.
Whether they can store it on the premises as irrelevant as it's likely
to be completely false. Do they not have pockets?
Why on earth would he do that?
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating
the debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money.
To which the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
You think incorrectly, unfortunately for you, as the example with the
presumed forged £20 note above and coffee shop clearly demonstrate.
Not so for the reasons I've given above.
Tangentially, unlike many, if not all, making contributions to the
thread, I've actually relied upon the defence of tender before claim
in court so have experience in the matter. Do you?
It's an unnecessary defence in the scenarios we've been considering.
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
Cite please. And, again, for the avoidance of doubt, the cite will
need to come from the CPR, case law or similar rather than a
dictionary or web-site, regardless of how authoritative you consider
the web-site to be.
I think it's rather for you to say why you think a creditor can dictate
any method of payment other than legal tender.
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned - <https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative" legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins can
be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are designed to
be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated coins, such
as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always being
made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed to
refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
I'm not obliged to make "substantive points" in every single post
I write - especially when it's a reply to a post in which you haven't
said anything worth responding to.
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned - <https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative" legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins can
be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are designed to
be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated coins, such
as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always being
made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed to
refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuitqfq.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
I'm not obliged to make "substantive points" in every single post
I write - especially when it's a reply to a post in which you haven't
said anything worth responding to.
But why would you choose to reply to posts in which I haven't said
anything worth responding to ?
And maybe more to the point, will you choose to answer my question ?
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal tender" because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of £210. 67 into coins before visiting the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George V Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the awkward payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from another member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of Ł1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
It might be imagined that unless the debtor was a haulage contractor of
some description, the sheer "practical" difficulties and actual cost of arranging for the delivery of near a tonne of Ł1 coins would outweigh
any feeling of satisfaction thereby derived.
As even with smaller amounts, the joke soon seems to wear a bit thin.
ISTR this story made the national media at the time; but Google can
only produce a report in a local paper
quote:
6th June 2003
Peter Zeyss, 62, of Sycamore Dean, Chesham, took money bags full of 5p,10p, 50p and Ł1 coins to demonstrate his anger at 15 per cent increases in council tax bills.
Company director Mr Zeyss said: "We have had the increase last year and this year of 15 per cent and it is not justified. This is well beyond the rate of inflation.
[...]
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of Ł210. 67 into coins before visiting the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George V Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the awkward payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from another member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/303626.man-pays-council-tax-in-coins-as-protest/
:end quote
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 23:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, I don't think there is any suggestion that legal tender that
genuinely comes up in real life with any noticeable frequency (i.e.
not counting people in shops wrongly saying "but you *must* take
this Scottish fiver, it's the law" when it's neither legal tender
nor would it make any difference if it was). This lack of real-world
effect may well explain the apparent total lack of case law on the
topic.
There is case law on the topic. That nobody has quoted it thus far
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I commend to anyone genuinely wishing to acquire clarity on the matter
the following article from The Law Society Gazette from November 2015.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/defence-of-tender-before-claim-/5052433.article
It seems to address many of the issues raised in this thread.
It also mentions relevant case law on the matter.
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
I thought that had been answered previously?
Legal tender exists in common law to stop people playing, to use the vernacular, "silly buggers". It is, for want of a better phrase, the 'currency of last resort'.
Assume I agree to sell you my 1954 first edition issues of The Lord of
the Rings for £20,000. You agree and, as I trust you, I ship the books
to you so that you may inspect them before paying for them. You are
happy to proceed with the transaction and ask how I want to be paid. I
say I will only accept payment in Gondorian castar (mirian). (I am
going to assume that not only do you not have any castar but you are all
out of tharni (canath) too?) You attempt to discharge your debt by
offering to pay by bank transfer or by bringing the cash to my house in
£20 or £50 notes if I will give you either my bank details or home
address. I state again, that I will only accept payment in castar and
that if you do not discharge your debt in a manner acceptable to me, I
will enforce it through the courts.
I follow the pre-action protocol and send a letter before claim / action stating that you owe me £20,000 which I insist is paid in castar and
that if you do not pay me the castar I'm demanding, I will issue
proceedings against you.
You reply stating that you cannot pay in a fantasy currency and request
my bank details or home address so that you may pay the money you
acknowledge that you owe me in pounds sterling.
You subsequently receive a claim form at which point you pay the £20K
into court and file a defence of tender before claim. (To keep things simple, for the purposes of this example, assume I did not add costs or interest to my claim, and you are not claiming defence costs.)
I can either accept the money you've paid into court or proceed to
trial. Should I proceed to trial, I will likely lose at which point you would be a fool not to make an application for costs so I'd be a fool to proceed to trial, once you have paid the money into court.
In short, legal tender stops me playing silly buggers about insisting on stupid forms of payment to discharge the debt.
But it works the other way too. Assume you tried to pay me the £20K in
one pennies. I refuse to accept them and everything else proceeds as
before. However, when you attempt to pay your pennies into court, they
too are not obliged to accept them as they are not legal tender so you
cannot avail of a defence of tender before claim as you cannot comply
with CPR 37.2 whilst attempting to pay £20K worth of pennies into court.
Legal tender is what must be accepted by the Court and other
governmental institutions. So if you owe HMRC some money, they have to accept your payment, if it is proffered in legal tender but not if it
isn't. That means you cannot pay your £10K VAT bill in pennies, but you
can pay it in £1 coins.
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
Nobody, other than the government, is forced to accept legal tender and
post February 2022 when the Localism Act 2011 took effect, I'm not even
sure about them without reading the Act, which I haven't the time to do
right now.
This is all common law so I cannot give you cites for this but claims in
the thread that are contrary to this are easily debunked.
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means.
But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used
cheques as payment.
Indeed. The case I mentioned that I was personally involved with used
postal orders as payment. The court accepted payment in postal orders
and the defence of tender before claim was successful. (The creditor
had previously been sent the postal orders and had returned them to the debtor and subsequently sued claiming costs.)
snip rest
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal
tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins
can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are
designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated
coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are
not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt
from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always
being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed
to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and
£100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's
a debt to be settled.
On 18 Oct 2023 at 13:19:24 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. The case I mentioned that I was personally involved with used
postal orders as payment. The court accepted payment in postal orders
and the defence of tender before claim was successful. (The creditor
had previously been sent the postal orders and had returned them to the
debtor and subsequently sued claiming costs.)
snip rest
Did the court refuse cash? Seems expensive using postal orders. If they had refused cash you could have had fun trying to make them do so, by judicial review or something. I can see why one might not want to do this, though.
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal
tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins
can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are
designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated
coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are
not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt
from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always
being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed
to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and
£100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's
a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it
as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply
to typical shops and traders.
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal >>>> tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins >>>> can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are
designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated >>>> coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are
not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt
from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always
being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed
to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and
£100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's
a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it
as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply
to typical shops and traders.
You are right that a typical transaction in a shop does not involve
any debts being created or paid off, but you're wrong that debts must
involve "loans". Anyone who has a job is owed their wages as a debt
by their employer at the end of every month, for example. And some
common retail transactions where the product is effectively consumed
in advance of payment - such as restaurants, and the petrol station
that started this thread - certainly do involve debts being created.
On 18/10/2023 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal >>>>> tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins >>>>> can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are
designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated >>>>> coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are >>>>> not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt
from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always >>>>> being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed >>>>> to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and >>>> £100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's >>>> a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it
as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply
to typical shops and traders.
You are right that a typical transaction in a shop does not involve
any debts being created or paid off, but you're wrong that debts must
involve "loans". Anyone who has a job is owed their wages as a debt
by their employer at the end of every month, for example. And some
common retail transactions where the product is effectively consumed
in advance of payment - such as restaurants, and the petrol station
that started this thread - certainly do involve debts being created.
OK, but would it then be reasonable to say that for those case the debt
could be settled by circulating legal tender, but not by commemorative
legal tender, even if not explicitly stated on the pump / employment contract?
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal >>>>>> tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins >>>>>> can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are >>>>>> designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated >>>>>> coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are >>>>>> not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt >>>>>> from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always >>>>>> being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed >>>>>> to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between >>>>>> customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and >>>>> £100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's >>>>> a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it >>>> as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply >>>> to typical shops and traders.
You are right that a typical transaction in a shop does not involve
any debts being created or paid off, but you're wrong that debts must
involve "loans". Anyone who has a job is owed their wages as a debt
by their employer at the end of every month, for example. And some
common retail transactions where the product is effectively consumed
in advance of payment - such as restaurants, and the petrol station
that started this thread - certainly do involve debts being created.
OK, but would it then be reasonable to say that for those case the debt
could be settled by circulating legal tender, but not by commemorative
legal tender, even if not explicitly stated on the pump / employment
contract?
I don't think so. Either something is legal tender or it isn't.
Just because £50 notes or £20 coins or £2 coins might be uncommon
to a greater or lesser degree doesn't seem likely to mean they
come into some special lesser category of "half-way" legal tender.
I think when the web sites you were looking at above were talking
about "circulating" legal tender they were probably making a distinction between current legal tender and things that *used to* be legal tender
but are not any more (e.g. a Bank of England £5 note from the 1960s).
On 18/10/2023 14:17, Colin Bignell wrote:....
Shop keepers can refuse any payment they choose to. Last week, I came
across my first cash free shop. They only accept card payments, even
for my 79p purchase.
That's unusual. Cash free shops using non-contact terminals have become
much more common since Covid but most around here most insist on a
minimum purchase of £1 on any card (some have £2 lower limit).
Quite a lot of places will not accept Amex *at all*.
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal
tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins
can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are
designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated
coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are
not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt
from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always
being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed
to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between
customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
Shop keepers can refuse any payment they choose to. Last week, I came
across my first cash free shop. They only accept card payments, even for
my 79p purchase.
On 17/10/2023 14:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:
He *is* obliged actually to accept the payment to relieve the debt.
All the dictionary definitions of legal tender that I've given say
exactly that.
This is ulm. As previously advised, alt.usage.english is over there.
Are you saying all the dictionary definitions, that are all in fierce
agreement, are all wrong? Or just that you think you know better?
I am saying that there are better aids to understanding and clarifying
the law than dictionaries.
You are to be commended for the consistency of your complete reliance
upon "the literal rule".
Consistency can be a good thing. Except when it has been pointed out
that one is wrong and one continues to insist that one is correct,
despite this demonstrably not being the case.
And it is the latter situation in which we find ourselves with you dogmatically insisting you are correct and ignoring anything and
everything which proves you wrong.
A recent example of this being your insistence that you were correct
whilst every Highway Authority and local authority in England and Wales
did not understand the legislation and had issued numerous incorrect and therefore ineffective public notices as a result.
The fact that you repeatedly and consistently ignore the other "rules"
of interpretation frequently leads you astray.
Additionally, that you think a dictionary is the only aid available to a court and that they do not have access to better, more suitable aids,
(both intrinsic and extrinsic), similarly leads you astray.
Regular readers of the group will be all too familiar with these facts.
Unfortunately, you refuse to accept them, and until you do, you are
destined to wander the Halls of Misunderstanding from where you make the majority of your posts.
Suppose, for a second, that the creditor believes that the £20 note
the debtor is offering is in fact forged.
Is the creditor *obliged* to accept the payment to relieve the debt?
Or is he entitled to say, "I'm accepting that £20 note."
He is obliged to accept 'legal tender' when offered, not illegal tender.
Who determines whether or not the £20 note is forged and in what circumstances do they do so?
According to you, if the creditor refuses to accept the £20 note,
(perhaps, because they believe it to be a forgery), if it later
transpires the note is not a forgery and thus that the creditor
proffered legal tender then the debt is extinguished.
This simple example demonstrates why your claim cannot be correct.
Unless you have a cite for circumstances in which a determination of a presumed forged note can be made in real time by, to keep it in line
with the thread shall we say, a petrol station attendant. Do you have
such a cite?
Similarly, the cite will need to show that said petrol
station attendant can also verify all commemorative coins issued, and
not just circulation coins, otherwise I see lots of issues with fake £20 coins being used to pay for petrol.
Or, you can accept that you are "less right" than you think you are?
Suppose the debtor insists that the note is genuine as he had just
withdrawn it from an ATM and has the consecutively numbered note in
his wallet?
But the creditor still believes that the note is forged?
What then?
Since it is genuine, he has refused to accept legal tender in
settlement of a debt, which I say settles the debt to that extent. He
is not entitled to insist that the debtor pays in any other way.
Allow me to furnish you with an example with which I was personally
involved:
A resident suffered water damaged from a leaking bath which brought down
the ceiling of the room below the bathroom. They claimed from their insurers who sent in workers to repair the issue with the insurance
company instructing and paying the workers directly. However, there was
an excess on the policy which the resident was informed they would need
to pay directly to the company instructed by the insurers to effect the repairs. The resident was a former bankrupt, had limited (i.e. no)
access to credit and was restricted to certain types of bank account
(which included a card for withdrawing cash from an ATM but which did
not serve as a cheque guarantee card, which gives an indication of the
time frame of this case.)
The resident withdraw cash to the amount of the excess on their policy (£100) and proffered this to the workers when signing the paperwork to
say that the workers had completed the work to the satisfaction of the resident.
The workers refused to take the cash, explaining that the office would
write to them requesting payment once they'd had payment from the
insurance company. (The workers attending the premises had no idea how
much the excess on the specific policy was and were merely carrying out
the work described on their job card at the address detailed on the same
job card.)
The resident subsequently received a letter from the company whose
workers had completed the work requesting a cheque for £100 to cover the excess that the insurance company had withheld from their payment to them.
According to you, the resident could have written back stating: "I
offered your workers the £100 in cash before they left and as they
refused to accept payment of the debt in legal tender, I consider the
debt settled and will be making no further offers. I bid you 'Good day, sir'"
Had that happened, I am confident that, not only would the company have issued against the resident but that the company would have won and
would have been awarded costs, which would have made for a very
expensive day in court for the resident.
Thankfully, the resident did not do as you advise
and instead wrote back
explaining that they didn't have a cheque book but had instead enclosed postal orders (remember them!) to the value of £100 which could be paid
into the company's bank account and were therefore comparable with the
cheque they had requested.
The company wrote back rejecting the postal orders saying they only
accepted cheques, returning the postal orders with their letter.
Several letters back and forth later and the company issued against the resident whereupon they sought advice from a charity local to them that specialised in proffering advice to those with money problems.
As you've previously tried doxxing me, I hesitate to provide further
personal information to you, but I will volunteer that the chambers with which I was associated at the time worked with the charity concerned and
I was asked to look at this case.
One would be hard pressed to find a case more suitable for the defence
of tender before claim and the resident paid the postal orders into
court and simultaneously filed their defence of tender before claim.
There was no hearing as the claimant "withdrew" the funds from court,
(the court sent the payment to their bank), and that was that. Of
course, the claimant was down their court fees but that is the price
they paid for learning the need to be reasonable with debtors.
Perhaps you could now relay your experience of filing a defence where
you relied upon the fact that proffering legal tender extinguishes the
debt.
Going to the coffee shop I mentioned in a previous post, if you leave
the correct amount of change on the counter, you claim that they must
accept it, despite having no means of storing it on the premises, or
depositing it in their bank.
Yes. Their remedy if they don't want to take legal tender is not to
supply the goods without pre-payment in the form they deem acceptable.
In any establishment where the goods are supplied prior to payment and
cannot be unsupplied, a debt is created, which can be settled by legal
tender even if they don't like it. As well as coffee shops, that
applies to restaurants and petrol filling stations.
Whether they can store it on the premises as irrelevant as it's likely
to be completely false. Do they not have pockets?
As a general rule of thumb, baristas, and indeed all shop workers, are strongly discouraged from placing company funds in their pockets lest
they leave themselves open to a charge of theft and I am most surprised
you suggested this.
Why on earth would he do that?
I think refusal to accept the money in legal tender is repudiating
the debt. It's saying in effect go away, I don't want your money.
To which the appropriate response is okay, thank you very much.
You think incorrectly, unfortunately for you, as the example with the
presumed forged £20 note above and coffee shop clearly demonstrate.
Not so for the reasons I've given above.
We must agree to disagree.
Tangentially, unlike many, if not all, making contributions to the
thread, I've actually relied upon the defence of tender before claim
in court so have experience in the matter. Do you?
It's an unnecessary defence in the scenarios we've been considering.
In your opinion, which I consider to be mistaken.
And I have experience of actually using the defence. Do you?
C has no grounds for dictating any different form of payment.
Cite please. And, again, for the avoidance of doubt, the cite will
need to come from the CPR, case law or similar rather than a
dictionary or web-site, regardless of how authoritative you consider
the web-site to be.
I think it's rather for you to say why you think a creditor can
dictate any method of payment other than legal tender.
A legal history lesson for you, as it is highly relevant to this thread.
The maxim "Nulla poena sine lege" is considered a basic requirement for
the rule of law.
Expanding upon this thought in his book, "The Rule of Law: The
Presumption of Liberty and Justice", Sir John Laws, a senior English
Judge, said: "For the individual citizen, everything which is not
forbidden is allowed; but for public bodies, and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden."
You regularly insist that the law must, like a Yorkshireman, 'say what
it means and mean what it says'. Therefore, if the law dictates that a
debt is extinguished if a creditor is proffered legal tender by a debtor
and the creditor refuses to accept the legal tender then you must be
able to provide a cite for the claim or it fails because your situation
is one in which something is forbidden, (namely the refusal to accept
legal tender to discharge a debt) and must therefore be codified even in common law by a reference to case law, the CPR or similar.
Conversely, my claim that parties are free to accept payment in whatever
form they deem acceptable stands, because such will be allowed, unless forbidden by law, which, again, requires you to cite the law which
supports your position and opposes mine.
In either case, it is you that needs a cite to support your position as
mine stands unsupported as a basic rule of law.
Interestingly, and having turned my mind to the matter overnight, the principle "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" applied to
public authorities in England whose actions were limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law and would therefore underpin their
need to accept legal tender when proffered.
However, this restriction on local authorities was lifted by the
Localism Act 2011 [1] which granted a "general power of competence" to
local authorities too.
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal tender" because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents
[2] See, for example, The Court Fund Rules 2011 Part 2 section 8(2)(b), (4)(c) and (5) [3]
[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1734/part/2/made
On 18/10/2023 09:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of L1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
It might be imagined that unless the debtor was a haulage contractor of
some description, the sheer "practical" difficulties and actual cost of
arranging for the delivery of near a tonne of L1 coins would outweigh
any feeling of satisfaction thereby derived.
As even with smaller amounts, the joke soon seems to wear a bit thin.
ISTR this story made the national media at the time; but Google can
only produce a report in a local paper
quote:
6th June 2003
Peter Zeyss, 62, of Sycamore Dean, Chesham, took money bags full of
5p,10p,
50p and L1 coins to demonstrate his anger at 15 per cent increases in
council tax bills.
Company director Mr Zeyss said: "We have had the increase last year and
this
year of 15 per cent and it is not justified. This is well beyond the rate
of
inflation.
[...]
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of L210. 67 into coins before
visiting
the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George V
Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the
awkward
payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from another
member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/303626.man-pays-council-tax-in-coins-as-protest/
:end quote
Anyone can accept anything if they wish of course. But the Council would have been perfectly within its rights to refuse quantities of coins that
are above the legal tender limits for their denomination, namely:
50p - limit 10
10p - limit 5
5p - limit 5.
On 2023-10-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuitqfq.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
I'm not obliged to make "substantive points" in every single post
I write - especially when it's a reply to a post in which you haven't
said anything worth responding to.
But why would you choose to reply to posts in which I haven't said
anything worth responding to ?
Because I may feel that when you have posted something rude, insulting,
and untrue about me it's at least worth posting a denial in response,
On 2023-10-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of 1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
So that you know for certain that they will find it *at best* extremely difficult indeed to do anything with the coins.
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of 210. 67 into coins before
visiting
the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George V
Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the
awkward
payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from another
member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
Exactly why I suggested dumping the cash at the feet of someone out for
a walk, and not giving it to cashiers whose literal job is to deal with
cash.
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
On 18 Oct 2023 at 18:24:21 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
OK, but would it then be reasonable to say that for those case the debt
could be settled by circulating legal tender, but not by commemorative
legal tender, even if not explicitly stated on the pump / employment
contract?
I don't think so. Either something is legal tender or it isn't.
Just because £50 notes or £20 coins or £2 coins might be uncommon
to a greater or lesser degree doesn't seem likely to mean they
come into some special lesser category of "half-way" legal tender.
I think when the web sites you were looking at above were talking
about "circulating" legal tender they were probably making a distinction
between current legal tender and things that *used to* be legal tender
but are not any more (e.g. a Bank of England £5 note from the 1960s).
I think they were talking about high-quality coins especially minted that no-one in their right mind would use as money because they are worth a great deal more in mint or better than usual mint condition. Whether they are usable
as legal tender should be irrelevant to any moderately sensible person who owns them. Which adequately defines the person in the original post who tried to do so.
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:19:24 +0100, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
A debtor could accept cash to discharge their debt? How do I get that deal?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpa59iFm30cU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 09:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of L1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
It might be imagined that unless the debtor was a haulage contractor of
some description, the sheer "practical" difficulties and actual cost of
arranging for the delivery of near a tonne of L1 coins would outweigh
any feeling of satisfaction thereby derived.
As even with smaller amounts, the joke soon seems to wear a bit thin.
ISTR this story made the national media at the time; but Google can
only produce a report in a local paper
quote:
6th June 2003
Peter Zeyss, 62, of Sycamore Dean, Chesham, took money bags full of
5p,10p,
50p and L1 coins to demonstrate his anger at 15 per cent increases in
council tax bills.
Company director Mr Zeyss said: "We have had the increase last year and
this
year of 15 per cent and it is not justified. This is well beyond the rate >>> of
inflation.
[...]
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of L210. 67 into coins before
visiting
the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George V >>> Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the
awkward
payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from another >>> member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/303626.man-pays-council-tax-in-coins-as-protest/
:end quote
Anyone can accept anything if they wish of course. But the Council would
have been perfectly within its rights to refuse quantities of coins that
are above the legal tender limits for their denomination, namely:
50p - limit Ł10
10p - limit Ł5
5p - limit Ł5.
What makes you think that they did ?
Or that Mr Zeyss was so stupid as to belive they would, if he had ?
On 18 Oct 2023 at 13:19:24 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means. >>> But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used
cheques as payment.
Indeed. The case I mentioned that I was personally involved with used
postal orders as payment. The court accepted payment in postal orders
and the defence of tender before claim was successful. (The creditor
had previously been sent the postal orders and had returned them to the
debtor and subsequently sued claiming costs.)
snip rest
Did the court refuse cash? Seems expensive using postal orders. If they had refused cash you could have had fun trying to make them do so, by judicial review or something. I can see why one might not want to do this, though.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal tender" >>> because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
b) If the debtor deposits the necessary amount into a Courts Fund
Office account and informs the creditor accordingly then the creditor
is obliged to accept payment from that account, in legal tender.
c) Legal tender is the sole form of payment which creditors are
*obliged* to accept, either as result of a Court Judgement or a
tender before claim.
d) The Courts Fund Office account which the debtor opens and
into which they deposit funds is in essence no different from a
bank account; or any other account from which cleared funds can
be withdrawn in legal tender if and when required.
Please state which of the above a, b, c, or d you disagree with,
and why.
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You have perhaps missed the fundamental point that the question here is
not about "tender before claim", it is about "legal tender", and while
these two concepts may (or may not) be related, they are not the same
thing. There have been several cases cited regarding tender before
claim, but none about legal tender.
I thought that had been answered previously?
No, not at all. If it had been, I would have stopped posting on the topic.
Legal tender exists in common law to stop people playing, to use the
vernacular, "silly buggers". It is, for want of a better phrase, the
'currency of last resort'.
Assume I agree to sell you my 1954 first edition issues of The Lord of
the Rings for £20,000. You agree and, as I trust you, I ship the books
to you so that you may inspect them before paying for them. You are
happy to proceed with the transaction and ask how I want to be paid. I
say I will only accept payment in Gondorian castar (mirian). (I am
going to assume that not only do you not have any castar but you are all
out of tharni (canath) too?) You attempt to discharge your debt by
offering to pay by bank transfer or by bringing the cash to my house in
£20 or £50 notes if I will give you either my bank details or home
address. I state again, that I will only accept payment in castar and
that if you do not discharge your debt in a manner acceptable to me, I
will enforce it through the courts.
I follow the pre-action protocol and send a letter before claim / action
stating that you owe me £20,000 which I insist is paid in castar and
that if you do not pay me the castar I'm demanding, I will issue
proceedings against you.
You reply stating that you cannot pay in a fantasy currency and request
my bank details or home address so that you may pay the money you
acknowledge that you owe me in pounds sterling.
You subsequently receive a claim form at which point you pay the £20K
into court and file a defence of tender before claim. (To keep things
simple, for the purposes of this example, assume I did not add costs or
interest to my claim, and you are not claiming defence costs.)
I can either accept the money you've paid into court or proceed to
trial. Should I proceed to trial, I will likely lose at which point you
would be a fool not to make an application for costs so I'd be a fool to
proceed to trial, once you have paid the money into court.
By "lose" you presumably mean "be awarded exactly what I claimed for"?
Or, to put it in simpler terms, "win"?
In short, legal tender stops me playing silly buggers about insisting on
stupid forms of payment to discharge the debt.
Ok, so that's quite impressive, in that you've taken every mistake that anyone has made in this thread, and every point that has already been
made and already been addressed, and made them again, all in one post.
Well, not including Norman's mistakes, but his go above and beyond the
call of duty.
But it works the other way too. Assume you tried to pay me the £20K in
one pennies. I refuse to accept them and everything else proceeds as
before. However, when you attempt to pay your pennies into court, they
too are not obliged to accept them as they are not legal tender so you
cannot avail of a defence of tender before claim as you cannot comply
with CPR 37.2 whilst attempting to pay £20K worth of pennies into court.
Legal tender is what must be accepted by the Court and other
governmental institutions. So if you owe HMRC some money, they have to
accept your payment, if it is proffered in legal tender but not if it
isn't. That means you cannot pay your £10K VAT bill in pennies, but you
can pay it in £1 coins.
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
Nobody, other than the government, is forced to accept legal tender and
post February 2022 when the Localism Act 2011 took effect, I'm not even
sure about them without reading the Act, which I haven't the time to do
right now.
This is all common law so I cannot give you cites for this but claims in
the thread that are contrary to this are easily debunked.
But you yourself have claimed the contrary not only in your previous post, but within this very post too!
For example, it has been suggested that you can use the defence if
your offer of payment was in the form of legal tender, and you can't if
it wasn't. That would pretty much fully explain what legal tender means. >>> But it clearly cannot mean that, because the article you mention (which
I had already read) references several cases where the debtors had used
cheques as payment.
Indeed. The case I mentioned that I was personally involved with used
postal orders as payment. The court accepted payment in postal orders
and the defence of tender before claim was successful. (The creditor
had previously been sent the postal orders and had returned them to the
debtor and subsequently sued claiming costs.)
So when you said above that you cannot use "tender before claim" if you haven't offered legal tender, you were certainly wrong!
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're
out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Legal tender only applies to the court, HMRC, and other such
institutions. Anyone else is free to negotiate what types of payment
they will accept.
So again you're saying that everything you said above is wrong?
I don't get why this is so hard to understand:
"Legal tender" is not about how you pay money into court - you simply
*can't* pay legal tender into court. They want cheques or postal orders.
As we both know from our personal experience.
"Legal tender" is not about how you offer to make payment to the
creditor. You can offer to pay via any reasonable method as, again,
you know from your personal experience.
So what *is* it about?
I'm not aware I have any access to those, other than brief excerpts
that I have already read such as in the Law Gazette article you mention.
I see that Graham Truesdale has posted a link to the judgment in Davys v
Richardson for which I'm grateful.
Here's a link to the relevant rules in force at the time (you need page
1788 onwards): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nDo0AQAAMAAJ
Thanks. What am I supposed to be looking at there? It doesn't appear to
say anything about legal tender whatsoever, it talks about tender before claim, and the rules look pretty similar to today.
So perhaps we should say that the "defence" of tender before claim is
not a defence to the claim, it is just a defence to the costs - because
the claimant will still be awarded what they claimed for. It's basically >>> a Part 36 offer to settle but made before the claim is even issued.
Pedantically, one cannot settle a claim before it is issued, but one can
attempt to discharge a debt before a claim is issued, hence the
difference between a Part 36 offer and a defence of tender before claim.
My point is that tender before claim and a Part 36 offer have an
identical effect - they don't affect who "wins" or "loses", but they
mean that, from the date the offer is made, you will not be liable
for the claimant's costs, and indeed the claimant may be liable for
your costs.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
FSVO "we". :-)
Well if you do know then you're keeping it to yourself for some reason.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:19:24 +0100, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for
them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
A debtor could accept cash to discharge their debt? How do I get that deal?
On 19/10/2023 04:48, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:19:24 +0100, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
If a debtor refuses to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, wait for >>> them to sue, pay the debt into court and then avail of the defence of
tender before claim.
A debtor could accept cash to discharge their debt? How do I get that
deal?
I'd like to stand up for my friend Mr Parker here and say that he's just
made an inadvertent error by saying debtor when he meant creditor.
What then ?
Have you really thought this true ?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal tender" >>> because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
b) If the debtor deposits the necessary amount into a Courts Fund
Office account and informs the creditor accordingly then the creditor
is obliged to accept payment from that account, in legal tender.
c) Legal tender is the sole form of payment which creditors are
*obliged* to accept, either as result of a Court Judgement or a
tender before claim.
d) The Courts Fund Office account which the debtor opens and
into which they deposit funds is in essence no different from a
bank account; or any other account from which cleared funds can
be withdrawn in legal tender if and when required.
Please state which of the above a, b, c, or d you disagree with,
and why.
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal >>>>>> tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative"
legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins >>>>>> can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The
official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are >>>>>> designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated >>>>>> coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are >>>>>> not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt >>>>>> from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always >>>>>> being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed >>>>>> to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between >>>>>> customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and >>>>> £100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's >>>>> a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it >>>> as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply >>>> to typical shops and traders.
You are right that a typical transaction in a shop does not involve
any debts being created or paid off, but you're wrong that debts must
involve "loans". Anyone who has a job is owed their wages as a debt
by their employer at the end of every month, for example. And some
common retail transactions where the product is effectively consumed
in advance of payment - such as restaurants, and the petrol station
that started this thread - certainly do involve debts being created.
OK, but would it then be reasonable to say that for those case the debt
could be settled by circulating legal tender, but not by commemorative
legal tender, even if not explicitly stated on the pump / employment
contract?
I don't think so. Either something is legal tender or it isn't.
Just because £50 notes or £20 coins or £2 coins might be uncommon
to a greater or lesser degree doesn't seem likely to mean they
come into some special lesser category of "half-way" legal tender.
I think when the web sites you were looking at above were talking
about "circulating" legal tender they were probably making a distinction between current legal tender and things that *used to* be legal tender
but are not any more (e.g. a Bank of England £5 note from the 1960s).
On 18/10/2023 19:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpa59iFm30cU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 09:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of L1 coins at someone's feet while they're >>>>> out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite >>>>> it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
It might be imagined that unless the debtor was a haulage contractor of >>>> some description, the sheer "practical" difficulties and actual cost of >>>> arranging for the delivery of near a tonne of L1 coins would outweigh
any feeling of satisfaction thereby derived.
As even with smaller amounts, the joke soon seems to wear a bit thin.
ISTR this story made the national media at the time; but Google can
only produce a report in a local paper
quote:
6th June 2003
Peter Zeyss, 62, of Sycamore Dean, Chesham, took money bags full of
5p,10p,
50p and L1 coins to demonstrate his anger at 15 per cent increases in
council tax bills.
Company director Mr Zeyss said: "We have had the increase last year and >>>> this
year of 15 per cent and it is not justified. This is well beyond the
rate
of
inflation.
[...]
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of L210. 67 into coins before
visiting
the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George >>>> V
Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the
awkward
payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my
payment and started to count the money. She called for help from
another
member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/303626.man-pays-council-tax-in-coins-as-protest/
:end quote
Anyone can accept anything if they wish of course. But the Council
would
have been perfectly within its rights to refuse quantities of coins that >>> are above the legal tender limits for their denomination, namely:
50p - limit L10
10p - limit L5
5p - limit L5.
What makes you think that they did ?
Nothing, of course, because they didn't.
Or that Mr Zeyss was so stupid as to belive they would, if he had ?
If he had what?
He obviously thought they wouldn't refuse anything. I'm just pointing out that they could have.
On 18/10/2023 18:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:04, Reentrant wrote:
I thought all this started over a shop refusing a commemorative "legal >>>>>>> tender" coin, so apologies if already mentioned -
<https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/legal-tender/>
(Several other coin-trading sites also state the clear legal
difference between "circulating" legal tender and "commemorative" >>>>>>> legal tender).
"Many people confuse the legal tender value as meaning these coins
can be spent in shops or sold to banks. This is not the case. The >>>>>>> official definition is that only circulating legal tender coins are >>>>>>> designed to be spent or traded with businesses and banks. Uncirculated >>>>>>> coins, such as Bullion, Brilliant Uncirculated, and Proof coins, are >>>>>>> not eligible.
Commemorative coins, which also have a face value, are often exempt >>>>>>> from these rules due to the nature of their production and not always >>>>>>> being made of a precious metal. Banks have been officially instructed >>>>>>> to refuse these coins since 2016 following several clashes between >>>>>>> customers and The Royal Mint over the legal tender definition."
If banks can refuse them, surely shop keepers can too.
The Royal Mint, who ought to know, say:
"the silver UK coins we produce in denominations of £5, £20, £50 and >>>>>> £100 are approved as legal tender"
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20practice%20this%20means%20that,are%20unlikely%20to%20accept%20them.
That means they can be used for the payment of debts and must be
accepted for that purpose when offered.
Shops and traders can refuse them for a transaction, but not if there's >>>>>> a debt to be settled.
So define debt in this sense. As I said earlier, many sources define it >>>>> as the outstanding sum owed in repayment of a loan, which doesn't apply >>>>> to typical shops and traders.
You are right that a typical transaction in a shop does not involve
any debts being created or paid off, but you're wrong that debts must
involve "loans". Anyone who has a job is owed their wages as a debt
by their employer at the end of every month, for example. And some
common retail transactions where the product is effectively consumed
in advance of payment - such as restaurants, and the petrol station
that started this thread - certainly do involve debts being created.
OK, but would it then be reasonable to say that for those case the debt
could be settled by circulating legal tender, but not by commemorative
legal tender, even if not explicitly stated on the pump / employment
contract?
I don't think so. Either something is legal tender or it isn't.
Just because £50 notes or £20 coins or £2 coins might be uncommon
to a greater or lesser degree doesn't seem likely to mean they
come into some special lesser category of "half-way" legal tender.
I think when the web sites you were looking at above were talking
about "circulating" legal tender they were probably making a distinction
between current legal tender and things that *used to* be legal tender
but are not any more (e.g. a Bank of England £5 note from the 1960s).
One of "my" sites links to
<https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html>
which shows a letter from the Royal Mint to all banks instructing them
not to accept commemorative £20, £50 and £100 legal tender coins.
So now I guess we have three kinds of legal tender; circulating, commemorative, and used-to-circulate-but-now-withdrawn.
On 18/10/2023 20:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to >>>> just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I >>>> checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment >>>> if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
That is exactly what he *is* under an obligation to do.
<rest snipped>
On 2023-10-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to >>>> just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I >>>> checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment >>>> if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
b) If the debtor deposits the necessary amount into a Courts Fund
Office account and informs the creditor accordingly then the creditor
is obliged to accept payment from that account, in legal tender.
c) Legal tender is the sole form of payment which creditors are
*obliged* to accept, either as result of a Court Judgement or a
tender before claim.
d) The Courts Fund Office account which the debtor opens and
into which they deposit funds is in essence no different from a
bank account; or any other account from which cleared funds can
be withdrawn in legal tender if and when required.
Please state which of the above a, b, c, or d you disagree with,
and why.
Well, apparently *you* disagree with at least one of (a) and (c),
since they contradict each other.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor
(b) and (d) are false, in that you generally cannot deposit money
into the Court Funds Office using legal tender,
and I doubt you can withdraw money from it as legal tender either.
On 18/10/2023 14:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Normal service, (FSVO "normal" and "service") will be resumed at some
point but I cannot give a date at this point and ask that you and
everyone else in ULM bear with me in the meantime as I'll continue
making posts I consider useful, but if I've missed a point, say
something that has already been said, or reignite a now dead flame, I
can but apologise.
I can either accept the money you've paid into court or proceed to
trial. Should I proceed to trial, I will likely lose at which point you >>> would be a fool not to make an application for costs so I'd be a fool to >>> proceed to trial, once you have paid the money into court.
By "lose" you presumably mean "be awarded exactly what I claimed for"?
Or, to put it in simpler terms, "win"?
It is me that is the claimant, you're the defendant in this hypothetical scenario involving the sale of my first edition LotR books.
You have my books and we've agreed you'll pay me £20K for them but I'm making ridiculous demands about payment which you cannot possibly meet.
I've issued against you and you've paid the £20K into court. If I
proceed to trial, I will get my £20K but it will be in regular UK
currency which will be transferred electronically into my bank, rather
than in the Gondorian castar I've demanded. I've got the money, but not
in the form I wanted it - I consider that to be a situation in which I
have "lost" as I haven't got what I wanted.
Additionally, you are a sensible man so you're going to have made an application for costs so in addition to having "lost" in not getting
paid in the currency I wanted, I am also going to "lose" further when an award for costs in inevitably made in your favour.
I've got my £20K (minus your costs) but I wouldn't chalk that up as a
"win" personally. YMMV.
Would it help if I said that I do not believe that the petrol station
was legally obliged to accept the £20 proffered by the gentleman whose actions started this thread and that will remain my position unless and
until someone can cite either legislation or case law which demonstrates
that they must. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider a
dictionary definition suitably persuasive in these circumstances.)
Had the gentleman attempted to leave the petrol station, I am confident
that his arrest would have been justified and would have been upheld by
the DS therefore his request for compensation would have failed and we'd
be able to test whether or not the petrol station had to accept his £20 coin. Instead the reporting focussed on the unlawful detention rather
than the issue of legal tender. (Which perhaps makes the subject of
this thread, and the majority of the posts in it irrelevant.)
My position as of right now is that "legal tender" has a definition,
(i.e. we all know what it is),
but it does not have an application, (i.e nobody can state with
certainty, (i.e. backed up by cites to legislation or case law), circumstances in which legal tender must be accepted.)
"Legal tender" is not about how you pay money into court - you simply
*can't* pay legal tender into court. They want cheques or postal orders.
As we both know from our personal experience.
I respectfully disagree. You can pay legal tender, (i.e money, cash,
etc.) into court. There are restrictions around it but every County
Court with which I'm familiar will accept cash. You might need to make
an appointment and they may well make you jump through some hoops but
they'll take it. (Yes, I know what the legislation says and what Google searches say, but I'm telling you about what happens in the real world
which, for example, doesn't include them asking: "Do you have a current account? Legislation says we only have to accept cash from people that
don't have a current account. IF you have a current account, we don't
have to accept this cash from you.")
I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it doesn't actually mean anything.
If nobody can point to the legislation or case law dictating the precise terms in which legal tender must be accepted and by whom, then it is meaningless.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuj2768.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to >>>>> just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I >>>>> checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment >>>>> if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up >>>>> with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant >>>> in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
b) If the debtor deposits the necessary amount into a Courts Fund
Office account and informs the creditor accordingly then the creditor
is obliged to accept payment from that account, in legal tender.
c) Legal tender is the sole form of payment which creditors are
*obliged* to accept, either as result of a Court Judgement or a
tender before claim.
d) The Courts Fund Office account which the debtor opens and
into which they deposit funds is in essence no different from a
bank account; or any other account from which cleared funds can
be withdrawn in legal tender if and when required.
Please state which of the above a, b, c, or d you disagree with,
and why.
Well, apparently *you* disagree with at least one of (a) and (c),
since they contradict each other.
e) No they don't. Creditors(a) are under no obligation to pursue debts through the courts (c).
f) (c) Only applies to creditors who do choose to pursue debts through the Courts
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor
(b) and (d) are false, in that you generally cannot deposit money
into the Court Funds Office using legal tender,
Where in b) or anywhere else for that matter, did I say it was necessary
to deposit money into the Courts Fund Office using legal tender ?
On 18/10/2023 14:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Would it help if I said that I do not believe that the petrol station
was legally obliged to accept the £20 proffered by the gentleman whose actions started this thread and that will remain my position unless and
until someone can cite either legislation or case law which demonstrates
that they must. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider a
dictionary definition suitably persuasive in these circumstances.)
Had the gentleman attempted to leave the petrol station, I am confident
that his arrest would have been justified
and would have been upheld by
the DS therefore his request for compensation would have failed and we'd
be able to test whether or not the petrol station had to accept his £20 coin.
Instead the reporting focussed on the unlawful detention rather
than the issue of legal tender. (Which perhaps makes the subject of
this thread, and the majority of the posts in it irrelevant.)
Nobody, other than the government, is forced to accept legal tender
The situation is far from clear-cut and unless and until we have a
judgment it will remain so.
It is clear that the courts cannot be forced to accept legal tender to discharge the debt of a fine they've issued and if they do not have to
accept it, it is difficult to see who can be compelled to accept legal
tender and in what circumstances. (Yes, yes, I know what the
dictionaries say, but, as above, I am confident that had the gentleman attempted to leave the petrol station his arrest would have been
justified.)
Since I made my post naming HMRC, I have thought about all the MTD
nonsense and doubt HMRC will accept cash payments either. So that HMCTS
and HMRC that both refuse to accept legal tender except in certain circumstances.
People are free to accept whatever forms of payment they choose. We're talking about a form of payment that they must accept in certain circumstances which has been given the name "legal tender".
I am going to go so far as to say that recent(ish) legislation, which
I've cited / quoted previously, (e.g. governing payments into court and
the responsibilities of local authorities), the concept of "legal
tender" is all but dead.
It would, perhaps, be interesting to plot a Venn Diagram showing
FMOTLers, Youtube "Auditors", ULM posters and those that think they know
what "legal tender" is without being able to provide a *legal*
definition for the circumstances in which proffering legal tender is regulated, which, I suggest reduces it to mere "tender". :-)
It's conceivable that the meaning of legal tender is that if you use
it then your offer of payment is deemed to be definitely sufficient
to raise the defence of tender before claim (as opposed to other
methods of payment, which might or might not be sufficient depending
on the opinion of the judge). But if so I'd like to see something
supporting that notion. It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of £1 coins at someone's feet while they're >>>> out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite
it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Legal tender only applies to the court, HMRC, and other such
institutions. Anyone else is free to negotiate what types of payment
they will accept.
So again you're saying that everything you said above is wrong?
My position as of right now is that "legal tender" has a definition,
(i.e. we all know what it is),
but it does not have an application, (i.e
nobody can state with certainty, (i.e. backed up by cites to legislation
or case law), circumstances in which legal tender must be accepted.)
"Legal tender" is not about how you offer to make payment to the
creditor. You can offer to pay via any reasonable method as, again,
you know from your personal experience.
So what *is* it about?
I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it doesn't actually mean anything.
If nobody can point to the legislation or case law dictating the precise terms in which legal tender must be accepted and by whom, then it is meaningless.
Banks, for example, do not appear to be legally obliged to accept commemorative coins over the counter despite them being legal tender,
which the Royal Mint, the makers of said coins themselves admit quite
openly [1].
Assume, for a second, that the claims in this thread are true, (and I
include mine in that too), the situation would exist where the petrol
station is legally obliged to accept the £20 coin, but cannot deposit it
in their bank as most banks do not routinely accept them.
And we still don't know what "legal tender" means...
FSVO "we". :-)
Well if you do know then you're keeping it to yourself for some reason.
I include myself in the "we" that do not know.
Others, however, have
convinced themselves that they, and they alone, have the correct understanding based on nothing but dictionary definitions, which may or
may not still be relevant to current legislation.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpcfakFda7qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 19:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpa59iFm30cU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 09:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuit5rf.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It seems highly unlikely that my suggestion
of dumping nearly a tonne of L1 coins at someone's feet while they're >>>>>> out for a walk would count as a reasonable tender of payment, despite >>>>>> it certainly being an offer of "legal tender".
Why would they need to be out for a walk at the time ?
It might be imagined that unless the debtor was a haulage contractor of >>>>> some description, the sheer "practical" difficulties and actual cost of >>>>> arranging for the delivery of near a tonne of L1 coins would outweigh >>>>> any feeling of satisfaction thereby derived.
As even with smaller amounts, the joke soon seems to wear a bit thin. >>>>> ISTR this story made the national media at the time; but Google can
only produce a report in a local paper
quote:
6th June 2003
Peter Zeyss, 62, of Sycamore Dean, Chesham, took money bags full of
5p,10p,
50p and L1 coins to demonstrate his anger at 15 per cent increases in >>>>> council tax bills.
Company director Mr Zeyss said: "We have had the increase last year and >>>>> this
year of 15 per cent and it is not justified. This is well beyond the >>>>> rate
of
inflation.
[...]
Mr Zeyss said he changed his payment of L210. 67 into coins before
visiting
the payment centre at Chiltern District Council Offices in King George >>>>> V
Road, Amersham, last Wednesday.
But he said he was surprised at how well the cashiers dealt with the >>>>> awkward
payment. Mr Zeyss said: "I was surprised how cool the cashier took my >>>>> payment and started to count the money. She called for help from
another
member of staffand they managed to count the money in 35 minutes."
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/303626.man-pays-council-tax-in-coins-as-protest/
:end quote
Anyone can accept anything if they wish of course. But the Council
would
have been perfectly within its rights to refuse quantities of coins that >>>> are above the legal tender limits for their denomination, namely:
50p - limit L10
10p - limit L5
5p - limit L5.
What makes you think that they did ?
Nothing, of course, because they didn't.
Or that Mr Zeyss was so stupid as to belive they would, if he had ?
If he had what?
He obviously thought they wouldn't refuse anything. I'm just pointing out >> that they could have.
No they couldn't.
Presumably he simply filled a bag with 50p pieces, 10p pieces, 5p pieces
1 and 2 p pieces up to their legal tender limit* along with the requisite
no of pound coins; making around 440 coins in total all mixed up
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpcgupFda7qU3@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 20:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced to >>>>> just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. (I >>>>> checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an appointment >>>>> if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up >>>>> with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's
draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a litigant >>>> in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor.
That is exactly what he *is* under an obligation to do.
No he isn't.
If he was,there would be no point in the debtor going to the all the
trouble and expense of depositing the money in a Court Fund Office
Account would there ?
quote:
You must pay into the Court Funds Office if:
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
and you want to use a 'defence of tender before claim'
unquote
to repeat
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
On 2023-10-19, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
One of "my" sites links to
<https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html>
which shows a letter from the Royal Mint to all banks instructing them
not to accept commemorative £20, £50 and £100 legal tender coins.
So now I guess we have three kinds of legal tender; circulating,
commemorative, and used-to-circulate-but-now-withdrawn.
An interesting point from that article is that it quotes from the
Royal Mint "legal tender" web page we have been looking at, but
as it was in January 2016, and it was different then.
In fact it looks like the Royal Mint changed the web page in response
to that very article - between 5 January 2016 and 10 January 2016 it
had the following added to it: "UK shops and banks are not obliged to
accept them in return for goods and services." But then at some point
between 13 August 2016 and 18 August 2016 they must have had a rethink, because they changed it to "UK shops and banks are unlikely to accept
them" (i.e. no mention of them not being *obliged* to accept them).
So I guess the Royal Mint genuinely are not sure what legal tender
means either.
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
and then may have tried "tender before claim", and the outcome of
that would have been interesting to know. And if he didn't do that,
it would be interesting to know what he *did* do with his hoard of
coins.
On 13/10/2023 09:29, Jeff wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the
method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or
stipulated by contract.
That is why, in the absence of any contrary agreement, the law says it
can be validly paid in legal tender. It the baseline default position.
On 19/10/2023 11:56, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/10/2023 14:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 15:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Would it help if I said that I do not believe that the petrol station
was legally obliged to accept the £20 proffered by the gentleman whose
actions started this thread and that will remain my position unless and
until someone can cite either legislation or case law which demonstrates
that they must. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider a
dictionary definition suitably persuasive in these circumstances.)
It's not *a* dictionary definition but what they *all* say. It's what
the Bank of England says too. Without anything to the contrary, and you
have certainly not suggested anything, I'd say they are pretty persuasive.
On 2023-10-19, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll take your word on that but, as you say, the legislation says they
don't *have* to take it, so it can't be what "legal tender" means. (Just
the same as shopkeepers don't *have* to take legal tender but generally speaking will.)
I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it doesn't actually mean anything.
If nobody can point to the legislation or case law dictating the precise
terms in which legal tender must be accepted and by whom, then it is
meaningless.
Ok, so I think we are basically in complete agreement. Nobody can come
up with a definitive explanation of what it means, because it doesn't
mean anything.
On 2023-10-19, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuj2768.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced >>>>>> to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. >>>>>> (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an
appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up >>>>>> with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into >>>>> your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as >>>>> per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's >>>>> draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a
litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor. >>>>
b) If the debtor deposits the necessary amount into a Courts Fund
Office account and informs the creditor accordingly then the creditor
is obliged to accept payment from that account, in legal tender.
c) Legal tender is the sole form of payment which creditors are
*obliged* to accept, either as result of a Court Judgement or a
tender before claim.
d) The Courts Fund Office account which the debtor opens and
into which they deposit funds is in essence no different from a
bank account; or any other account from which cleared funds can
be withdrawn in legal tender if and when required.
Please state which of the above a, b, c, or d you disagree with,
and why.
Well, apparently *you* disagree with at least one of (a) and (c),
since they contradict each other.
e) No they don't. Creditors(a) are under no obligation to pursue debts
through the courts (c).
f) (c) Only applies to creditors who do choose to pursue debts through
the
Courts
If the creditor doesn't pursue the debt in the courts then the debtor
can simply ignore the debt forever, regardless of whether they did or
did not offer payment and whether they offered legal tender, badger
hides, or the Ruritanian pobble.
So the position when the creditor fails
to do anything about the debt is not particularly interesting or relevant, and tells us nothing about legal tender.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor
(b) and (d) are false, in that you generally cannot deposit money
into the Court Funds Office using legal tender,
Where in b) or anywhere else for that matter, did I say it was necessary
to deposit money into the Courts Fund Office using legal tender ?
Perhaps you've forgotten, but the subject we are discussing is legal
tender. So by definition, if your response doesn't involve legal tender
then it is not an answer to the question.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:43:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:29, Jeff wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the >>> method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or
stipulated by contract.
That is why, in the absence of any contrary agreement, the law says it
can be validly paid in legal tender. It the baseline default position.
To which law do you refer? Could it be a law conjured by some dictionary publisher or web site administrator or something founded in common law?
On 19/10/2023 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpcgupFda7qU3@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 20:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageThat is exactly what he *is* under an obligation to do.
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal
tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced >>>>>> to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. >>>>>> (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an
appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up >>>>>> with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into >>>>> your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as >>>>> per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's >>>>> draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a
litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to
accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor. >>>
No he isn't.
So, you disagree with all dictionaries and with the Bank of England on
this? Care to tell us with what authority?
If he was,there would be no point in the debtor going to the all the
trouble and expense of depositing the money in a Court Fund Office
Account would there ?
Not if he has offered to pay in legal tender, no. If accepted, that satisfies the debt. If it's refused, when it is obligatory to accept it,
I say that repudiates the debt.
quote:
You must pay into the Court Funds Office if:
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
and you want to use a 'defence of tender before claim'
unquote
to repeat
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
That's dependent on your wanting to use a defence of tender before claim.
But you won't need to do that if you've offered to pay the creditor beforehand in legal tender and the debt, as I say, is repudiated by doing
so.
On 19/10/2023 15:52, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:43:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 13/10/2023 09:29, Jeff wrote:
It's not up to the creditor to decide unilaterally on the method of
payment, and certainly not if it's been made in legal tender.
Conversely it is also not up to the debtor to decide unilaterally on the >>>> method of payment; it has to be a method acceptable to both parties, or >>>> stipulated by contract.
That is why, in the absence of any contrary agreement, the law says it
can be validly paid in legal tender. It the baseline default position.
To which law do you refer? Could it be a law conjured by some dictionary
publisher or web site administrator or something founded in common law?
It follows axiomatically from the term 'legal tender'. What do *you*
think the word 'legal' means in that?
That is why, in the absence of any contrary agreement, the law says it
can be validly paid in legal tender. It the baseline default position.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpctuoFflslU3@mid.individual.net...
On 19/10/2023 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpcgupFda7qU3@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 20:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageThat is exactly what he *is* under an obligation to do.
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal >>>>>>> tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps reduced >>>>>>> to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. >>>>>>> (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an
appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn up >>>>>>> with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money into >>>>>> your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, as >>>>>> per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's >>>>>> draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a
litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has
almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to >>>>> accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a debtor. >>>>
No he isn't.
So, you disagree with all dictionaries and with the Bank of England on
this? Care to tell us with what authority?
If he was,there would be no point in the debtor going to the all the
trouble and expense of depositing the money in a Court Fund Office
Account would there ?
Not if he has offered to pay in legal tender, no. If accepted, that
satisfies the debt. If it's refused, when it is obligatory to accept it,
I say that repudiates the debt.
quote:
You must pay into the Court Funds Office if:
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
and you want to use a 'defence of tender before claim'
unquote
to repeat
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
That's dependent on your wanting to use a defence of tender before claim.
But you won't need to do that if you've offered to pay the creditor
beforehand in legal tender and the debt, as I say, is repudiated by doing
so.
But if a debtor has offered to pay the creditor beforehand in legal tender and they refused it, ( such so you claim that the debt is repudiated )
Then why would the debtor then need to deposit Money in The Court Fund Office so as to use a defence of tender before claim. ?
Why would they want or need to do that ?
If as you claim its all totally unecessary then why would Govts have established and maintained an eleborate procedure for doing just that ?
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-funds-request-for-deposit
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.29
So we appear to have the ridiculous situation where the Bank of England
have instructed high street banks not to accept commemorative coins, the Royal Mint will only accept them in the original case with proof of
purchase, and yet a petrol station has to accept one as payment?
On 19/10/2023 17:54, Reentrant wrote:
So we appear to have the ridiculous situation where the Bank of England
have instructed high street banks not to accept commemorative coins, the
Royal Mint will only accept them in the original case with proof of
purchase, and yet a petrol station has to accept one as payment?
The Royal Mint says a 20 coin is legal tender.
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
All the dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if offered in payment of a debt.
The Royal Mint is not a bank. I don't think it has to accept them back at all. But I think the central bank, ie the Bank of England, which has
overall control of the nation's currency, must.
I agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest, let alone instruct,
any banks not to accept any legal tender.
On 19/10/2023 18:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpctuoFflslU3@mid.individual.net...
On 19/10/2023 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpcgupFda7qU3@mid.individual.net...
On 18/10/2023 20:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuivog5.54g.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-10-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
This is, perhaps, the source of the confusion surrounding "legal >>>>>>>> tender"
because since 2011 the number that must accept it is perhaps
reduced
to
just the courts, and possible even then not without great trouble. >>>>>>>> (I
checked with my local court and it is necessary to make an
appointment
if one wants to pay cash into court. One can no longer just turn >>>>>>>> up
with brown envelopes stuffed with cash. [2])
If you're using tender before claim then you don't pay the money >>>>>>> into
your local court, you pay it into the "Court Funds Office". Which, >>>>>>> as
per the legislation you linked, will only accept "cheque or banker's >>>>>>> draft". The only exception appears to be if the defendant is a
litigant
in person who has no bank account.
So perhaps what you're saying is that the term "legal tender" has >>>>>>> almost no meaning whatsoever under the current law?
Of course it has a meaning.
a) Unless agreed on beforehand, a creditor is under no obligation to >>>>>> accept payment in legal tender, when tendered i.e. offered by a
debtor.
That is exactly what he *is* under an obligation to do.
No he isn't.
So, you disagree with all dictionaries and with the Bank of England on
this? Care to tell us with what authority?
If he was,there would be no point in the debtor going to the all the
trouble and expense of depositing the money in a Court Fund Office
Account would there ?
Not if he has offered to pay in legal tender, no. If accepted, that
satisfies the debt. If it's refused, when it is obligatory to accept
it,
I say that repudiates the debt.
quote:
You must pay into the Court Funds Office if:
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
and you want to use a 'defence of tender before claim'
unquote
to repeat
**** you offered to settle in full before the case started - but
it was not accepted ***
That's dependent on your wanting to use a defence of tender before
claim.
But you won't need to do that if you've offered to pay the creditor
beforehand in legal tender and the debt, as I say, is repudiated by
doing
so.
But if a debtor has offered to pay the creditor beforehand in legal
tender
and they refused it, ( such so you claim that the debt is repudiated )
Then why would the debtor then need to deposit Money in The Court Fund
Office so as to use a defence of tender before claim. ?
Why would they want or need to do that ?
There's no need at all, which is what I said.
If as you claim its all totally unecessary then why would Govts have
established and maintained an eleborate procedure for doing just that ?
https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-funds-office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-funds-request-for-deposit >>
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.29
The defence of 'tender before claim' applies in other circumstances, in particular such as when the offer of payment has been made in *other* than legal tender but has been refused for whatever reason.
The Royal Mint says a £20 coin is legal tender. > All the dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if
offered in payment of a debt.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpdlq7Fk9eaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/10/2023 17:54, Reentrant wrote:
So we appear to have the ridiculous situation where the Bank of England
have instructed high street banks not to accept commemorative coins, the >>> Royal Mint will only accept them in the original case with proof of
purchase, and yet a petrol station has to accept one as payment?
The Royal Mint says a Ł20 coin is legal tender.
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
All the dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if
offered in payment of a debt.
The Royal Mint is not a bank. I don't think it has to accept them back at >> all. But I think the central bank, ie the Bank of England, which has
overall control of the nation's currency, must.
I agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest, let alone instruct,
any banks not to accept any legal tender.
Presumably the possibility has not occurred to you that miscreants,
wrongoers and ne'er do wells of various description have found it worth their while to counterfeit Ł20 coins ?
Which without actually having seen one are, I assume, are not bi-metallic. Which was found necessary in order to defeat successful counterfeiting of
Ł2 coins.
Doubtless "original cases" and "proofs of purchase" are being churned out
in their thousands, under some railway arches somewhere, as we speak.
On 19/10/2023 22:36, Norman Wells wrote:
The Royal Mint says a £20 coin is legal tender. > All the
dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if
offered in payment of a debt.
All the UK definitions say it must be accepted if offered in payment for
a debt IN COURT. Not over the counter.
On 2023-10-19, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 18:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think when the web sites you were looking at above were talking
about "circulating" legal tender they were probably making a distinction >>> between current legal tender and things that *used to* be legal tender
but are not any more (e.g. a Bank of England £5 note from the 1960s).
One of "my" sites links to
<https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html>
which shows a letter from the Royal Mint to all banks instructing them
not to accept commemorative £20, £50 and £100 legal tender coins.
So now I guess we have three kinds of legal tender; circulating,
commemorative, and used-to-circulate-but-now-withdrawn.
An interesting point from that article is that it quotes from the
Royal Mint "legal tender" web page we have been looking at, but
as it was in January 2016, and it was different then.
In fact it looks like the Royal Mint changed the web page in response
to that very article - between 5 January 2016 and 10 January 2016 it
had the following added to it: "UK shops and banks are not obliged to
accept them in return for goods and services." But then at some point
between 13 August 2016 and 18 August 2016 they must have had a rethink, because they changed it to "UK shops and banks are unlikely to accept
them" (i.e. no mention of them not being *obliged* to accept them).
So I guess the Royal Mint genuinely are not sure what legal tender
means either.
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
and then may have tried "tender before claim", and the outcome of
that would have been interesting to know. And if he didn't do that,
it would be interesting to know what he *did* do with his hoard of
coins.
On 20/10/2023 08:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpdlq7Fk9eaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/10/2023 17:54, Reentrant wrote:
So we appear to have the ridiculous situation where the Bank of England >>>> have instructed high street banks not to accept commemorative coins,
the
Royal Mint will only accept them in the original case with proof of
purchase, and yet a petrol station has to accept one as payment?
The Royal Mint says a L20 coin is legal tender.
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
All the dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if
offered in payment of a debt.
The Royal Mint is not a bank. I don't think it has to accept them back
at
all. But I think the central bank, ie the Bank of England, which has
overall control of the nation's currency, must.
I agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest, let alone instruct, >>> any banks not to accept any legal tender.
Presumably the possibility has not occurred to you that miscreants,
wrongoers and ne'er do wells of various description have found it worth
their while to counterfeit L20 coins ?
Got any evidence that they have? You see, it seems rather unlikely to me. Presenting a 20 coin is as likely in my view to attract unwelcome
attention as trying to pass a 9 note.
I've had a chance to speak to an acquaintance that's a professional numismatist
and he's provided a valuable insight, which I think it would
be beneficial to share, and this post seems as good as any, if not
better than most and saves me making the same point at multiple points
in the thread.
The article linked above goes to the very heart of the matter and can,
for those with an open mind, along with the accompanying explanation
resolve many of the questions and issues regarding legal tender raised
in this (and other historic) threads.
The crux of the matter is that The Royal Mint have created an
ever-increasing number of commemorative coins upon which they've use
their statutory powers to designate them as "legal tender" thereby
increasing the perceived value of said coins.
(i.e. a £100 coin
designated as "legal tender" can never be worth less than £100 so I
can't lose out if I pay £100 for it, can I?)
It was never intended that the coins so produced would enter circulation
much less that they would be used in ordinary every day transactions.
The title applied to such coins is "Non-Circulating Legal Tender" (abbreviated to NCLT by numismatists, banks, etc.).
As noted above, when these coins were few in number, issued rarely and, generally, were worth more than their face value, (owing to their rarity
or because of the base metal used to mint them), this wasn't a problem because nobody in their right might would spend a gold sovereign with a
face value of £1 and designated legal tender (albeit NCLT) to buy a
packet of chewing gum, or as in the instant case, to pay for petrol in
their car. And if they did, it wasn't an issue, because the coin was
worth more than its face value so the bank could exchange it with the
Royal Mint for its face value.
However, realising that they were onto a nice wheeze, The Royal Mint
started producing commemorative coins with increased frequency, volume,
(i.e. the number of commemorative coins in each run), and with ever
rising face values.
All of which eventually gave rise to a situation where a large run of
£100 coins was minted and designated legal tender, but their realisable value (i.e. if melted down or sold on the open market - whichever is the greater of the two) was some considerable way short of the face value of £100.
Cut to enterprising individuals (like the one noted in the article
above) that bulk buy these coins as part of their own wheeze. (In the article linked, the chap was using the purchase of coins to accrue air
mails on his credit card but could then use the coins to pay off said
credit card bill when it arrived having first paid the NCLT coins into
his bank account in the intervening period. (Tangentially, a similar
wheeze was employed when loyalty cards were first introduced at supermarkets. Use the loyalty card to purchase gift vouchers and get
the points for the purchase of the gift cards. Then use the gift cards
as payment for one's shopping and get a second set of points.)
When only a few NCLT coins were entering circulation, the individual
banks, or the Bank of England itself could pass them back to The Royal
Mint and the latter could reimburse the former for the coin's face value.
However, as soon as this started happening in bulk quantities, The Royal
Mint informed banks that it would no longer reimburse them for the coins
at face value, per the letter reproduced in the article above.
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value of £100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint),
nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is
still in its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days
of purchase by the original purchaser.
So it is a coin with a claimed legal tender value of £100 that neither
banks nor The Royal Mint themselves will honour at that face value.
How, therefore, in the name of all that's holy, can it be "legal
tender", except for the fact that The Royal Mint declared it so when
they produced the coin to increase its perceived value without actually making it worth anything 15 days after purchase.
And for those that are tempted to reply, "But it is legal tender. A creditor is obliged to accept it in payment of a debt", I invite you to attempt to make your next mortgage payment over the counter at the
relevant bank / building society using NCLT. The bank will refuse to
accept them, and may even have a copy of the letter from The Royal Mint
to hand to show you to explain why they won't accept them. You can jump
up and down, point to as many dictionary definitions as you like. and
make whatever unsubstantiated points you feel relevant but they will be unmoved and will not take them from you.
Which will put your mortgage account into arrears
whereupon the bank /
BS will contact you. At this point, you can reply informing them that
you attempted to make the payment using legal tender at branch <x> on
date <y> at time <z> but it was refused so that month's mortgage payment
is hereby extinguished as they refused to accept legal tender.
I further invite you to repeat this exercise each month until the
arrears get to a point where the bank / BS escalate things. (Most are signatories to the mortgage charter, so they are unlikely to do anything serious for the first year.)
From month 13 onwards, however, the lender may start court proceedings
to repossess your home.
However, do not be alarmed, you have nothing to worry about. You've proffered legal tender in payment of the debt, they refused it so you
can file a defence of "No debt".
Please report back how it goes at the repossession hearing because I am reasonably confident of the following:
(1) The court will make a suspended order (rather than an outright
order) giving you an opportunity to pay the lender what you owe;
(2) The lender will want interest on money owing due to the missed
payments and the court will include that in the order;
(3) The lender will ask for their costs to be added to the outstanding
amount and the court will award them;
(4) If you do not pay what you owe the lender, your home will be
repossessed
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value of
100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint), nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is
still in its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days
of purchase by the original purchaser.
On 20/10/2023 09:07, Reentrant wrote:
On 19/10/2023 22:36, Norman Wells wrote:
The Royal Mint says a £20 coin is legal tender. > All the
dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if
offered in payment of a debt.
All the UK definitions say it must be accepted if offered in payment
for a debt IN COURT. Not over the counter.
No they don't.
I suggest you read those provided in the thread.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpes6fFqjs8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/10/2023 08:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpdlq7Fk9eaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/10/2023 17:54, Reentrant wrote:
So we appear to have the ridiculous situation where the Bank of England >>>>> have instructed high street banks not to accept commemorative coins, >>>>> the
Royal Mint will only accept them in the original case with proof of
purchase, and yet a petrol station has to accept one as payment?
The Royal Mint says a L20 coin is legal tender.
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
All the dictionaries in the world say it must therefore be accepted if >>>> offered in payment of a debt.
The Royal Mint is not a bank. I don't think it has to accept them back >>>> at
all. But I think the central bank, ie the Bank of England, which has
overall control of the nation's currency, must.
I agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest, let alone instruct, >>>> any banks not to accept any legal tender.
Presumably the possibility has not occurred to you that miscreants,
wrongoers and ne'er do wells of various description have found it worth >>> their while to counterfeit L20 coins ?
Got any evidence that they have? You see, it seems rather unlikely to me. >> Presenting a Ł20 coin is as likely in my view to attract unwelcome
attention as trying to pass a Ł9 note.
Not if you're flogging them on eBay. Where do you think the demand for "original boxes" and "proof of purchase" would come from ? Garages ?
And not from people who wanted to hand them back in to the Royal Mint.
Where the hooky "original boxes" would presumably fail to pass muster
As would the proofs of purchase which presumably are all numbered
along with the name of the purchaser, CC number etc.
But from sellers on eBay and others, out to convince buyers that they
were offering the genuine article. As described on the Royal Mint
website, no less.
Or put it another way, why do you think the Royal Mint are making such
a big fuss about demanding original boxes and proofs of purchase if the things are really that difficult to counterfeit ?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:42:26 +0100, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value of
100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint), nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is
still in its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days
of purchase by the original purchaser.
To sell a good described as Legal Tender while instructing banks to reject them as being currency is IMO fraud.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 3:17:31 PM UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
You could do worse than research Order XXII rule 5 of the then rulesI'm not aware I have any access to those, other than brief excerpts that
when Davys v Richardson (1888) 21 QBD 202 was determined.
I have already read such as in the Law Gazette article you mention.
Davys v Richardson is available online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002538233h&seq=228
On 19/10/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What the law is as regards banks, I don't know, but there must be some
way of converting with a face value of £20 even if it involves the Royal Mint or the Bank of England themselves. Otherwise, in what sense are
the coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender,
as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says they
are?
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
More likely, they would have just racked up the interest exorbitantly as
they normally do, and rubbed their hands with glee.
However, you're right, it's a debt, and debts can be paid in legal
tender to the creditor and he is obliged to accept it.
and then may have tried "tender before claim", and the outcome of
that would have been interesting to know. And if he didn't do that,
it would be interesting to know what he *did* do with his hoard of
coins.
He would surely have been better off, rather than trying to bank them,
to sell them on the open market where they apparently attract a premium
to their face value.
Some NCLT coins are worth more than their face value, [1], but this is
not the case for many produced in recent years with a high face value
(100) but a silver content of around 3 in such volume so as not to
attract an increase in value through their rarity.
On 19/10/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 19/10/2023 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
What the law is as regards banks, I don't know, but there must be some
way of converting with a face value of £20 even if it involves the
Royal Mint or the Bank of England themselves. Otherwise, in what
sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone
legal tender, as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them,
still says they are?
The light has dawned, but you have failed to see it because you
dogmatically stand by your previous claims, erroneous and mistaken as
they are.
The Royal Mint (TRM) has instructed banks not to accept NCLT (because
the banks will subsequently want to exchange the NCLT with TRM for
"Currency in Circulation" and TRM will not undertake such exchanges with banks).
TRM has made clear that they will only exchange the NCLT at face value
if it is still in its presentation box and the original purchaser
returns it to them within 14 days of purchase with a receipt confirming
the purchase.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the coins
even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender as the Royal
Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name alone, by
dint of having been made so by TRM.
However, as banks aren't obliged to
accept them, but rather have been instructed *NOT* to accept them, their claimed value is meaningless and is merely an exercise undertaken by TRM
when producing large runs of low value coins to sell to unsuspecting
members of the public.
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
More likely, they would have just racked up the interest exorbitantly
as they normally do, and rubbed their hands with glee.
However, you're right, it's a debt, and debts can be paid in legal
tender to the creditor and he is obliged to accept it.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued NCLT.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the NCLT to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter from TRM, a
copy of which has been published and can be seen by all, instructing
them not to accept NCLT?
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once they've
accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency in
Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kppm28FrpjnU2@mid.individual.net...
Some NCLT coins are worth more than their face value, [1], but this is
not the case for many produced in recent years with a high face value
(Ł100) but a silver content of around Ł3 in such volume so as not to
attract an increase in value through their rarity.
On eBay completed listings, some Ł100 coins are selling for around the
Ł65 mark. Mainly "Big Ben".
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in 2016 <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3> <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the contract says so.
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in 2016 <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3> <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the contract says so.
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in 2016 >> <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the
contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/10/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 19/10/2023 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
What the law is as regards banks, I don't know, but there must be
some way of converting with a face value of £20 even if it involves
the Royal Mint or the Bank of England themselves. Otherwise, in what
sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone
legal tender, as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them,
still says they are?
The light has dawned, but you have failed to see it because you
dogmatically stand by your previous claims, erroneous and mistaken as
they are.
I really think you should have read and considered my post of 20 October
at 14.33 before jumping in with both feet.
It is to that you should be replying.
Since you have, however, I will confine myself to the briefest of
comments here to avoid undue repetition, but the explanations are fully
given in that post.
The Royal Mint (TRM) has instructed banks not to accept NCLT (because
the banks will subsequently want to exchange the NCLT with TRM for
"Currency in Circulation" and TRM will not undertake such exchanges
with banks).
TRM has no power to instruct banks.
TRM has made clear that they will only exchange the NCLT at face value
if it is still in its presentation box and the original purchaser
returns it to them within 14 days of purchase with a receipt
confirming the purchase.
They don't have to don't have to do anything.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the coins
even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender as the
Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name alone, by
dint of having been made so by TRM.
No, see Coinage Act 1971, S3(1)(ff).
However, as banks aren't obliged to accept them, but rather have been
instructed *NOT* to accept them, their claimed value is meaningless
and is merely an exercise undertaken by TRM when producing large runs
of low value coins to sell to unsuspecting members of the public.
They are legal tender like any other coins, and they bear a currency value.
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
More likely, they would have just racked up the interest exorbitantly
as they normally do, and rubbed their hands with glee.
However, you're right, it's a debt, and debts can be paid in legal
tender to the creditor and he is obliged to accept it.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the NCLT to
discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter from TRM, a
copy of which has been published and can be seen by all, instructing
them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once they've
accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency in
Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' currency and has a
duty to deal with them.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 14:14:17 BST, "Reentrant" <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in 2016 >> <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the
contract says so.
This would seem to mean that legal tender no longer has any significance in English law, except that in the unlikely event that a debtor is having trouble
paying money into court in a form the court office will accept then the court probably ought to accept legal tender. Though no-one is sure of the latter and
as the court accepts most reasonable forms of money there is no reason to test
it.
But it is equally certain that the various high-denomination commemorative coins that the Mint produces are not worth the base metal they are printed on.
And good luck getting a court, or anyone else, to accept them.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:42:26 +0100, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value of
£100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint), nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is
still in its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days
of purchase by the original purchaser.
To sell a good described as Legal Tender while instructing banks to reject them as being currency is IMO fraud.
On 20/10/2023 11:42, Simon Parker wrote:
I've had a chance to speak to an acquaintance that's a professional
numismatist
So, essentially a coin collector friend who is not a lawyer?
and he's provided a valuable insight, which I think it would be
beneficial to share, and this post seems as good as any, if not better
than most and saves me making the same point at multiple points in the
thread.
The article linked above goes to the very heart of the matter and can,
for those with an open mind, along with the accompanying explanation
resolve many of the questions and issues regarding legal tender raised
in this (and other historic) threads.
The crux of the matter is that The Royal Mint have created an
ever-increasing number of commemorative coins upon which they've use
their statutory powers to designate them as "legal tender" thereby
increasing the perceived value of said coins.
Er, no, that is incorrect. The Royal Mint does not have any such
powers. For any coin to be legal tender, it has to be designated as
such by way of proclamation by the monarch on the advice of the Privy Council.
That is what Section 1(1)(ff) of the Coinage Act 1971 specifically says.
The Royal Mint confirms on its website that their £20 coins have been so authorised, and that:
"This means that in common with coins in general circulation these coins
have legal tender status."
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
It's all perfectly above board and not some sort of fiddle.
Unless the Royal Mint is lying through its teeth, which would be a
national scandal, the coins are legal tender.
(i.e. a £100 coin designated as "legal tender" can never be worth
less than £100 so I can't lose out if I pay £100 for it, can I?)
You certainly shouldn't, no.
It was never intended that the coins so produced would enter
circulation much less that they would be used in ordinary every day
transactions.
Fair enough. But, being legal tender, they can be. There is nothing to prevent it.
And why should they be minted having a *currency* value stamped on them
if they're not?"
The title applied to such coins is "Non-Circulating Legal Tender"
(abbreviated to NCLT by numismatists, banks, etc.).
*Who* gives them that title? What gives whomever it is any authority to give them that title, or to make any distinction on the basis of it?
It is not an official designation.
It certainly does not emanate from
the Coinage Act where it might be expected that it would be mentioned if
it's of any legal significance whatsoever.
As noted above, when these coins were few in number, issued rarely
and, generally, were worth more than their face value, (owing to their
rarity or because of the base metal used to mint them), this wasn't a
problem because nobody in their right might would spend a gold
sovereign with a face value of £1 and designated legal tender (albeit
NCLT) to buy a packet of chewing gum, or as in the instant case, to
pay for petrol in their car. And if they did, it wasn't an issue,
because the coin was worth more than its face value so the bank could
exchange it with the Royal Mint for its face value.
However, realising that they were onto a nice wheeze, The Royal Mint
started producing commemorative coins with increased frequency,
volume, (i.e. the number of commemorative coins in each run), and with
ever rising face values.
All of which eventually gave rise to a situation where a large run of
£100 coins was minted and designated legal tender, but their
realisable value (i.e. if melted down or sold on the open market -
whichever is the greater of the two) was some considerable way short
of the face value of £100.
Then that is an outrage. It's an admission that the Royal Mint itself
is producing fake currency, circulating forgeries and committing fraud.
Cut to enterprising individuals (like the one noted in the article
above) that bulk buy these coins as part of their own wheeze. (In the
article linked, the chap was using the purchase of coins to accrue air
mails on his credit card but could then use the coins to pay off said
credit card bill when it arrived having first paid the NCLT coins into
his bank account in the intervening period. (Tangentially, a similar
wheeze was employed when loyalty cards were first introduced at
supermarkets. Use the loyalty card to purchase gift vouchers and get
the points for the purchase of the gift cards. Then use the gift
cards as payment for one's shopping and get a second set of points.)
When only a few NCLT coins were entering circulation, the individual
banks, or the Bank of England itself could pass them back to The Royal
Mint and the latter could reimburse the former for the coin's face value.
However, as soon as this started happening in bulk quantities, The
Royal Mint informed banks that it would no longer reimburse them for
the coins at face value, per the letter reproduced in the article above.
Well, I don't actually see why it should. It is not a bank. Nor, I suspect, is it empowered to produce whatever coinage it wants but can
only act under some higher authority, like from the Bank of England, so they're not its responsibility.
The Bank of England is, however, a bank, and I think it has a duty to
honour any past or present legal tender as the guardian of the nation's currency.
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value
of £100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint),
I cannot see that the Royal Mint, as opposed to the Bank of England, has
any legal authority to do that, and I think it's rather disgusting
therefore that it should issue any such ultra vires 'instruction'. It
does not regulate the banks; the Bank of England does.
In my view, any legal tender should be accepted by any bank. It's
absurd otherwise.
nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is still in
its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days of
purchase by the original purchaser.
So it is a coin with a claimed legal tender value of £100 that neither
banks nor The Royal Mint themselves will honour at that face value.
Then it's an appalling situation, and is something the Bank of England
needs to look at, alongside the above usurping of its authority by the
Royal Mint.
But, as I said, I think the Bank of England is obliged to honour them.
How, therefore, in the name of all that's holy, can it be "legal
tender", except for the fact that The Royal Mint declared it so when
they produced the coin to increase its perceived value without
actually making it worth anything 15 days after purchase.
It is legal tender by virtue of the monarch's proclamation making it so
under the provisions of the Coinage Act 1971.
And for those that are tempted to reply, "But it is legal tender. A
creditor is obliged to accept it in payment of a debt", I invite you
to attempt to make your next mortgage payment over the counter at the
relevant bank / building society using NCLT. The bank will refuse to
accept them, and may even have a copy of the letter from The Royal
Mint to hand to show you to explain why they won't accept them. You
can jump up and down, point to as many dictionary definitions as you
like. and make whatever unsubstantiated points you feel relevant but
they will be unmoved and will not take them from you.
Then they'd be wrong. It *is* legal tender and The Royal Mint letter is
of no authority.
Which will put your mortgage account into arrears
Only according to them, not to me or, I say, the law.
whereupon the bank / BS will contact you. At this point, you can
reply informing them that you attempted to make the payment using
legal tender at branch <x> on date <y> at time <z> but it was refused
so that month's mortgage payment is hereby extinguished as they
refused to accept legal tender.
I further invite you to repeat this exercise each month until the
arrears get to a point where the bank / BS escalate things. (Most are
signatories to the mortgage charter, so they are unlikely to do
anything serious for the first year.)
From month 13 onwards, however, the lender may start court
proceedings to repossess your home.
However, do not be alarmed, you have nothing to worry about. You've
proffered legal tender in payment of the debt, they refused it so you
can file a defence of "No debt".
Quite so. And in law, quite soundly.
Please report back how it goes at the repossession hearing because I
am reasonably confident of the following:
(1) The court will make a suspended order (rather than an outright
order) giving you an opportunity to pay the lender what you owe;
(2) The lender will want interest on money owing due to the missed
payments and the court will include that in the order;
(3) The lender will ask for their costs to be added to the outstanding
amount and the court will award them;
(4) If you do not pay what you owe the lender, your home will be
repossessed
Well, once again, and rather typically I'm afraid, you state what you
are 'reasonably confident' of, but fail to give any substantiation for
any of it.
It seems, rather, that you think bullying of the sort you've outlined is absolutely acceptable even when there's no legal basis for it.
I, being me, would contest it. And, being reasonably confident of a successful outcome *for the reasons given*, would walk away with
thirteen months payments wiped off my mortgage, a hefty award of costs,
and possibly additional damages for distress and anxiety.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 14:14:17 BST, "Reentrant" <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in 2016 >> <https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the
contract says so.
This would seem to mean that legal tender no longer has any significance in English law,
except that in the unlikely event that a debtor is having trouble
paying money into court in a form the court office will accept then the court probably ought to accept legal tender. Though no-one is sure of the latter and
as the court accepts most reasonable forms of money there is no reason to test
it.
But it is equally certain that the various high-denomination commemorative coins that the Mint produces are not worth the base metal they are printed on.
And good luck getting a court, or anyone else, to accept them.
But it is equally certain that the various high-denomination commemorative coins that the Mint produces are not worth the base metal they are printed on.
And good luck getting a court, or anyone else, to accept them.
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in
2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in
2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has paid
the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of the
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in
2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if the
contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole in
2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of the
contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has paid
the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be accepted
if offered to pay off the debt.
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/10/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:On 19/10/2023 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
The Royal Mint (TRM) has instructed banks not to accept NCLT (because
the banks will subsequently want to exchange the NCLT with TRM for
"Currency in Circulation" and TRM will not undertake such exchanges
with banks).
TRM has no power to instruct banks.
I fear one of us doesn't understand the respective powers and responsibilities of The Bank of England and The Royal Mint.
I am also confident that the one of us that is grossly mistaken is not
me. I think some questions later in the post might focus errant minds.
TRM has made clear that they will only exchange the NCLT at face
value if it is still in its presentation box and the original
purchaser returns it to them within 14 days of purchase with a
receipt confirming the purchase.
They don't have to don't have to do anything.
I concur. TRM has no legal obligation to exchange the coins it produces
at face value and has even gone so far as to state that it will not do
so, in the case of certain coins, which it refers to as "Commemorative
Coins" but which are known more widely as NCLT.
This is an important point. I recommend sticking a pin in it.
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's not as
much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the coins
even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender as the
Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
For the avoidance of doubt, quotes from Wikipedia and other web-sites
and / or dictionaries do not class as a legal cite.
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name alone,
by dint of having been made so by TRM.
No, see Coinage Act 1971, S3(1)(ff).
And yet TRM have instructed banks not to accept the NCLT they have issued.
However, as banks aren't obliged to accept them, but rather have been
instructed *NOT* to accept them, their claimed value is meaningless
and is merely an exercise undertaken by TRM when producing large runs
of low value coins to sell to unsuspecting members of the public.
They are legal tender like any other coins, and they bear a currency
value.
There are plenty of "any other coins" that are not legal tender (for
example old £1 which banks are no longer legally obliged to accept) so I note we have reached the stage in the discussion where you've worked
yourself up into such a frenzy that you are now throwing out wild
statements with no basis in fact merely in an attempt to score points
and support whatever it is you are trying to say. In my experience, it
is typically around this point that further discussion becomes
impossible as you enter a cycle or repeating yourself endlessly.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency value
has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing banks not to
accept them.
It's a shame that the person in the article is referred to only as
"James" - if he stood his ground and refused to pay his credit card
bill using anything other than £100 coins, he may have been sued,
More likely, they would have just racked up the interest
exorbitantly as they normally do, and rubbed their hands with glee.
However, you're right, it's a debt, and debts can be paid in legal
tender to the creditor and he is obliged to accept it.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the NCLT
to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter from
TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be seen by all,
instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on acceptable cites still apply.)
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once they've
accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency in
Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' currency and has a
duty to deal with them.
And now we come to the heart of your mistake.
From the Bank of England's own web-site [1]:
"We produce £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes you can trust."
And from their page about banknotes [2]:
"The Royal Mint issues UK coins."
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' banknotes whilst The Royal Mint is responsible for the nations' coins.
Now go back to the pin inserted earlier in the post where we agreed that
TRM has no legal obligation to exchange its coins at face value. Unless,
of course, you have a cite proving otherwise?
On 20/10/2023 16:50, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:42:26 +0100, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value of >>> £100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint), nor will The Royal Mint themselves take it back (unless it is
still in its presentation case and returned within <n> (usually 14) days >>> of purchase by the original purchaser.
To sell a good described as Legal Tender while instructing banks to
reject
them as being currency is IMO fraud.
I have explained in detail in a reply to Norman elsewhere in the thread
the circumstances that gave rise to this situation.
However, we're pretty much where we started in that there is a known and accepted definition of what legal tender is, (e.g. how many 1p pieces constitute legal tender), but we're still no nearer to getting a
reputable and generally accepted definition of what this means.
For example, banks don't have to accept legal tender. The courts don't, except in very limited circumstances, which certainly didn't apply to
the subject of this thread. Shops definitely don't. Whilst the Bank of England will happily exchange banknotes, it has no responsibility for
coins in circulation which fall under the purview of The Royal Mint and
The Royal Mint has made clear it doesn't want its NCLT back and will not exchange them at face value from day 15 following purchase.
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole
in 2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of
the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has
paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be accepted
if offered to pay off the debt.
On 20/10/2023 14:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/10/2023 11:42, Simon Parker wrote:
I've had a chance to speak to an acquaintance that's a professional
numismatist
So, essentially a coin collector friend who is not a lawyer?
I see your powers of comprehension are still woefully inadequate making
it all but impossible to exchange even basic information with you in the course of a discussion.
Allow me to clarify:
I said he is an acquaintance, not a friend.
And I said he is a professional numismatist, not that he is a coin collector. He is actually a specialist dealer if that assists your comprehension.
As for his legal qualifications, I made no comment on them.
The crux of the matter is that The Royal Mint have created an
ever-increasing number of commemorative coins upon which they've use
their statutory powers to designate them as "legal tender" thereby
increasing the perceived value of said coins.
Er, no, that is incorrect. The Royal Mint does not have any such
powers. For any coin to be legal tender, it has to be designated as
such by way of proclamation by the monarch on the advice of the Privy
Council.
And who, pray tell, do you think requests that the Privy Council advise
the monarch to make such a proclamation?
Or do you think the respective members of Privy Council wake up one
morning and think, for example, "It would be good to launch a new 50p
piece with Raymond Briggs' The Snowman on them."? [1] and [2]
That is what Section 1(1)(ff) of the Coinage Act 1971 specifically says.
The Royal Mint confirms on its website that their £20 coins have been
so authorised, and that:
"This means that in common with coins in general circulation these
coins have legal tender status."
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
Nobody disputes that the coin in question has the status of "legal tender".
What is in dispute is precisely what this means. There has been much speculation and, as expected from certain posters, much reliance upon dictionary definitions.
However, when that speculation and dictionary definitions are at odds
with legislation, I'll stick with what the legislation says. YMMV.
(See for example, sections 8(2)(a), 8(4)(c), and 8(5)(a) of The Court
Fund Rules 2011 [3] and note that only those "without a current account"
may deposit cash with the Court.)
There is no legal basis for insisting one has a right to pay "legal
tender" into court unless and until you are able to quote legislation
which overrides that which I've cited above and quoted previously.
Are you able to do that? If not, in a legal newsgroup, legislation
trumps what a dictionary, or even several dictionaries, may say on the matter.
As I've said to you previously, if you believe dictionary definitions
are the ultimate authority, alt.usage.english is over there ----->
It's all perfectly above board and not some sort of fiddle.
Unless the Royal Mint is lying through its teeth, which would be a
national scandal, the coins are legal tender.
Perhaps you could tell me the precise value of "Legal Tender" that TRM
will not exchange at face value, (providing one is not the original purchaser, is attempting to exchange it more than 14 days after
purchase, does not have the original receipt, and / or the coin is no
longer in its presentation case) and that they have instructed banks not
to accept?
And having given that precise value, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a legal basis for that value.
(i.e. a £100 coin designated as "legal tender" can never be worth
less than £100 so I can't lose out if I pay £100 for it, can I?)
You certainly shouldn't, no.
And yet, as links that other posters have provided demonstrate, many
such coins are not only available for significantly below face value,
but regularly change hands at significantly below face value.
IF you are so confident that you are correct, I urge you to purchase all
such coins that come on to the second hand market. There is potential
for you to make significant profit if you are correct.
The kicker, of course, are those final four words: "*if you are correct*"
Are you confident enough to put your money where your mouth is?
Further down the page, they repeat this in similar text:
"We receive a lot of enquiries about our popular silver commemorative
coins (including £5 crowns, £20, £50 and £100 coins) and their legal tender status. Each issue is authorised by Royal Proclamation in
accordance with the requirements laid down by the Coinage Act 1971. This means that in common with coins in general circulation these coins have
legal tender status.
"Please note that whilst these coins are legal tender, they are not
designed for general circulation, so banks and shops are unlikely to
accept the coins. The Royal Mint cannot accept returns of such coins
outside of the 14 days return policy."
NOTE:
"UK shops and banks are unlikely to accept them."
"We receive a lot of enquiries about... their legal tender status."
"They are not designed for general circulation, so banks and shops are unlikely to accept the coins".
"The Royal Mint cannot accept returns of such coins outside of the 14
days return policy."
In short, TRM get asked about this quite a lot. Their position is that
UK shops and banks are unlikely to accept NCLT. And TRM themselves will
not accept them back once their 14 days return policy has expired.
And why should they be minted having a *currency* value stamped on
them if they're not?"
"They are not designed for general circulation."
"they have been designed as limited edition collectables or gifts"
The title applied to such coins is "Non-Circulating Legal Tender"
(abbreviated to NCLT by numismatists, banks, etc.).
*Who* gives them that title? What gives whomever it is any authority
to give them that title, or to make any distinction on the basis of it?
Professionals, experts and others that work within the industry.
It is not an official designation.
Indeed not. TRM's "official designation" [4] is "Commemorative coins"
that are "limited edition collectibles or gifts".
NCLT is an awful lot less to type.
It certainly does not emanate from the Coinage Act where it might be
expected that it would be mentioned if it's of any legal significance
whatsoever.
What comprises legal tender has never been in doubt.
However, precisely what a coin being legal tender means is the point at issue.
If I have a £20 note that I know to be genuine but which a bank will not accept for whatever reason, the Bank of England will exchange it for me
for a shiny new £20, which I will have no problem using. [5].
However, TRM have no such policy. [6]
What is known as their "Garbled Coin Policy" operates as follows and I
ask you to note, in particular, the first sentence thereof:
"The Royal Mint does not accept the return of UK coins from members of
the public or individual businesses directly. Only UK coins that meet
the technical specifications set out to UK banks can be returned via the
UK banking system.
"This refers to coins returned by High Street Banks and Post Offices,
and it is at their discretion as to whether a circulation coin, of any denomination, is accepted from a member of the public or an individual business."
In short, there is no facility for an individual to exchange a coin
directly with TRM. If a bank and post office will not accept the coin,
(and TRM are clear that it is at their discretion as to whether they
accept the coin), then that is the end of the matter.
Tough cheese, hard luck, nothing to see here, move on please.
Or do you have some legislation in mind which shows that TRM are wrong
in what they've claimed above?
In short, TRM hasn't only been empowered but has been positively
encouraged to produce coins, medals and tokens as a means of increasing income and thus profitability.
All of which, as I said in my previous post, led to the situation we
have now where TRM is churning out "commemorative coins" at such
frequency and volume that designating the coins as legal tender is a
means of increasing their perceived value thereby increasing the number
of people that might be interested in purchasing them.
TRM has targets to meet and is expected to operate as a commercial organisation so why shouldn't it do what it is doing if it is not
legally prevented from doing so?
None of which, however, means that the NCLT have a value in excess of
that at which they can be traded on the open market, which is
demonstrably some way short of their face value and to claim otherwise
is the stuff of fiction.
And I agree. It is an outrage. What do you propose we do about it?
As I have explained in my other post, but will summarise here:
Bank of England = Notes
The Royal Mint = Coins
The Bank of England (BoE) has no control whatsoever over the coins The
Royal Mint (TRM) produces.
Designated agencies of the BoE can request additional circulation
coinage from TRM and it is expected to deliver them within 11 working
days. (TRM typically keeps uncirculated coins from previous years on
hand from which it fulfils such orders prior to using coins minted in
the current year.) If TRM need to produce additional coins to meet
demand, it liaises with HM Treasury.
Having requested additional
circulation coinage, neither the BoE nor its agents have any further involvement in the process.
Similarly, banks can send circulation coins back to TRM to be exchanged
but there is no such facility for NCLT and that is the problem at the
heart of this thread.
The Bank of England is, however, a bank, and I think it has a duty to
honour any past or present legal tender as the guardian of the
nation's currency.
As custodian of the nation's *banknotes* the BoE will honour its duty to exchange any *banknote*, past or present, for a new one.
They outline their policy here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/exchanging-old-banknotes
(Note: Exchanging old *banknotes*)
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find a similar
policy operated by TRM for coins, both currency in circulation and NCLT.
Free Clue: See links [6] and [4] below.
Which gives rise to the situation where a NCLT coin with a face value
of £100 cannot be paid in at a bank, (on the instruction of The Royal
Mint),
I cannot see that the Royal Mint, as opposed to the Bank of England,
has any legal authority to do that, and I think it's rather disgusting
therefore that it should issue any such ultra vires 'instruction'. It
does not regulate the banks; the Bank of England does.
At the risk of repeating myself:
Bank of England = Notes
The Royal Mint = Coins
In my view, any legal tender should be accepted by any bank. It's
absurd otherwise.
So it is a coin with a claimed legal tender value of £100 that
neither banks nor The Royal Mint themselves will honour at that face
value.
Then it's an appalling situation, and is something the Bank of England
needs to look at, alongside the above usurping of its authority by the
Royal Mint.
I agree it is an appalling situation, but it is nothing to do with the
bank of England and much more to do with a change in government policy towards the structure, governance and objectives of TRM.
But, as I said, I think the Bank of England is obliged to honour them.
You are very much mistaken.
How, therefore, in the name of all that's holy, can it be "legal
tender", except for the fact that The Royal Mint declared it so when
they produced the coin to increase its perceived value without
actually making it worth anything 15 days after purchase.
It is legal tender by virtue of the monarch's proclamation making it
so under the provisions of the Coinage Act 1971.
Indeed. But that doesn't make it worth its face value if neither TRM
nor any bank (or Post Office for that matter) will exchange them. Even
more so when their value on the resale market is considerably less than
face value.
And for those that are tempted to reply, "But it is legal tender. A
creditor is obliged to accept it in payment of a debt", I invite you
to attempt to make your next mortgage payment over the counter at the
relevant bank / building society using NCLT. The bank will refuse to
accept them, and may even have a copy of the letter from The Royal
Mint to hand to show you to explain why they won't accept them. You
can jump up and down, point to as many dictionary definitions as you
like. and make whatever unsubstantiated points you feel relevant but
they will be unmoved and will not take them from you.
Then they'd be wrong. It *is* legal tender and The Royal Mint letter
is of no authority.
I'm sure you merely neglected to include a cite demonstrating that they
were wrong and will do so at the earliest opportunity thereby providing
much needed support to your unsubstantiated claims.
Which will put your mortgage account into arrears
Only according to them, not to me or, I say, the law.
Excellent. All you need to do now is quote "the law" upon which you are relying. And please ensure that whatever you quote says what you claim
it says which, for the avoidance of doubt, is that a bank or building
society must accept legal tender, including NCLT, as payment of a debt,
for example, one's mortgage.
Courts certainly don't need to accept them any longer as The Court Fund
Rules 2011 [3] make crystal clear in numerous places. And if the courts
do not need to accept legal tender to discharge a debt, who, pray tell,
does?
whereupon the bank / BS will contact you. At this point, you can
reply informing them that you attempted to make the payment using
legal tender at branch <x> on date <y> at time <z> but it was refused
so that month's mortgage payment is hereby extinguished as they
refused to accept legal tender.
I further invite you to repeat this exercise each month until the
arrears get to a point where the bank / BS escalate things. (Most
are signatories to the mortgage charter, so they are unlikely to do
anything serious for the first year.)
From month 13 onwards, however, the lender may start court
proceedings to repossess your home.
However, do not be alarmed, you have nothing to worry about. You've
proffered legal tender in payment of the debt, they refused it so you
can file a defence of "No debt".
Quite so. And in law, quite soundly.
Please quote the law upon which you are relying when making the above statement. And, again, please ensure it says what you are claiming it
says which, for the avoidance of doubt, is that if [c] refuses to accept legal tender proffered by [d] to discharge a debt [d] owes to [c] then
such refusal amounts to a repudiation of the debt and [c] can make no
future claim to [d] in respect of the debt.
Please report back how it goes at the repossession hearing because I
am reasonably confident of the following:
(1) The court will make a suspended order (rather than an outright
order) giving you an opportunity to pay the lender what you owe;
(2) The lender will want interest on money owing due to the missed
payments and the court will include that in the order;
(3) The lender will ask for their costs to be added to the
outstanding amount and the court will award them;
(4) If you do not pay what you owe the lender, your home will be
repossessed
Well, once again, and rather typically I'm afraid, you state what you
are 'reasonably confident' of, but fail to give any substantiation for
any of it.
Typically? I invite you to view the 8 documents referenced herein to
which I've included links at the bottom.
When did you last include any cites or references in a post, never mind making 8 such references?
However, if you're so confident I'm wrong, please do as I've asked
regarding your mortgage. If you're as right as you're convinced you
are, what have you to lose, other than your home?
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole
in 2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of
the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has
paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be accepted
if offered to pay off the debt.
On 25/10/2023 16:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
except that in the unlikely event that a debtor is having trouble
paying money into court in a form the court office will accept then
the court
probably ought to accept legal tender. Though no-one is sure of the
latter and
as the court accepts most reasonable forms of money there is no reason
to test
it.
But it is equally certain that the various high-denomination
commemorative
coins that the Mint produces are not worth the base metal they are
printed on.
And good luck getting a court, or anyone else, to accept them.
They are *undoubtedly* legal tender according to the provisions of
S3(1)(ff) of the Coinage Act 1971, and the monarch's proclamation in
respect of each new coin, including those you disparagingly call 'commemorative' and all the £20 coins we've been discussing in this thread. That proclamation says specifically "The said silver coin shall
be legal tender for the payment of any amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. And that puts them on a par with any other coins of the realm.
It's not limited to the payment of debts, and it certainly isn't limited
to paying money into court.
There is moreover a whole Section 2 in that Act which is headed 'Legal Tender'. It *must* therefore be interpreted to give meaning to that
term and give effect to what it says.
So, I invite the naysayers to do just that.
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/10/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:On 19/10/2023 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
The Royal Mint (TRM) has instructed banks not to accept NCLT
(because the banks will subsequently want to exchange the NCLT with
TRM for "Currency in Circulation" and TRM will not undertake such
exchanges with banks).
TRM has no power to instruct banks.
I fear one of us doesn't understand the respective powers and
responsibilities of The Bank of England and The Royal Mint.
I am also confident that the one of us that is grossly mistaken is not
me. I think some questions later in the post might focus errant minds.
I do hope so, but you're wrong.
TRM has made clear that they will only exchange the NCLT at face
value if it is still in its presentation box and the original
purchaser returns it to them within 14 days of purchase with a
receipt confirming the purchase.
They don't have to don't have to do anything.
I concur. TRM has no legal obligation to exchange the coins it
produces at face value and has even gone so far as to state that it
will not do so, in the case of certain coins, which it refers to as
"Commemorative Coins" but which are known more widely as NCLT.
This is an important point. I recommend sticking a pin in it.
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's not
as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
It's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that respect.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender as
the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says they
are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are legal tender as I said.
For the avoidance of doubt, quotes from Wikipedia and other web-sites
and / or dictionaries do not class as a legal cite.
You have ventured nothing to contradict them, and all of the evidence is
that what they say is correct. They all agree, you see, that legal
tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in
payment of a debt'.
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name alone,
by dint of having been made so by TRM.
No, see Coinage Act 1971, S3(1)(ff).
And yet TRM have instructed banks not to accept the NCLT they have
issued.
Ultra vires. The Royal Mint does not govern or regulate banks, and has
no authority to instruct them to do anything.
However, as banks aren't obliged to accept them, but rather have
been instructed *NOT* to accept them, their claimed value is
meaningless and is merely an exercise undertaken by TRM when
producing large runs of low value coins to sell to unsuspecting
members of the public.
They are legal tender like any other coins, and they bear a currency
value.
There are plenty of "any other coins" that are not legal tender (for
example old £1 which banks are no longer legally obliged to accept) so
I note we have reached the stage in the discussion where you've worked
yourself up into such a frenzy that you are now throwing out wild
statements with no basis in fact merely in an attempt to score points
and support whatever it is you are trying to say. In my experience,
it is typically around this point that further discussion becomes
impossible as you enter a cycle or repeating yourself endlessly.
Personal insults aside ...
Old £1 coins are no longer legal tender, but are still accepted by
several banks as deposits. That's right and proper.
They should also accept proper legal tender such as £20 coins and, even though they're not obliged to, I think the Bank of England has a duty
and an obligation to even if they pretend otherwise.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency
value has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing banks
not to accept them.
The Royal Mint is a factory that makes them under contract.
The
principal is the party that 'issues' them and, I say, is responsible for
any after care.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued
NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Actually, the answer *is* the same to both, and is correct.
The answer
is the Bank of England which is in charge of the nation's money supply
and the entire currency. All the Royal Mint does is make the coins to
the BoE's orders, just as De La Rue prints the notes. Neither of those 'issues' them as if they have autonomy to do so. They don't.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the NCLT
to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter from
TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be seen by all,
instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on
acceptable cites still apply.)
Legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt'. The only alternative you've offered is that it
doesn't mean anything at all. Which is absurd.
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once they've
accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency in
Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' currency and has
a duty to deal with them.
And now we come to the heart of your mistake.
From the Bank of England's own web-site [1]:
"We produce £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes you can trust."
And from their page about banknotes [2]:
"The Royal Mint issues UK coins."
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' banknotes whilst
The Royal Mint is responsible for the nations' coins.
Wrong. The Bank of England is responsible for all of the money supply, including all of the currency.
Now go back to the pin inserted earlier in the post where we agreed
that TRM has no legal obligation to exchange its coins at face value.
Unless, of course, you have a cite proving otherwise?
No. As you say, we agree on that.
On 25/10/2023 17:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
except that in the unlikely event that a debtor is having trouble
paying money into court in a form the court office will accept then
the court
probably ought to accept legal tender. Though no-one is sure of the
latter and
as the court accepts most reasonable forms of money there is no
reason to test
it.
But it is equally certain that the various high-denomination
commemorative
coins that the Mint produces are not worth the base metal they are
printed on.
And good luck getting a court, or anyone else, to accept them.
They are *undoubtedly* legal tender according to the provisions of
S3(1)(ff) of the Coinage Act 1971, and the monarch's proclamation in
respect of each new coin, including those you disparagingly call
'commemorative' and all the £20 coins we've been discussing in this
thread. That proclamation says specifically "The said silver coin
shall be legal tender for the payment of any amount in any part of Our
United Kingdom'. And that puts them on a par with any other coins of
the realm.
It's not limited to the payment of debts, and it certainly isn't
limited to paying money into court.
There is moreover a whole Section 2 in that Act which is headed 'Legal
Tender'. It *must* therefore be interpreted to give meaning to that
term and give effect to what it says.
So, I invite the naysayers to do just that.
"Commemorative coins" is The Royal Mint's chosen nomenclature for such
coins. [1]
Not forgetting their oft-quoted page on Legal Tender [2] in which they
also describe the NCLT as "commemorative coins". They also refer to
them as "collectibles" and "gifts" on that page too.
As for section 2 of The Coinage Act 1971 [3] please quote the precise
part of that legislation which you think supports your claims.
Thanks in advance.
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole
in 2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender if
the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of
the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender) has
paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was established.
And both of those will need to be post 2011 to overrule Part 2 of The
Court Funds Rules 2011 [1] which clearly show that the courts do not
accept cash, even if in the form of "legal tender", as payment into
court for a debt, or indeed anything, unless one doesn't have a current account and possibly other limiting circumstances apply.
The fact that the courts set rules about the circumstances in which they
will accept cash prove that is nonsense to claim that it *must* be
accepted to pay off the debt, since one of the reasons detailed in the legislation cited covers making a payment into court to avail of the
defence of tender before claim.
In short, I've cited relevant legislation which demonstrates your claim
to be false. Either quote more recent legislation or case law that overrides this or your (legally) unsupported claim fails.
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's not
as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
It's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that
respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE figure.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender
as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says
they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's something
of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of the
abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly not
said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim that I
said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw the claim
and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
To assist you, I recommend re-reading the original question more slowly
- it may aid comprehension.
The question, (still visible above), was:
"in what sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be, let
alone legal tender as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on
them, still says they are?"
I recommend stopping reading as soon as you encounter a comma as that indicates the end of the main question being asked and the remainder of
the sentence is merely additional clauses which are not necessary to understand the answer given.
The answer to the question is also explained by the first two letters of
the abbreviation NCLT - again, something I have used consistently
throughout the thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, quotes from Wikipedia and other web-sites
and / or dictionaries do not class as a legal cite.
You have ventured nothing to contradict them, and all of the evidence
is that what they say is correct. They all agree, you see, that legal
tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in
payment of a debt'.
I have cited and quoted The Court Funds Rules 2011 numerous times in
this thread, (off the top of my head this will be the sixth such
reference).
That you have not read them, did not understand them, or do not
comprehend their application does not mean they do not exist or that no evidence has been proffered to contradict your claim. Quite the contrary.
The legislation demonstrates, unequivocally, that the court will not
accept "coins or banknotes... offered in payment of a debt" except in precisely defined, and very limited circumstances, which I will wager do
not apply to a single contributor to this thread - yourself included.
For the avoidance of doubt, legislation which severely restricts the circumstances in which the court will accept "coins or banknotes...
offered in payment of a debt" demonstrates that there are no
circumstances in which it *must* be accepted.
Your claim is defeated by the legislation cited and quoted and to claim otherwise is nonsensical, even for you.
You are free to continue playing the role of a small child stood in the middle of a room with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears
singing "La, la la, I can't see you and I'm not listening", whilst
refusing to acknowledge what is going on in the room as it contradicts
his preconceptions but the adults in the room are also free to ignore
the child and continue the discussion without him.
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name alone,
by dint of having been made so by TRM.
No, see Coinage Act 1971, S3(1)(ff).
And yet TRM have instructed banks not to accept the NCLT they have
issued.
Ultra vires. The Royal Mint does not govern or regulate banks, and
has no authority to instruct them to do anything.
We must agree to differ.
Old £1 coins are no longer legal tender, but are still accepted by
several banks as deposits. That's right and proper.
In short, you agree with me. There are coins bearing a currency value
which are not legal tender.
Something that is true of all "demonetised
coins", to use official nomenclature, and there is no legal obligation
to accept them, but some banks will do so as a service to existing
customers, as TRM themselves acknowledge. [1]
Thank you for admitting that your previous statement was mistaken,
albeit in an indirect manner.
They should also accept proper legal tender such as £20 coins and,
even though they're not obliged to, I think the Bank of England has a
duty and an obligation to even if they pretend otherwise.
The BoE should accept them, at cost to itself, even though it is not
obliged to do so?
I wish you well selling that idea at the next BoE Policy Meeting. Please
do let me know how you get on, won't you?
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency
value has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing banks
not to accept them.
The Royal Mint is a factory that makes them under contract.
I recommend reading, and it would be helpful in moving the discussion
forward if you made an effort to understand, the document I have
previously linked on the change in governance, structure, operation and policy of TRM.
Doing so will, hopefully, disabuse you of many of the mistaken notions,
wrong ideas and incorrect statements you have made in this thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, TRM is an Executive Agency [2].
If you do
not know or understand what that means, you could do worse than read and understand this guidance document on Executive Agencies [3].
The principal is the party that 'issues' them and, I say, is
responsible for any after care.
I concur.
And respectfully draw to your attention, though not for the first time,
the second sentence from the BoE's page on notes and banknotes [4], namely:
"Coins are manufactured and issued by the Royal Mint."
Note: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint" (emphasis mine).
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued
NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Actually, the answer *is* the same to both, and is correct.
It is sad duty to inform you that, despite having given you every clue necessary to answer the questions correctly, you have failed in this
task and, despite your mistaken belief that your answer is correct, you
are, in fact, (and equally sadly not for the first time), completely
mistaken on the matter.
The unambiguous statement on the BoE's own web-site states, as noted
above: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint". [4].
The answer is the Bank of England which is in charge of the nation's
money supply and the entire currency. All the Royal Mint does is make
the coins to the BoE's orders, just as De La Rue prints the notes.
Neither of those 'issues' them as if they have autonomy to do so.
They don't.
I recommend researching a matter before issuing proclamations as one's credibility may be dented if one continually makes statement of fact
that are demonstrably wrong.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the NCLT
to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter from
TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be seen by all,
instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on
acceptable cites still apply.)
Legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered
in payment of a debt'. The only alternative you've offered is that it
doesn't mean anything at all. Which is absurd.
It is my sad duty to inform you that your dictionary definition does not accord with legislation which has been both cited and quoted in the
thread and is therefore of no relevance whatsoever in a *legal*
newsgroup. (AUE is still over there though ----->)
I ask again: "Do you have a cite for that please?"
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once they've
accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency in
Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' currency and has
a duty to deal with them.
And now we come to the heart of your mistake.
From the Bank of England's own web-site [1]:
"We produce £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes you can trust."
And from their page about banknotes [2]:
"The Royal Mint issues UK coins."
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' banknotes whilst
The Royal Mint is responsible for the nations' coins.
Wrong. The Bank of England is responsible for all of the money
supply, including all of the currency.
I invite you to convince the BoE that the information on their web-site
is incorrect and insist that they correct it.
Once they've done so, you will be able to cite the updated page to
support your claim. But in its current form, it supports my statement
and contradicts yours so you cannot reasonably claim that my statement
is "wrong" as I am quoting the BoE.
On 31/10/2023 09:59, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/10/2023 16:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/10/2023 14:14, Reentrant wrote:"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
This may be of interest. Someone was already down this rabbit hole >>>>>> in 2016
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_3>
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_tender_4>
and one of the linked documents
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/318669/response/782143/attach/html/12/56E68D2D.PDF.pdf.html>
- where the BOE says that a debtee must only accept legal tender
if the contract says so.
No it doesn't.
Do please quote exactly the bit you think does.
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of
the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender)
has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was
established.
It is so well established and so stunningly obvious that it has even
become the standard and universal dictionary definition of legal tender.
On 31/10/2023 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's not
as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
It's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that
respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from
legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
"Today, the Royal Mint is a limited company under the control of the
Treasury – the department responsible for developing and carrying out
the UK’s financial policies – and has an exclusive contract to supply
all of the country’s coins"
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/personal-finance/savings-investing/the-royal-mint-everything-you-need-to-know
Note that its activities are governed by 'contract'.
It wouldn't need a contract if it was acting autonomously.
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE figure.
"The Bank of England monitors and reports on these measures to assess
the overall money supply and its impact on the economy.
The main components of the money supply in the UK include:
M0: also known as the "narrow money" or the "central bank money,"
represents the most liquid forms of money. It includes physical currency (banknotes and coins) in circulation issued by the Bank of England".
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-makes-up-the-money-supply-in-the-uk-economy#:~:text=The%20Bank%20of%20England%20monitors,most%20liquid%20forms%20of%20money.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender
as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says >>>>>> they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's something
of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of the
abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly not
said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim that I
said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw the claim
and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
Well, you said above, in answer to my question how they were currency or legal tender, 'The short answer is: they aren't'.
Moreover, on 19 October, you said here:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
It seems therefore that you're rather confused and don't actually know
what you're talking about.
Now you're saying legal tender does mean something, but won't say what,
even though the universal definition given in many, many dictionaries, according to you, is wrong.
Very strange.
The indisputable answer is that the Mint is allowed to have its tacky commemorative coins (which subsidise the cost of running the Mint for the benefit of all us) designated as LT; but, fortunately, LT has come to mean nothing practical whatsoever, as no-one is bound to accept them. *All* that LT means is that the Crown has designated it so. It has no practical effect on anyone except gullible commemorative coin buyers. Banks and most people do accept BoE notes, not because they are legal tender but because they are worth money and backed by the BoE. No-one is forced to accept them in payment of a debt, though they would have to have a sound reason not to. Such as no cash handling facilities or the whole sum owed not being offered.To assist you, I recommend re-reading the original question more slowly
- it may aid comprehension.
The question, (still visible above), was:
"in what sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be, let
alone legal tender as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on
them, still says they are?"
I recommend stopping reading as soon as you encounter a comma as that
indicates the end of the main question being asked and the remainder of
the sentence is merely additional clauses which are not necessary to
understand the answer given.
The answer to the question is also explained by the first two letters of
the abbreviation NCLT - again, something I have used consistently
throughout the thread.
But which is of no legal effect or significance. The relevant
indisputable bit is that they're 'LT', ie legal tender.
On 31 Oct 2023 at 14:20:06 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:The indisputable answer is that the Mint is allowed to have its tacky commemorative coins (which subsidise the cost of running the Mint for the benefit of all us) designated as LT; but, fortunately, LT has come to mean nothing practical whatsoever, as no-one is bound to accept them.
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's not >>>>> as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
It's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that
respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from
legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
"Today, the Royal Mint is a limited company under the control of the
Treasury – the department responsible for developing and carrying out
the UK’s financial policies – and has an exclusive contract to supply
all of the country’s coins"
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/personal-finance/savings-investing/the-royal-mint-everything-you-need-to-know
Note that its activities are governed by 'contract'.
It wouldn't need a contract if it was acting autonomously.
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear"The Bank of England monitors and reports on these measures to assess
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE figure. >>
the overall money supply and its impact on the economy.
The main components of the money supply in the UK include:
M0: also known as the "narrow money" or the "central bank money,"
represents the most liquid forms of money. It includes physical currency
(banknotes and coins) in circulation issued by the Bank of England".
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-makes-up-the-money-supply-in-the-uk-economy#:~:text=The%20Bank%20of%20England%20monitors,most%20liquid%20forms%20of%20money.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender >>>>>>> as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says >>>>>>> they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's something
of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of the
abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly not
said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim that I >>> said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw the claim
and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
Well, you said above, in answer to my question how they were currency or
legal tender, 'The short answer is: they aren't'.
Moreover, on 19 October, you said here:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
It seems therefore that you're rather confused and don't actually know
what you're talking about.
Now you're saying legal tender does mean something, but won't say what,
even though the universal definition given in many, many dictionaries,
according to you, is wrong.
Very strange.
To assist you, I recommend re-reading the original question more slowly
- it may aid comprehension.
The question, (still visible above), was:
"in what sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be, let
alone legal tender as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on
them, still says they are?"
I recommend stopping reading as soon as you encounter a comma as that
indicates the end of the main question being asked and the remainder of
the sentence is merely additional clauses which are not necessary to
understand the answer given.
The answer to the question is also explained by the first two letters of >>> the abbreviation NCLT - again, something I have used consistently
throughout the thread.
But which is of no legal effect or significance. The relevant
indisputable bit is that they're 'LT', ie legal tender.
*All* that LT
means is that the Crown has designated it so
It has no practical effect on
anyone except gullible commemorative coin buyers.
Banks and most people do
accept BoE notes, not because they are legal tender but because they are worth
money and backed by the BoE.
No-one is forced to accept them in payment of a
debt, though they would have to have a sound reason not to. Such as no cash handling facilities or the whole sum owed not being offered.
On 31/10/2023 09:59, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well established
principle of English law that a debtor will have a good defence to a
claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance with the terms of
the contract (including terms permitting payment in legal tender)
has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was
established.
It is so well established and so stunningly obvious that it has even
become the standard and universal dictionary definition of legal tender.
There is no case law to say the sun will rise tomorrow, or that grass is green. Your reliance on it even to tell you the simplest things that
are baseline knowledge is astonishing.
And both of those will need to be post 2011 to overrule Part 2 of The
Court Funds Rules 2011 [1] which clearly show that the courts do not
accept cash, even if in the form of "legal tender", as payment into
court for a debt, or indeed anything, unless one doesn't have a
current account and possibly other limiting circumstances apply.
The Court is not the creditor. The debtor is not in debt to the Court.
He is in debt to the creditor. It is the creditor who must accept legal tender if offered in settlement of the debt.
That's why it is totally irrelevant what monies the Court will accept.
In any case, you say above that the Courts do sometimes accept cash,
that presumably being in legal tender.
The fact that the courts set rules about the circumstances in which
they will accept cash prove that is nonsense to claim that it *must*
be accepted to pay off the debt, since one of the reasons detailed in
the legislation cited covers making a payment into court to avail of
the defence of tender before claim.
In short, I've cited relevant legislation which demonstrates your
claim to be false. Either quote more recent legislation or case law
that overrides this or your (legally) unsupported claim fails.
Payment into Court is not payment made to the creditor.
On 31/10/2023 10:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 25/10/2023 17:53, Norman Wells wrote:
They are *undoubtedly* legal tender according to the provisions of
S3(1)(ff) of the Coinage Act 1971, and the monarch's proclamation in
respect of each new coin, including those you disparagingly call
'commemorative' and all the £20 coins we've been discussing in this
thread. That proclamation says specifically "The said silver coin
shall be legal tender for the payment of any amount in any part of
Our United Kingdom'. And that puts them on a par with any other
coins of the realm.
It's not limited to the payment of debts, and it certainly isn't
limited to paying money into court.
There is moreover a whole Section 2 in that Act which is headed
'Legal Tender'. It *must* therefore be interpreted to give meaning
to that term and give effect to what it says.
So, I invite the naysayers to do just that.
"Commemorative coins" is The Royal Mint's chosen nomenclature for such
coins. [1]
I don't care what they call them.
It's not a legal classification and
is of no effect. The coins are *undoubtedly* 'legal tender for the
payment of any amount in any part of Our United Kingdom', and that's all
that matters.
Not forgetting their oft-quoted page on Legal Tender [2] in which they
also describe the NCLT as "commemorative coins". They also refer to
them as "collectibles" and "gifts" on that page too.
Again, I don't care what they call them. Their weaselly descriptions do
not override the monarch's proclamation according to law.
As for section 2 of The Coinage Act 1971 [3] please quote the precise
part of that legislation which you think supports your claims.
The whole Section is headed 'Legal Tender'.
You said here on 19 October that:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
Since Parliament does not enact any laws or Sections that have no
meaning, and everything it enacts has to be given effect by the Courts,
I asked you what you think the whole Section is therefore about.
You haven't said.
Thanks in advance.
You're welcome.
On 31/10/2023 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that's
not as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint".
It's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that
respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from
legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
"Today, the Royal Mint is a limited company under the control of the
Treasury – the department responsible for developing and carrying out
the UK’s financial policies – and has an exclusive contract to supply
all of the country’s coins"
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/personal-finance/savings-investing/the-royal-mint-everything-you-need-to-know
Note that its activities are governed by 'contract'.
It wouldn't need a contract if it was acting autonomously.
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE
figure.
"The Bank of England monitors and reports on these measures to assess
the overall money supply and its impact on the economy.
The main components of the money supply in the UK include:
M0: also known as the "narrow money" or the "central bank money,"
represents the most liquid forms of money. It includes physical currency (banknotes and coins) in circulation issued by the Bank of England".
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-makes-up-the-money-supply-in-the-uk-economy#:~:text=The%20Bank%20of%20England%20monitors,most%20liquid%20forms%20of%20money.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender
as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still says >>>>>> they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's something
of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of the
abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly not
said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim that
I said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw the
claim and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
Well, you said above, in answer to my question how they were currency or legal tender, 'The short answer is: they aren't'.
Moreover, on 19 October, you said here:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
It seems therefore that you're rather confused and don't actually know
what you're talking about.
Now you're saying legal tender does mean something, but won't say what,
even though the universal definition given in many, many dictionaries, according to you, is wrong.
Very strange.
For the avoidance of doubt, quotes from Wikipedia and other
web-sites and / or dictionaries do not class as a legal cite.
You have ventured nothing to contradict them, and all of the evidence
is that what they say is correct. They all agree, you see, that
legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered
in payment of a debt'.
I have cited and quoted The Court Funds Rules 2011 numerous times in
this thread, (off the top of my head this will be the sixth such
reference).
That you have not read them, did not understand them, or do not
comprehend their application does not mean they do not exist or that
no evidence has been proffered to contradict your claim. Quite the
contrary.
The legislation demonstrates, unequivocally, that the court will not
accept "coins or banknotes... offered in payment of a debt" except in
precisely defined, and very limited circumstances, which I will wager
do not apply to a single contributor to this thread - yourself included.
For the avoidance of doubt, legislation which severely restricts the
circumstances in which the court will accept "coins or banknotes...
offered in payment of a debt" demonstrates that there are no
circumstances in which it *must* be accepted.
But what the Court will accept and when are totally irrelevant. The
Court is not the creditor, so doesn't have to accept anything in
particular, even though on your own admission it certainly can accept
*cash*, and sometimes does. Your comments have nothing to do with
'legal tender'.
Your claim is defeated by the legislation cited and quoted and to
claim otherwise is nonsensical, even for you.
You are free to continue playing the role of a small child stood in
the middle of a room with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears
singing "La, la la, I can't see you and I'm not listening", whilst
refusing to acknowledge what is going on in the room as it contradicts
his preconceptions but the adults in the room are also free to ignore
the child and continue the discussion without him.
Personal insults aside ...
The slightly longer answer is: they are legal tender in name
alone, by dint of having been made so by TRM.
No, see Coinage Act 1971, S3(1)(ff).
And yet TRM have instructed banks not to accept the NCLT they have
issued.
Ultra vires. The Royal Mint does not govern or regulate banks, and
has no authority to instruct them to do anything.
We must agree to differ.
No, not at all. I'm right and you're wrong. It's not a draw.
Old £1 coins are no longer legal tender, but are still accepted by
several banks as deposits. That's right and proper.
In short, you agree with me. There are coins bearing a currency value
which are not legal tender.
Of course there are. But so what?
Something that is true of all "demonetised coins", to use official
nomenclature, and there is no legal obligation to accept them, but
some banks will do so as a service to existing customers, as TRM
themselves acknowledge. [1]
Yes, but so what?
The £20 coins *are* legal tender *and* bear a currency value, which is
why I say someone must honour them if fraud somewhere along the line is
to be avoided.
Thank you for admitting that your previous statement was mistaken,
albeit in an indirect manner.
I beg your pardon?
They should also accept proper legal tender such as £20 coins and,
even though they're not obliged to, I think the Bank of England has a
duty and an obligation to even if they pretend otherwise.
The BoE should accept them, at cost to itself, even though it is not
obliged to do so?
Yes, of course. It already accepts obsolete notes and coins, including
the old superseded £1 coins, and it clearly accepts its duty to do so.
What logical basis can it possibly have for not honouring the nation's current *legal* tender?
Anyway, where do *you* suppose the banks and building societies who
accept old £1 coins as deposits send them in order to get them converted into transferable money?
Do you think it's the Royal Mint
(in which case how and why?)
or actually the Bank of England which routinely does
that sort of thing?
I wish you well selling that idea at the next BoE Policy Meeting.
Please do let me know how you get on, won't you?
No, because it's no change.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency
value has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing banks
not to accept them.
The Royal Mint is a factory that makes them under contract.
I recommend reading, and it would be helpful in moving the discussion
forward if you made an effort to understand, the document I have
previously linked on the change in governance, structure, operation
and policy of TRM.
Doing so will, hopefully, disabuse you of many of the mistaken
notions, wrong ideas and incorrect statements you have made in this
thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, TRM is an Executive Agency [2].
No, not since 2009 actually. It's just a limited company.
If you do not know or understand what that means, you could do worse
than read and understand this guidance document on Executive Agencies
[3].
No need since it isn't.
But what point were you trying to make anyway?
You see, above, I provided a source confirming the Royal Mint operates
under an exclusive contract to supply all of the country’s coins, which
was the point you seemed to be contesting but haven't established.
The principal is the party that 'issues' them and, I say, is
responsible for any after care.
I concur.
And respectfully draw to your attention, though not for the first
time, the second sentence from the BoE's page on notes and banknotes
[4], namely:
"Coins are manufactured and issued by the Royal Mint."
Note: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint" (emphasis mine).
They are *made* by the Royal Mint *under contract*. I suppose to
someone whose grasp of English may not be all it might be that may
indicate that they are 'issued' by it, but that is not anyway
significant. It just makes them to order, no more and no less. The Treasury, or the Bank of England working in conjunction with the
Treasury, as it does, is the contracting party which dictates how much
and how many, so as to satisfy the policy imperatives of the M0 part of
money supply for which they are responsible. The Royal Mint has no responsibility to anyone except its contractors, ie the Treasury or the Bank. And that's why it says it won't exchange coins with the general public.
"We, [the Bank of England], are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes."But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM issued >>>>>> NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Actually, the answer *is* the same to both, and is correct.
It is sad duty to inform you that, despite having given you every clue
necessary to answer the questions correctly, you have failed in this
task and, despite your mistaken belief that your answer is correct,
you are, in fact, (and equally sadly not for the first time),
completely mistaken on the matter.
The unambiguous statement on the BoE's own web-site states, as noted
above: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint". [4].
When made under contract, that is plainly misleading to anyone seeking precision. But it's of no significance unless it's deliberately trying
to shift its own responsibility for the money supply.
The answer is the Bank of England which is in charge of the nation's
money supply and the entire currency. All the Royal Mint does is
make the coins to the BoE's orders, just as De La Rue prints the
notes. Neither of those 'issues' them as if they have autonomy to do
so. They don't.
I recommend researching a matter before issuing proclamations as one's
credibility may be dented if one continually makes statement of fact
that are demonstrably wrong.
I think you need to do the demonstrating of that. And you haven't.
You may find that difficult, though, as what I said is correct.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the
NCLT to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a letter >>>>>> from TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be seen by
all, instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on
acceptable cites still apply.)
Legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered
in payment of a debt'. The only alternative you've offered is that
it doesn't mean anything at all. Which is absurd.
It is my sad duty to inform you that your dictionary definition does
not accord with legislation which has been both cited and quoted in
the thread and is therefore of no relevance whatsoever in a *legal*
newsgroup. (AUE is still over there though ----->)
There is no such legislation that proves your point.
Since you disagree with universally accepted definitions of the term
'legal tender', it falls to you to define it in another substantiated
way, which you have conspicuously avoided so far. Will you at last do
so please?
I ask again: "Do you have a cite for that please?"
How many more definitions, all in agreement with one another, do you
need? I must have given you at least 8 already.
If so, what do you propose the banks do with the NCLTs once
they've accepted them, as TRM will not exchange them for "Currency >>>>>> in Circulation" and nobody else will exchange them at face value?
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' currency and
has a duty to deal with them.
And now we come to the heart of your mistake.
From the Bank of England's own web-site [1]:
"We produce £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes you can trust."
And from their page about banknotes [2]:
"The Royal Mint issues UK coins."
The Bank of England is responsible for the nations' banknotes whilst
The Royal Mint is responsible for the nations' coins.
Wrong. The Bank of England is responsible for all of the money
supply, including all of the currency.
I invite you to convince the BoE that the information on their
web-site is incorrect and insist that they correct it.
No, 'issues' is just vague and sloppy writing by someone trying to write
a simple, publicly accessible website of no legal significance and understandably unwilling or unable to explain detailed matters of
contract and responsibility.
Once they've done so, you will be able to cite the updated page to
support your claim. But in its current form, it supports my statement
and contradicts yours so you cannot reasonably claim that my statement
is "wrong" as I am quoting the BoE.
But, as is regrettably quite frequent, concentrating on a point of no significance.
On 31/10/2023 11:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/10/2023 09:59, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well
established principle of English law that a debtor will have a good
defence to a claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance
with the terms of the contract (including terms permitting payment
in legal tender) has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in
legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was
established.
It is so well established and so stunningly obvious that it has even
become the standard and universal dictionary definition of legal tender.
I note that your confusion between uk.legal.moderated and
alt.usage.english persists.
In one of those places, dictionary definitions and the likes of Strunk
and White are authorities. In the other, legislation and case law prevail.
If it is as "well established" and as "stunningly obvious" as you claim, you'll have no difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant legislation or
any one of the no doubt innumerable cases in which the principle was used.
Absent either of those, it is clear that it is neither legally "well established" nor "stunningly obvious".
As you are unable to provide the requested cite, your claim remains
legally unsubstantiated.
There is no case law to say the sun will rise tomorrow, or that grass
is green. Your reliance on it even to tell you the simplest things
that are baseline knowledge is astonishing.
Neither the motion of the planets nor the effects of chlorophyll in photosynthesis are regulated by UK law.
However, both contracts and debt are regulated by UK law and as your
claim that the use to which legal tender can be put must be covered by
one of both of these, as I've stated above, you should have no
difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant legislation or any one of the
no doubt innumerable cases in which the principle was used.
Failing that, I suggest that, not only is your claim not supported in
law, but legislation exists which proves it to be mistaken.
Yes, I know you don't agree with that, but it is what it is whether you acknowledge it or not.
And both of those will need to be post 2011 to overrule Part 2 of The
Court Funds Rules 2011 [1] which clearly show that the courts do not
accept cash, even if in the form of "legal tender", as payment into
court for a debt, or indeed anything, unless one doesn't have a
current account and possibly other limiting circumstances apply.
The Court is not the creditor. The debtor is not in debt to the
Court. He is in debt to the creditor. It is the creditor who must
accept legal tender if offered in settlement of the debt.
I respectfully refer you back to the earlier discussion on the defence
of tender before claim and the necessary elements thereof. If you've forgotten, were not paying attention or didn't understand what was being said, I'll post a summary below.
That's why it is totally irrelevant what monies the Court will accept.
It is highly relevant. You are mistaken.
In any case, you say above that the Courts do sometimes accept cash,
that presumably being in legal tender.
Legislation dictates that the court will only accept cash from people
that do not have a current account. If one has a current account, the legislation states that the court does not need to accept cash, legal
tender or otherwise. They're not going to say, "We'll accept £10 in 50p but not £15." Rather should they say, "We do not accept cash from
people without a current account." there is precisely zero that can be
done about it as their position is supported in law.
This is an unambiguous and unequivocal situation proving that your
statement claiming that legal tender means "a debtor can pay in coins
and notes that must be accepted if offered to pay off the debt" is nonsensical. The court do not accept it. There is no "must" and this
word is the source of the sentence's power.
"Legal tender means a debtor can pay in notes and coins that might, will probably, could, should, etc. be accepted if offered to pay off the
debt" doesn't really cut it.
The fact that the courts set rules about the circumstances in which
they will accept cash prove that is nonsense to claim that it *must*
be accepted to pay off the debt, since one of the reasons detailed in
the legislation cited covers making a payment into court to avail of
the defence of tender before claim.
In short, I've cited relevant legislation which demonstrates your
claim to be false. Either quote more recent legislation or case law
that overrides this or your (legally) unsupported claim fails.
Payment into Court is not payment made to the creditor.
Let us take the example that started this thread:
The debtor (D) draws petrol and then goes to the petrol station kiosk to
pay them (C) for the petrol D has placed in his car. D proffers his £20 coin and C refuses to accept it. C invites D to pay by another means. D refuses as D believes C must accept the £20 coin as it is legal tender.
C invites D to complete their "No Means to Pay" form. D refuses as D insists he has a means to pay but C will not accept it. C call the
police who inform C it is a civil matter unless and until D leaves the premises without having paid. All sides agree a stalemate has occurred because C will not accept the £20 coin and D will not proffer an
alternative means of payment, nor will D leave until payment is accepted whereupon, acknowledging the stalemate, C permits D to leave the
premises on the understanding that C will pursue D for the outstanding amount.
C has D on CCTV and use that to obtain D's details and follow the
pre-action protocol inviting D to pay the outstanding amount of £20 in a
way that is acceptable to C, including bank transfer, debit / credit
card, fuel card or cash whilst stipulating that, again, they do not
accept NCLT as a form of payment. C's letter to D states that if the
full amount is not paid within 28 days of the date of the letter then C
will commence legal action against D without further correspondence for
a court order requiring payment and that the cost of any legal
proceedings and any other amounts the court orders must be paid will be
added to the debt. Additionally, the letter states that it is being
sent in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct
(PDPAC) contained in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) [1] which stipulate
that D should acknowledge receipt of C's letter within 14 days and that
the court has the power to sanction D should he fail to respond.
D writes back offering to attend C's premises and pay with the £20 coin previously tendered. C responds reminding D that they have previously stated that they do not accept NCLT as payment and with no further communication or payment from D, at the expiration of the 28 days, C
issues against D.
At this point, D's main options are:
(1) Avail of the defence of tender before claim which will require D to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2 which requires D to make a payment
into court of the amount D says was tendered. As D has a bank account,
the court will not accept cash from D so he will need to pay either by personal cheque or by electronic means, failing which D cannot rely on
the defence until payment is made;
(2) File a defence other than tender before claim. Feel free to draft whatever defence you think appropriate in the circumstances but, as
would be expected by the court, your defence should include reference to
the legislation or case law upon which you are basing your defence;
(3) Make an offer to settle; or
(4) Ignore the claim.
Working through those in order, (1) still leaves D with his £20 coin so
D's insistence on using it to pay for fuel has failed. Similarly,
should an order be made in C's favour for options 2 and 4, or as a
condition of option 3, C can request that the payment be made into court rather than direct to C again leaving D with his £20 coin, and
potentially a not insignificant costs order should he use anything other
than option 1.
Before you respond, I will remind you that I have used the defence of
tender before claim and therefore know how the procedure works first
hand so please do not expect me to entertain any fanciful notions from
you or claims about the matter which have no basis in fact or in law.
Similarly, you have previously made reference to a defence of "No
debt.". Unless you have some impressive cites with which to support
that claim, any suggestion of using such a defence under option 2 will
result in judgment for C and a costs order, to be paid into court.
If you think I'm biased and that isn't what would happen at all, I am
happy to defer to the opinion of a neutral legally qualified member of
the group. Francis Davey, a qualified barrister, has previously posted
here on the matter of the defence of tender before claim and legal
tender and I respect and trust anything he would have had to say on the matter so am happy to defer to his professionally qualified opinion. If
you have someone equally qualified in mind, please let me know. Alternatively, I have a colleague that is a JP and some acquaintances
that are District Judges that I can ask for their professional opinion,
but they don't post here, so I would have to provide an overview of
anything they had to say no the matter. In any event, we've long since passed the point where your posts stating what you "think", "believe"
and / or "understand..." are going to cut it.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
This may be worth a look:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KpsahpGOzg>
- where an England & Wales practising barrister confirms the whole
situation is "absurd" (his word).
But even he may be wrong in saying the only use of legal tender these
days is that the Court Funds Office must accept it, but their website
and form CFO100 says only cheques are accepted.
I agree with all that. Dictionaries reflect how language is used, and
the term Legal Tender is clearly being misused or misunderstood.
If there were any legislation that defined what it actually means, the
Bank of England would surely have mentioned it in their FOI response.
But they didn't.
On 31/10/2023 11:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/10/2023 09:59, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well
established principle of English law that a debtor will have a good
defence to a claim for non-payment, if the debtor in accordance
with the terms of the contract (including terms permitting payment
in legal tender) has paid the exact sum owing to the creditor in
legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was
established.
It is so well established and so stunningly obvious that it has even
become the standard and universal dictionary definition of legal tender.
I note that your confusion between uk.legal.moderated and
alt.usage.english persists.
In one of those places, dictionary definitions and the likes of Strunk
and White are authorities. In the other, legislation and case law prevail.
If it is as "well established" and as "stunningly obvious" as you claim, you'll have no difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant legislation or
any one of the no doubt innumerable cases in which the principle was used.
Absent either of those, it is clear that it is neither legally "well established" nor "stunningly obvious".
As you are unable to provide the requested cite, your claim remains
legally unsubstantiated.
There is no case law to say the sun will rise tomorrow, or that grass
is green. Your reliance on it even to tell you the simplest things
that are baseline knowledge is astonishing.
Neither the motion of the planets nor the effects of chlorophyll in photosynthesis are regulated by UK law.
However, both contracts and debt are regulated by UK law and as your
claim that the use to which legal tender can be put must be covered by
one of both of these, as I've stated above, you should have no
difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant legislation or any one of the
no doubt innumerable cases in which the principle was used.
Failing that, I suggest that, not only is your claim not supported in
law, but legislation exists which proves it to be mistaken.
Yes, I know you don't agree with that,
but it is what it is whether you
acknowledge it or not.
And both of those will need to be post 2011 to overrule Part 2 of The
Court Funds Rules 2011 [1] which clearly show that the courts do not
accept cash, even if in the form of "legal tender", as payment into
court for a debt, or indeed anything, unless one doesn't have a
current account and possibly other limiting circumstances apply.
The Court is not the creditor. The debtor is not in debt to the
Court. He is in debt to the creditor. It is the creditor who must
accept legal tender if offered in settlement of the debt.
I respectfully refer you back to the earlier discussion on the defence
of tender before claim and the necessary elements thereof. If you've forgotten, were not paying attention or didn't understand what was being said, I'll post a summary below.
That's why it is totally irrelevant what monies the Court will accept.
It is highly relevant. You are mistaken.
In any case, you say above that the Courts do sometimes accept cash,
that presumably being in legal tender.
Legislation dictates that the court will only accept cash from people
that do not have a current account. If one has a current account, the legislation states that the court does not need to accept cash, legal
tender or otherwise. They're not going to say, "We'll accept £10 in 50p but not £15." Rather should they say, "We do not accept cash from
people without a current account." there is precisely zero that can be
done about it as their position is supported in law.
This is an unambiguous and unequivocal situation proving that your
statement claiming that legal tender means "a debtor can pay in coins
and notes that must be accepted if offered to pay off the debt" is nonsensical. The court do not accept it. There is no "must" and this
word is the source of the sentence's power.
"Legal tender means a debtor can pay in notes and coins that might, will probably, could, should, etc. be accepted if offered to pay off the
debt" doesn't really cut it.
The fact that the courts set rules about the circumstances in which
they will accept cash prove that is nonsense to claim that it *must*
be accepted to pay off the debt, since one of the reasons detailed in
the legislation cited covers making a payment into court to avail of
the defence of tender before claim.
In short, I've cited relevant legislation which demonstrates your
claim to be false. Either quote more recent legislation or case law
that overrides this or your (legally) unsupported claim fails.
Payment into Court is not payment made to the creditor.
Let us take the example that started this thread:
The debtor (D) draws petrol and then goes to the petrol station kiosk to
pay them (C) for the petrol D has placed in his car. D proffers his £20 coin and C refuses to accept it. C invites D to pay by another means. D refuses as D believes C must accept the £20 coin as it is legal tender.
C invites D to complete their "No Means to Pay" form. D refuses as D insists he has a means to pay but C will not accept it. C call the
police who inform C it is a civil matter unless and until D leaves the premises without having paid. All sides agree a stalemate has occurred because C will not accept the £20 coin and D will not proffer an
alternative means of payment, nor will D leave until payment is accepted whereupon, acknowledging the stalemate, C permits D to leave the
premises on the understanding that C will pursue D for the outstanding amount.
C has D on CCTV and use that to obtain D's details and follow the
pre-action protocol inviting D to pay the outstanding amount of £20 in a
way that is acceptable to C,
including bank transfer, debit / credit
card, fuel card or cash whilst stipulating that, again, they do not
accept NCLT as a form of payment. C's letter to D states that if the
full amount is not paid within 28 days of the date of the letter then C
will commence legal action against D without further correspondence for
a court order requiring payment and that the cost of any legal
proceedings and any other amounts the court orders must be paid will be
added to the debt. Additionally, the letter states that it is being
sent in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct
(PDPAC) contained in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) [1] which stipulate
that D should acknowledge receipt of C's letter within 14 days and that
the court has the power to sanction D should he fail to respond.
D writes back offering to attend C's premises and pay with the £20 coin previously tendered.
C responds reminding D that they have previously
stated that they do not accept NCLT as payment and with no further communication or payment from D, at the expiration of the 28 days, C
issues against D.
At this point, D's main options are:
(1) Avail of the defence of tender before claim which will require D to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2 which requires D to make a payment
into court of the amount D says was tendered. As D has a bank account,
the court will not accept cash from D so he will need to pay either by personal cheque or by electronic means, failing which D cannot rely on
the defence until payment is made;
(2) File a defence other than tender before claim. Feel free to draft whatever defence you think appropriate in the circumstances but, as
would be expected by the court, your defence should include reference to
the legislation or case law upon which you are basing your defence;
(3) Make an offer to settle; or
(4) Ignore the claim.
Working through those in order, (1) still leaves D with his £20 coin so
D's insistence on using it to pay for fuel has failed. Similarly,
should an order be made in C's favour for options 2 and 4, or as a
condition of option 3, C can request that the payment be made into court rather than direct to C again leaving D with his £20 coin, and
potentially a not insignificant costs order should he use anything other
than option 1.
Before you respond, I will remind you that I have used the defence of
tender before claim and therefore know how the procedure works first
hand so please do not expect me to entertain any fanciful notions from
you or claims about the matter which have no basis in fact or in law.
Similarly, you have previously made reference to a defence of "No
debt.". Unless you have some impressive cites with which to support
that claim, any suggestion of using such a defence under option 2 will
result in judgment for C and a costs order, to be paid into court.
If you think I'm biased and that isn't what would happen at all, I am
happy to defer to the opinion of a neutral legally qualified member of
the group. Francis Davey, a qualified barrister, has previously posted
here on the matter of the defence of tender before claim and legal
tender and I respect and trust anything he would have had to say on the matter so am happy to defer to his professionally qualified opinion. If
you have someone equally qualified in mind, please let me know.
Alternatively, I have a colleague that is a JP and some acquaintances
that are District Judges that I can ask for their professional opinion,
but they don't post here, so I would have to provide an overview of
anything they had to say no the matter. In any event, we've long since passed the point where your posts stating what you "think", "believe"
and / or "understand..." are going to cut it.
On 2023-11-03, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
This may be worth a look:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KpsahpGOzg>
- where an England & Wales practising barrister confirms the whole
situation is "absurd" (his word).
But even he may be wrong in saying the only use of legal tender these
days is that the Court Funds Office must accept it, but their website
and form CFO100 says only cheques are accepted.
He's certainly wrong, because he says (at around 4 minutes in) "tender
before claim" is where you think you're going to be sued and so you
make a payment into court *before you get sued* using legal tender.
This is wrong in several ways.
Firstly, it's obvious nonsense. You make the payment into court *before*
you get sued? What if you then don't get sued? How long do you have to
leave your money in the court waiting to see if a claim form arrives?
6 years? It's a ridiculous idea.
Secondly, you *can't* make payment into court before you get sued.
As I mentioned previously, the form to do so requires that you provide
the claim number, among other things. And the Court Funds Act 2011 s3
says:
Where the deposit is made under CPR rule 37.2 (which provides that
there must be a payment into court where a defendant wishes to rely
on a defence of tender before claim) the Accountant General shall
only accept the deposit if provided with:
(a) a written request;
(b) a sealed copy of the claim form; and
(c) a copy of the defence.
Clearly if you haven't been sued yet, it is impossible to comply with
these conditions since the claim form does not yet exist. So he cannot possibly be right.
Finally, as you and I and others have mentioned, and as the Court Funds
Rules 2011 sections 7 and 8 make clear, there is no general right to
make payment into court using legal tender. So even if you could make
a payment into court in advance of being sued, they don't have to
accept legal tender.
I'm pretty sure he's also wrong when he says (about 9 minutes in) that
you very briefly create a debt in an ordinary retail transaction,
because you bring the goods to the cashier, which is an offer to buy
them), and then somehow something unspecified that the cashier does
*before taking your payment* is an acceptance of that offer, and then
a debt exists in the brief period between that happening and you making
the payment moments later. I think the contract is accepted and
completed simultaneously when the cashier takes your payment.
(It's obvious his version is wrong, because does anyone really think
that if you took some goods to the cashier and then before paying said
"oh actually I've changed my mind, I don't want them" and walked out
without the goods, the shop could sue you for the value of the goods
you *hadn't bought*?)
The other situation he says legal tender is relevant is when making
a payment to satisfy a judgement. I'm pretty sure he's wrong there
too. The situation there is not really any different to that when
you owe a debt *before* a claim. And would the court really allow
a claimant to assert that they hadn't been paid an £11 judgement
if you had offered 22 50p's? Or a defendant to assert they *had*
paid a £20 judgement with a £20 "commemorative legal tender" coin
that there is no way to convert into usable money?
(I've been in this situation myself, in that I needed to make payment
to satisfy a judgement, and I didn't trust the claimant to admit that
they had been paid. So I made a cheque payable to the claimant, but
posted it to their solicitor. The solicitor clearly didn't trust the
claimant either, because they returned the cheque and said that they
wanted it payable to themselves, so they could deduct their fees from
it before forwarding the remainder to their client. But there was
never any suggestion that I had failed to make payment in time.)
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the term has a similar meaning here.
But in the UK the term appears to be as
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person.
Give a
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right, such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place. Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of
what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply
that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent.
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It
originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the
Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not >> to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United
States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating >> notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all >> debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not >> legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side >> of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic
English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the
term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
But in the UK the term appears to be as
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person.
Hardly. There are whole Sections of current Acts of Parliament that
deal with Legal Tender (for example Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971),
so it *must* mean something tangible and *must* be interpreted by the
Courts to give effect to what Parliament has enacted. It is not open to
the Courts just to say it's meaningless.
Give a
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be >> known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right, >> such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place.
Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does >> not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of
what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply
that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be >> unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent.
Except that it is in full accord with all of the definitions we've seen
here in this thread. No viable alternative definition has been proposed
by anyone who says otherwise.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the 20 coin is this:
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any
amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
If you're alleging that the monarch is making meaningless proclamations
as prescribed by a meaningless law enacted by a nonsensical Parliament,
and on the advice of a nonsensical Privy Council, may I suggest you may
be mistaken?
[1] https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-07-19-List-of-Business-Part-1.pdf
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It
originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the >>> Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not >>> to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United
States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating >>> notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all >>> debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side >>> of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic >>> English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the >>> term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
But in the UK the term appears to be as
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person.
Hardly. There are whole Sections of current Acts of Parliament that
deal with Legal Tender (for example Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971),
so it *must* mean something tangible and *must* be interpreted by the
Courts to give effect to what Parliament has enacted. It is not open to
the Courts just to say it's meaningless.
Give a
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be >>> known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right, >>> such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place. >>> Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does >>> not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of >>> what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply >>> that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be >>> unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent.
Except that it is in full accord with all of the definitions we've seen
here in this thread. No viable alternative definition has been proposed
by anyone who says otherwise.
In some land where dictionaries or search engine results have the force of law that could be a powerful argument, but in the UK today it is vacuous.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the £20 coin is this: >>
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any
amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
Absent any
effective recourse, the proclamation is merely theatre.
If you're alleging that the monarch is making meaningless proclamations
as prescribed by a meaningless law enacted by a nonsensical Parliament,
and on the advice of a nonsensical Privy Council, may I suggest you may
be mistaken?
Of cause you may suggest that, but then I would disagree.
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It
originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the >>>> Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not >>>> to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United >>>> States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating >>>> notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side >>>> of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic >>>> English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the >>>> term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
But in the UK the term appears to be as
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person.
Hardly. There are whole Sections of current Acts of Parliament that
deal with Legal Tender (for example Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971),
so it *must* mean something tangible and *must* be interpreted by the
Courts to give effect to what Parliament has enacted. It is not open to >>> the Courts just to say it's meaningless.
Give aExcept that it is in full accord with all of the definitions we've seen
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be >>>> known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right, >>>> such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place. >>>> Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does >>>> not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of >>>> what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply >>>> that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be >>>> unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent. >>>
here in this thread. No viable alternative definition has been proposed >>> by anyone who says otherwise.
In some land where dictionaries or search engine results have the force of >> law that could be a powerful argument, but in the UK today it is vacuous.
Of course dictionaries don't have the force of law. However, laws are written in the English language and are supposed to say what they mean
and mean what they say in ordinary English unless specified otherwise in
the legislation being considered, which in this case they aren't. In
looking for the true interpretation, the courts will undoubtedly look at dictionaries for guidance, and if they're the only things on offer,
which they have been in this thread, and they all agree, it's a slam
dunk. What alternative is there?
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the 20 coin is this: >>>
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any
amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared
legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone >> making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer
doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer.
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a
restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it
part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Absent any
effective recourse, the proclamation is merely theatre.
The consequence of rejection of legal tender in order to settle a debt
is in my view repudiation of that debt. If the creditor won't accept
what he must accept to settle the debt then he's effectively saying it's
on him. There's no justification for him trying to make the debtor pay
in any other fanciful way he may devise, nor is there any reason why the debtor should comply.
If you're alleging that the monarch is making meaningless proclamations
as prescribed by a meaningless law enacted by a nonsensical Parliament,
and on the advice of a nonsensical Privy Council, may I suggest you may
be mistaken?
Of cause you may suggest that, but then I would disagree.
Without any justification whatsoever it would appear. Isn't that just a
tad random?
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It >>>>> originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the >>>>> Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United >>>>> States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic >>>>> English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the >>>>> term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
Of course dictionaries don't have the force of law. However, laws areBut in the UK the term appears to be as
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person.
Hardly. There are whole Sections of current Acts of Parliament that
deal with Legal Tender (for example Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971), >>>> so it *must* mean something tangible and *must* be interpreted by the
Courts to give effect to what Parliament has enacted. It is not open to >>>> the Courts just to say it's meaningless.
Give aExcept that it is in full accord with all of the definitions we've seen >>>> here in this thread. No viable alternative definition has been proposed >>>> by anyone who says otherwise.
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be
known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right,
such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place. >>>>> Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does
not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of >>>>> what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply >>>>> that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be
unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent. >>>>
In some land where dictionaries or search engine results have the force of >>> law that could be a powerful argument, but in the UK today it is vacuous. >>
written in the English language and are supposed to say what they mean
and mean what they say in ordinary English unless specified otherwise in
the legislation being considered, which in this case they aren't. In
looking for the true interpretation, the courts will undoubtedly look at
dictionaries for guidance, and if they're the only things on offer,
which they have been in this thread, and they all agree, it's a slam
dunk. What alternative is there?
So please cite which laws that might look to dictionaries for interpretation require that legal tender must be accepted at its face value.
Writing about
how laws in general might be interpreted is not relevant while you can not cite any such UK law(s) that require legal tender to be accepted at its face value in satisfaction of debt.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the £20 coin is this: >>>>
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any
amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency
value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared
legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
Declared only by web sites and dictionaries that have no power or authority to enforce that result.
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone
making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer
doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer. >>
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a
restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to
accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it
part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Obliged by what law(s) or regulation(s) or enforceable requirement(s)?
Absent any
effective recourse, the proclamation is merely theatre.
The consequence of rejection of legal tender in order to settle a debt
is in my view repudiation of that debt. If the creditor won't accept
what he must accept to settle the debt then he's effectively saying it's
on him. There's no justification for him trying to make the debtor pay
in any other fanciful way he may devise, nor is there any reason why the
debtor should comply.
If you're alleging that the monarch is making meaningless proclamations >>>> as prescribed by a meaningless law enacted by a nonsensical Parliament, >>>> and on the advice of a nonsensical Privy Council, may I suggest you may >>>> be mistaken?
Of cause you may suggest that, but then I would disagree.
Without any justification whatsoever it would appear. Isn't that just a
tad random?
On the contrary, in this discussion it is only you who insists that legal tender must be accepted at its face value in settlement of debt and so it is up to you to explain why someone must do that to in order to avoid meeting some penalty or other enforcement action.
Your repeatedly quoting
pronouncements on web sites and in dictionaries, and that all lack any legal backing or enforceability, does not meet the test for their holding any practical authority.
I previously pointed to where and how legal tender is defined and made enforceable in another jurisdiction, but nothing similar to that framework exists in the UK. Those Royal Proclamations are no more than marketing theatre produced for its own benefit by a commercial enterprise.
On 13/11/2023 19:18, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It >>>>>> originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the
Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United >>>>>> States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic >>>>>> English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the
term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
Well, I'll ask again, on what basis do you say it doesn't have a similar meaning to that in the USA?
Of course dictionaries don't have the force of law. However, laws areBut in the UK the term appears to be asHardly. There are whole Sections of current Acts of Parliament that >>>>> deal with Legal Tender (for example Section 2 of the Coinage Act 1971), >>>>> so it *must* mean something tangible and *must* be interpreted by the >>>>> Courts to give effect to what Parliament has enacted. It is not open to >>>>> the Courts just to say it's meaningless.
meaningful (actually meaningless) as a bestowed honour on a person. >>>>>
Give aExcept that it is in full accord with all of the definitions we've seen >>>>> here in this thread. No viable alternative definition has been proposed >>>>> by anyone who says otherwise.
person a gong (say an MBE) and the result will be merely that they will be
known to have received the honour. They generally gain no practical right,
such as a discount on their bus fare or entry into some exclusive place. >>>>>> Being awarded the title of UK Legal Tender through Royal Proclamation does
not turn the item into UK currency or add any value over the greater of >>>>>> what is intrinsic or from collectability.
The Legal Tender Guidelines published by the Royal Mint, and which imply >>>>>> that Legal Tender can be used at face value to settle debts, appears to be
unfounded and lacking basis either in legislation or binding precedent. >>>>>
In some land where dictionaries or search engine results have the force of >>>> law that could be a powerful argument, but in the UK today it is vacuous. >>>
written in the English language and are supposed to say what they mean
and mean what they say in ordinary English unless specified otherwise in >>> the legislation being considered, which in this case they aren't. In
looking for the true interpretation, the courts will undoubtedly look at >>> dictionaries for guidance, and if they're the only things on offer,
which they have been in this thread, and they all agree, it's a slam
dunk. What alternative is there?
So please cite which laws that might look to dictionaries for interpretation >> require that legal tender must be accepted at its face value.
It's axiomatic based on the only definitions of Legal Tender we have
here. A 20 coin has the same status as a 20 note. Both are legal
tender for the amount stated on them.
Writing about
how laws in general might be interpreted is not relevant while you can not >> cite any such UK law(s) that require legal tender to be accepted at its face >> value in satisfaction of debt.
Coin or note makes no difference. The world relies on currency being
worth what it says on it.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the 20 coin is this: >>>>>
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any
amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency
value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared
legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
Declared only by web sites and dictionaries that have no power or authority >> to enforce that result.
No, actually proclaimed as legal tender by the monarch on the advice of
the Privy Council under the provisions of Section 3(1)(ff) of the
Coinage Act 1971. That's pretty official in my eyes.
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone
making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer
doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer. >>>
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a
restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to >>> accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it
part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Obliged by what law(s) or regulation(s) or enforceable requirement(s)?
It's a debt. According to all the definitions that have surfaced here,
a creditor must accept legal tender if offered in payment.
If you disagree with the definition all the dictionaries consistently
agree, it is incumbent on you to say why, and provide an alternative supported definition. But you won't because you can't.
Absent any
effective recourse, the proclamation is merely theatre.
The consequence of rejection of legal tender in order to settle a debt
is in my view repudiation of that debt. If the creditor won't accept
what he must accept to settle the debt then he's effectively saying it's >>> on him. There's no justification for him trying to make the debtor pay
in any other fanciful way he may devise, nor is there any reason why the >>> debtor should comply.
If you're alleging that the monarch is making meaningless proclamations >>>>> as prescribed by a meaningless law enacted by a nonsensical Parliament, >>>>> and on the advice of a nonsensical Privy Council, may I suggest you may >>>>> be mistaken?
Of cause you may suggest that, but then I would disagree.
Without any justification whatsoever it would appear. Isn't that just a >>> tad random?
On the contrary, in this discussion it is only you who insists that legal
tender must be accepted at its face value in settlement of debt and so it is >> up to you to explain why someone must do that to in order to avoid meeting >> some penalty or other enforcement action.
It's inherent in any monetary system that coins and notes have the
values legitimately impressed on them.
Your repeatedly quoting
pronouncements on web sites and in dictionaries, and that all lack any legal >> backing or enforceability, does not meet the test for their holding any
practical authority.
You must have missed the discussion about the monarch's proclamations in accordance with the law then.
I previously pointed to where and how legal tender is defined and made
enforceable in another jurisdiction, but nothing similar to that framework >> exists in the UK. Those Royal Proclamations are no more than marketing
theatre produced for its own benefit by a commercial enterprise.
I suggest you read the Coinage Act 1971, especially Section 3(1) and an actual proclamation in respect of a 20 coin that I have linked to
earlier today. It has the full backing of the law.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:25:01 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 19:18, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It >>>>>>> originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the
Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United >>>>>>> States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic
English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the
term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
Well, I'll ask again, on what basis do you say it doesn't have a similar
meaning to that in the USA?
The reason it has that meaning in the USA is because it's black letter law. There is no equivalent law in any jurisdiction within the UK.
So please cite which laws that might look to dictionaries for interpretation
require that legal tender must be accepted at its face value.
It's axiomatic based on the only definitions of Legal Tender we have
here. A £20 coin has the same status as a £20 note. Both are legal
tender for the amount stated on them.
There you go again with your vague definitions. Dictionaries describe how words and terms are used and that definition of Legal Tender is an accurate description of how the term is used within the USA. Please show me the dictionary that clearly and explicitly states that the same definition and usage are valid within the UK.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the £20 coin is this:
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any >>>>>> amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency >>>> value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared >>>> legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK. >>>> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
Declared only by web sites and dictionaries that have no power or authority >>> to enforce that result.
No, actually proclaimed as legal tender by the monarch on the advice of
the Privy Council under the provisions of Section 3(1)(ff) of the
Coinage Act 1971. That's pretty official in my eyes.
But maybe only in your eyes.
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone
making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer
doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer.
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a
restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to >>>> accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it >>>> part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Obliged by what law(s) or regulation(s) or enforceable requirement(s)?
It's a debt. According to all the definitions that have surfaced here,
a creditor must accept legal tender if offered in payment.
If you disagree with the definition all the dictionaries consistently
agree, it is incumbent on you to say why, and provide an alternative
supported definition. But you won't because you can't.
I reject your claim that I must provide the definition of a term that I have already said is wholly meaningless in the UK for all practical purposes.
On the contrary, in this discussion it is only you who insists that legal >>> tender must be accepted at its face value in settlement of debt and so it is
up to you to explain why someone must do that to in order to avoid meeting >>> some penalty or other enforcement action.
It's inherent in any monetary system that coins and notes have the
values legitimately impressed on them.
Your repeatedly quoting
pronouncements on web sites and in dictionaries, and that all lack any legal
backing or enforceability, does not meet the test for their holding any
practical authority.
You must have missed the discussion about the monarch's proclamations in
accordance with the law then.
I previously pointed to where and how legal tender is defined and made
enforceable in another jurisdiction, but nothing similar to that framework >>> exists in the UK. Those Royal Proclamations are no more than marketing
theatre produced for its own benefit by a commercial enterprise.
I suggest you read the Coinage Act 1971, especially Section 3(1) and an
actual proclamation in respect of a £20 coin that I have linked to
earlier today. It has the full backing of the law.
Which law states that presentation of sufficient face value of UK Legal Tender by a debtor extinguishes any further claims for payment by a UK creditor?
On 13/11/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:25:01 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 13/11/2023 19:18, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It >>>>>>>> originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the
Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United
States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic
English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the
term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
Well, I'll ask again, on what basis do you say it doesn't have a similar >>> meaning to that in the USA?
The reason it has that meaning in the USA is because it's black letter law. >> There is no equivalent law in any jurisdiction within the UK.
That doesn't mean it has to have a different meaning here, which is what
I asked.
So please cite which laws that might look to dictionaries for interpretation
require that legal tender must be accepted at its face value.
It's axiomatic based on the only definitions of Legal Tender we have
here. A 20 coin has the same status as a 20 note. Both are legal
tender for the amount stated on them.
There you go again with your vague definitions. Dictionaries describe how
words and terms are used and that definition of Legal Tender is an accurate >> description of how the term is used within the USA. Please show me the
dictionary that clearly and explicitly states that the same definition and >> usage are valid within the UK.
I've given several dictionary definitions here in this thread, mostly
from UK dictionaries. They all agree what Legal Tender means both here
and in the USA.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the 20 coin is this:
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any >>>>>>> amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency >>>>> value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared >>>>> legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK. >>>>> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
Declared only by web sites and dictionaries that have no power or authority
to enforce that result.
No, actually proclaimed as legal tender by the monarch on the advice of
the Privy Council under the provisions of Section 3(1)(ff) of the
Coinage Act 1971. That's pretty official in my eyes.
But maybe only in your eyes.
No, in the eyes of the law.
or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone
making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer
doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer.
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a
restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to >>>>> accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it >>>>> part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Obliged by what law(s) or regulation(s) or enforceable requirement(s)?
It's a debt. According to all the definitions that have surfaced here,
a creditor must accept legal tender if offered in payment.
If you disagree with the definition all the dictionaries consistently
agree, it is incumbent on you to say why, and provide an alternative
supported definition. But you won't because you can't.
I reject your claim that I must provide the definition of a term that I have >> already said is wholly meaningless in the UK for all practical purposes.
Just because *you* can't or won't define it doesn't mean it has no
meaning. The expression appears pretty frequently in our legislation
and, if called upon, the courts will have to interpret what it means.
It is not open to them to say it is meaningless because that then would
be negating the will of Parliament which enacted the Statutes mentioning it.
In the absence of any sensible definition from you or anyone else, which
we haven't been regaled with, the dictionary definitions are uncontested
and will therefore be accepted. There is no reason why not, you see.
On the contrary, in this discussion it is only you who insists that legal >>>> tender must be accepted at its face value in settlement of debt and so it is
up to you to explain why someone must do that to in order to avoid meeting >>>> some penalty or other enforcement action.
It's inherent in any monetary system that coins and notes have the
values legitimately impressed on them.
Your repeatedly quoting
pronouncements on web sites and in dictionaries, and that all lack any legal
backing or enforceability, does not meet the test for their holding any >>>> practical authority.
You must have missed the discussion about the monarch's proclamations in >>> accordance with the law then.
I previously pointed to where and how legal tender is defined and made >>>> enforceable in another jurisdiction, but nothing similar to that framework >>>> exists in the UK. Those Royal Proclamations are no more than marketing >>>> theatre produced for its own benefit by a commercial enterprise.
I suggest you read the Coinage Act 1971, especially Section 3(1) and an
actual proclamation in respect of a 20 coin that I have linked to
earlier today. It has the full backing of the law.
Which law states that presentation of sufficient face value of UK Legal
Tender by a debtor extinguishes any further claims for payment by a UK
creditor?
It's axiomatic following from the definition of Legal Tender.
The only alternative is that the creditor can demand payment in any form
he may devise, including perhaps Koi carp.
Do you think that's the case? If not, why not?
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 08:45:59 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:25:01 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 13/11/2023 19:18, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/11/2023 15:27, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:49 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/11/2023 03:23, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Maybe of interest is how the term Legal Tender is used in the USA. It >>>>>>>>> originated in the mid-19th century, shortly after the Civil War, when the
Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of paper money currency that was not
to be redeemable in bullion. Under current US law (31 USC 5103) "United
States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
It appears that the term Legal Tender was picked up by people on this side
of the Atlantic (maybe with thanks to Google, Wikipedia and mid-Atlantic
English language dictionaries) who make the incorrect assumption that the
term has a similar meaning here.
On what basis do you say it doesn't?
Well, I'll ask again, on what basis do you say it doesn't have a similar >>>> meaning to that in the USA?
The reason it has that meaning in the USA is because it's black letter law. >>> There is no equivalent law in any jurisdiction within the UK.
That doesn't mean it has to have a different meaning here, which is what
I asked.
So please cite which laws that might look to dictionaries for interpretation
require that legal tender must be accepted at its face value.
It's axiomatic based on the only definitions of Legal Tender we have
here. A £20 coin has the same status as a £20 note. Both are legal >>>> tender for the amount stated on them.
There you go again with your vague definitions. Dictionaries describe how >>> words and terms are used and that definition of Legal Tender is an accurate >>> description of how the term is used within the USA. Please show me the
dictionary that clearly and explicitly states that the same definition and >>> usage are valid within the UK.
I've given several dictionary definitions here in this thread, mostly
from UK dictionaries. They all agree what Legal Tender means both here
and in the USA.
The wording of the royal proclamation in respect of the £20 coin is this:
"The said silver coin shall be legal tender for the payment of any >>>>>>>> amount in any part of Our United Kingdom'. [1]
Seems clear enough to me, so why not to you?
It is silent both on whether this legal tender is UK currency
Of course it's UK currency. It bears the monarch's head and a currency >>>>>> value, and it's bright, shiny and circular. It has also been declared >>>>>> legal tender valid for the payment of any amount in any part of the UK. >>>>>> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who are you to say it isn't?
Declared only by web sites and dictionaries that have no power or authority
to enforce that result.
No, actually proclaimed as legal tender by the monarch on the advice of >>>> the Privy Council under the provisions of Section 3(1)(ff) of the
Coinage Act 1971. That's pretty official in my eyes.
But maybe only in your eyes.
No, in the eyes of the law.
It's a debt. According to all the definitions that have surfaced here, >>>> a creditor must accept legal tender if offered in payment.or whether it
must be accepted at face value if it is tendered. What recourse does someone
making such a tender have when their tender is rejected?
It depends on the circumstances of tendering it. A normal retailer >>>>>> doesn't have to accept it. He can simply refuse to deal with the tenderer.
Where there is a debt, however, eg when you've eaten the food in a >>>>>> restaurant or filled your car up with petrol, the creditor is obliged to >>>>>> accept it unless he has made clear it in advance, and therefore made it >>>>>> part of your contract with him, that he will not do so.
Obliged by what law(s) or regulation(s) or enforceable requirement(s)? >>>>
If you disagree with the definition all the dictionaries consistently
agree, it is incumbent on you to say why, and provide an alternative
supported definition. But you won't because you can't.
I reject your claim that I must provide the definition of a term that I have
already said is wholly meaningless in the UK for all practical purposes.
Just because *you* can't or won't define it doesn't mean it has no
meaning. The expression appears pretty frequently in our legislation
and, if called upon, the courts will have to interpret what it means.
It is not open to them to say it is meaningless because that then would
be negating the will of Parliament which enacted the Statutes mentioning it. >>
In the absence of any sensible definition from you or anyone else, which
we haven't been regaled with, the dictionary definitions are uncontested
and will therefore be accepted. There is no reason why not, you see.
On the contrary, in this discussion it is only you who insists that legal >>>>> tender must be accepted at its face value in settlement of debt and so it is
up to you to explain why someone must do that to in order to avoid meeting
some penalty or other enforcement action.
It's inherent in any monetary system that coins and notes have the
values legitimately impressed on them.
Your repeatedly quoting
pronouncements on web sites and in dictionaries, and that all lack any legal
backing or enforceability, does not meet the test for their holding any >>>>> practical authority.
You must have missed the discussion about the monarch's proclamations in >>>> accordance with the law then.
I previously pointed to where and how legal tender is defined and made >>>>> enforceable in another jurisdiction, but nothing similar to that framework
exists in the UK. Those Royal Proclamations are no more than marketing >>>>> theatre produced for its own benefit by a commercial enterprise.
I suggest you read the Coinage Act 1971, especially Section 3(1) and an >>>> actual proclamation in respect of a £20 coin that I have linked to
earlier today. It has the full backing of the law.
Which law states that presentation of sufficient face value of UK Legal
Tender by a debtor extinguishes any further claims for payment by a UK
creditor?
It's axiomatic following from the definition of Legal Tender.
The only alternative is that the creditor can demand payment in any form
he may devise, including perhaps Koi carp.
Do you think that's the case? If not, why not?
Sorry Norman but you are now a stuck record.
You repeatedly assert that coins proclaimed to be Legal Tender must be accepted at face value and, in particular when presented by a debtor to a creditor, will extinguish the claims of the creditor against the debtor.
You do that without being able to point to any UK law, regulation or precedent and so, in the context of this particular newsgroup, without
basis. Repeatedly waving your Google searches, dictionary quotations and the marketing statements of the coin's manufacturer might earn you an accepting audience in some other forums but here and in the context of uk.legal.* you are merely howling into the night.
On 31/10/2023 14:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that'sIt's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
not as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint". >>>>
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes
them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that
respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from
legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
"Today, the Royal Mint is a limited company under the control of the
Treasury – the department responsible for developing and carrying out
the UK’s financial policies – and has an exclusive contract to supply
all of the country’s coins"
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/personal-finance/savings-investing/the-royal-mint-everything-you-need-to-know
Note that its activities are governed by 'contract'.
It wouldn't need a contract if it was acting autonomously.
And who, pray tell, are the parties to the contract. On one hand we
have The Royal Mint and on the other we have whom precisely?
Because your claim above, (still visible), is that The Royal Mint "just
makes them [coins] for the Bank of England" to "put... them into circulation".
Does your source support your claim that the Royal Mint makes coins for
the Bank of England and that the Bank of England puts coins into
circulation?
No need for a narrative answer, a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
I suggest to you that the answer is No.
I predict that you will avoid saying so in your reply and will don your symbolic leotard to perform whatever linguistic gymnastics you think are necessary to avoid admitting the obvious, which is that the Royal Mint
does not make coins for the Bank of England, nor does the Bank of
England put coins into circulation.
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE
figure.
"The Bank of England monitors and reports on these measures to assess
the overall money supply and its impact on the economy.
The main components of the money supply in the UK include:
M0: also known as the "narrow money" or the "central bank money,"
represents the most liquid forms of money. It includes physical
currency (banknotes and coins) in circulation issued by the Bank of
England".
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-makes-up-the-money-supply-in-the-uk-economy#:~:text=The%20Bank%20of%20England%20monitors,most%20liquid%20forms%20of%20money.
I'll take the word of the Bank of England and The Royal Mint over that
of a web-page of an on-line A-level Economics course of unknown
provenance, especially when the page itself admits that the majority of
its content is out-of-date. I assume you didn't read your source
material in its entirety in your haste to quote something that appeared
to support your position.
I respectfully draw to your attention the penultimate paragraph which
starts with the phrase, "It's worth noting that..." which can roughly be translated as "the goal posts have moved but we haven't updated our
course content to reflect these changes and are sticking with the above, despite knowing it is out-of-date."
Still, at least you quoted *something*. It doesn't support your points
and is clearly inaccurate, but you quoting something is progress so I
shall celebrate the progress, however small.
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the
coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender >>>>>>> as the Royal Mint which put the £20 indication on them, still
says they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with
regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's
something of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of
the abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly
not said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim
that I said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw
the claim and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
Well, you said above, in answer to my question how they were currency
or legal tender, 'The short answer is: they aren't'.
I see your poor comprehension skill have led you astray, again.
Allow me to clarify:
Q: "in what sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be"?
A: "They aren't."
The Royal Mint specifically state that they are not widely accepted and
are non-returnable. They are therefore not currency.
Moreover, on 19 October, you said here:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
It seems therefore that you're rather confused and don't actually know
what you're talking about.
Now you're saying legal tender does mean something, but won't say
what, even though the universal definition given in many, many
dictionaries, according to you, is wrong.
Very strange.
The confusion is all yours, I can assure you.
There is no doubt what constitutes legal tender. For example, the old
£1 coin in the centre console of my car is not legal tender as it has
been demonetised. (But it is useful for releasing trolleys at
supermarkets should this be required.) However, the,(dramatic pause
whilst I check the money in my pocket...) 11p of copper coins in my
pocket amongst the other coins is legal tender, as are the notes in my wallet. But the Euro notes in the "man drawer" at home are not legal tender.
Given any configuration of various notes and coins, it is possible to determine what is legal tender and what is not.
However, the point at issue remains, namely, what does this actually mean?
As I said in an earlier post to the thread, "I note we have reached the
stage in the discussion where you've worked yourself up into such a
frenzy that you are now throwing out wild statements with no basis in
fact merely in an attempt to score points and support whatever it is you
are trying to say. In my experience, it is typically around this point
that further discussion becomes impossible as you enter a cycle or
repeating yourself endlessly."
The £20 coins *are* legal tender *and* bear a currency value, which is
why I say someone must honour them if fraud somewhere along the line
is to be avoided.
And if you had a legal cite to support your claim that "someone must
honour them" what you say would might be worth something. However, as
it remains unsupported and unverified, it is worthless.
They should also accept proper legal tender such as £20 coins and,
even though they're not obliged to, I think the Bank of England has
a duty and an obligation to even if they pretend otherwise.
The BoE should accept them, at cost to itself, even though it is not
obliged to do so?
Yes, of course. It already accepts obsolete notes and coins,
including the old superseded £1 coins, and it clearly accepts its duty
to do so. What logical basis can it possibly have for not honouring
the nation's current *legal* tender?
The Bank of England accepts old £1 coins, does it? Cite please.
Granted, some banks and building societies accept them for payment into
an account, as will the Post Office in certain circumstances. But even
then one cannot walk up to the counter with an old £1 coin and exchange
it for a new one. And none of the above involves the Bank of England as
you have claimed. Compare and contrast this process for old £1 with
that for old banknotes. I shall award a "Norman Acquired Clue" point
for each difference you are able to identify between the two processes.
I recommend researching what happens to old £1 coins. Free Clue: it doesn't involve the Bank of England, but the Royal Mint figures heavily
in the process. Almost as if the Bank of England is responsible for
notes in circulation whilst The Royal Mint is responsible for the coins.
If only that had been made clear somewhere, eh?
Like say, for example, the Bank of England FAQ page [1], on which they
state: "We are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes. For information on coins, please visit Royal Mint."
But that's only the Bank of England's FAQ page. What do they know, eh? They're clearly wrong and you know better. You can't prove it, but
they're wrong and you know it and that's good enough for you so it
should be good enough for everyone else too.
Anyway, where do *you* suppose the banks and building societies who
accept old £1 coins as deposits send them in order to get them
converted into transferable money?
I don't need to suppose. I know the answer. That's the difference
between us. You rely on guess work and supposition. I speak from a position of knowledge and experience.
This might explain why your claims are frequently mistaken and demonstrably so.
Do you think it's the Royal Mint
<SFX: ding, ding ding> Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
And I don't "think", I know - big difference.
(in which case how and why?)
I could tell you the answer, but you'll learn more if you research it
for yourself.
You could do worse that start with this BBC article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45031769 which will tell you where
the banks sent the old £1 coins and what happened to them.
There's even a video from inside an establishment featuring an interview
with a spokesperson who says, "We've already withdrawn 1.2 billion of
the round pounds...".
Ask yourself: Was that video shot in the Bank of England or the Royal
Mint? (Free Clue: the video is in the Welsh section of the BBC site. Is
the Bank of England located in Wales? Where is The Royal Mint situated?)
or actually the Bank of England which routinely does that sort of thing?
The Bank of England does not "routinely" do anything with coins. They state: "We are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes." [1] That
they have anything to do with coins is a figment of your imagination
which you have repeated numerous times in an attempt to convince
yourself it is true. It remains as completely false now as it was when
you first said it and each time you repeat it you demonstrate that your
views on these matters are entirely mistaken and have no basis in
reality. Unfortunately, that does not prevent you repeating them ad nauseam.
The Bank of England are wrong. The Royal Mint are wrong. The BBC are wrong. You, and you alone, are correct.(!)
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency
value has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing
banks not to accept them.
The Royal Mint is a factory that makes them under contract.
I recommend reading, and it would be helpful in moving the discussion
forward if you made an effort to understand, the document I have
previously linked on the change in governance, structure, operation
and policy of TRM.
Doing so will, hopefully, disabuse you of many of the mistaken
notions, wrong ideas and incorrect statements you have made in this
thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, TRM is an Executive Agency [2].
No, not since 2009 actually. It's just a limited company.
I give to you the first sentence of the Strategic Report (page 7 of the
PDF) from The Royal Mint's Annual Report for 2022-2023 [2]:
"His Majesty's Treasury ('HM Treasury') owns 100% of the shares of
The Royal Mint Limited through an Executive Agency, the Royal Mint
Trading Fund."
The Royal Mint Limited is indeed a Limited company,. But 100% of its
shares are owned by the Royal Mint Trading Fund - an Executive Agency.
The Royal Mint is an Executive Agency, not "just a limited company", "actually". (It isn't even a single limited company, there are several
in the Royal Mint Group.)
Any other erroneous claims you'd like debunking or is there any chance
you might stop spouting easily disproved nonsense any time soon?
If you do not know or understand what that means, you could do worse
than read and understand this guidance document on Executive Agencies
[3].
No need since it isn't.
Yes, about that...
But what point were you trying to make anyway?
You see, above, I provided a source confirming the Royal Mint operates
under an exclusive contract to supply all of the country’s coins,
which was the point you seemed to be contesting but haven't established.
I see you've worked yourself into a tizzy (again!) and got yourself all confused (again!).
I stated that the Bank of England issues the country's banknotes whilst
The Royal Mint issues the coins, and have provided numerous reputable
cites that confirm this, with another to add to the pile in this post
from the Bank of England's FAQ page.
You claim that, and I'll quote verbatim to reduce wriggle room for your reply: "It [The Royal Mint] just makes them [coins] for the Bank of
England to do that [put them in circulation]". (I say "reduce" wriggle
room rather than "eliminate" as I fully expect more linguistic
gymnastics in your reply in which you'll attempt to prove that black is white, up is down and wrong is right).
However, your claim is clear: 'The Royal Mint just makes coins for the
Bank of England which puts them into circulation'. A similar claim you
made was that "All the Royal Mint does is make the coins to the BoE's
orders, just as De La Rue prints the notes."
In support of this claim, you have provided a quote a firm of middle-men
that recommend financial advisers to members of the public and an
A-Level Economics course, which admits its content is out-of-date. Unfortunately for you, neither source confirms your claim that The Royal
Mint 'just makes coins for the Bank of England' nor that it is 'the Bank
of England that puts coins in circulation."
The principal is the party that 'issues' them and, I say, is
responsible for any after care.
I concur.
And respectfully draw to your attention, though not for the first
time, the second sentence from the BoE's page on notes and banknotes
[4], namely:
"Coins are manufactured and issued by the Royal Mint."
Note: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint" (emphasis mine).
They are *made* by the Royal Mint *under contract*. I suppose to
someone whose grasp of English may not be all it might be that may
indicate that they are 'issued' by it, but that is not anyway
significant. It just makes them to order, no more and no less. The
Treasury, or the Bank of England working in conjunction with the
Treasury, as it does, is the contracting party which dictates how much
and how many, so as to satisfy the policy imperatives of the M0 part
of money supply for which they are responsible. The Royal Mint has no
responsibility to anyone except its contractors, ie the Treasury or
the Bank. And that's why it says it won't exchange coins with the
general public.
Woah, woah, woah! Stop right there, Norman! Put the goal posts down and back away from them.
I cannot begin to imagine how disappointing it must be to be proven
wrong so frequently but I can understand how this might make one
desperate to prevent it happening (again!)
However, don't think for a second that you can suddenly slip "HM
Treasury" into the discussion without me noticing and pretend that all previous references to "the Bank of England" can now be substituted with
"HM Treasury" as if that's what you'd meant all along.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM
issued NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Actually, the answer *is* the same to both, and is correct.
It is sad duty to inform you that, despite having given you every
clue necessary to answer the questions correctly, you have failed in
this task and, despite your mistaken belief that your answer is
correct, you are, in fact, (and equally sadly not for the first
time), completely mistaken on the matter.
The unambiguous statement on the BoE's own web-site states, as noted
above: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint". [4].
When made under contract, that is plainly misleading to anyone seeking
precision. But it's of no significance unless it's deliberately
trying to shift its own responsibility for the money supply.
"We, [the Bank of England], are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes."
Here is a link to The Royal Mint's overview of how new coins are
circulated. [3]
Please quote the section from that page that details any involvement
from the Bank of England as you had previously claimed.
The answer is the Bank of England which is in charge of the nation's
money supply and the entire currency. All the Royal Mint does is
make the coins to the BoE's orders, just as De La Rue prints the
notes. Neither of those 'issues' them as if they have autonomy to do
so. They don't.
I recommend researching a matter before issuing proclamations as
one's credibility may be dented if one continually makes statement of
fact that are demonstrably wrong.
I think you need to do the demonstrating of that. And you haven't.
You may find that difficult, though, as what I said is correct.
The BoE *does not* order The Royal Mint to make coins.
The Royal Mint is not equivalent to De La Rue.
That you think so demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of
the matter.
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the
NCLT to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a
letter from TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be
seen by all, instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on
acceptable cites still apply.)
Legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered
in payment of a debt'. The only alternative you've offered is that
it doesn't mean anything at all. Which is absurd.
It is my sad duty to inform you that your dictionary definition does
not accord with legislation which has been both cited and quoted in
the thread and is therefore of no relevance whatsoever in a *legal*
newsgroup. (AUE is still over there though ----->)
There is no such legislation that proves your point.
I have cited or quoted the legislation at least six times. Courts do
not accept cash, including legal tender, except in very, very limited circumstances.
If courts do not have to accept legal tender if offered
in payment of a debt then there is no "*must* be accepted" and the
definition fails.
I acknowledge that this truth is uncomfortable for you as it completely defeats the entire foundation upon which you have built your argument in
this thread, but a truth does not become false just because it is uncomfortable for Norman Wells.
Since you disagree with universally accepted definitions of the term
'legal tender', it falls to you to define it in another substantiated
way, which you have conspicuously avoided so far. Will you at last do
so please?
Given that you have quoted from my post of the 19th October several
times, I find it astonishing that you attempt to claim that I have "conspicuously avoided" "to define it [legal tender] in another
substantiated way".
Another example of you going to extreme lengths to try and prove your
point regardless of the facts again ably demonstrating the pointlessness
of attempting to continue the discussion with you.
I ask again: "Do you have a cite for that please?"
How many more definitions, all in agreement with one another, do you
need? I must have given you at least 8 already.
You don't have a cite. Thanks for admitting it, at last. Wow, you are hard work sometimes. (Ed: pretty much all the time, surely?)
No, 'issues' is just vague and sloppy writing by someone trying to
write a simple, publicly accessible website of no legal significance
and understandably unwilling or unable to explain detailed matters of
contract and responsibility.
Ah, I see. The Bank of England's web-site is "vague and sloppy
writing... of no legal significance" but the dictionary definitions upon which you have based your arguments are so precise and accurate they are
able to supplant the legislation that contradicts them.(!)
On 03/11/2023 09:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/10/2023 09:59, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 10:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 09:28, Reentrant wrote:
"In response to your enquiry we are merely citing a well
established principle of English law that a debtor will have a
good defence to a claim for non-payment, if the debtor in
accordance with the terms of the contract (including terms
permitting payment in legal tender) has paid the exact sum owing
to the creditor in legal tender."
What do you think that means?
It means that a debtor can pay in coins and notes that must be
accepted if offered to pay off the debt.
Cite please to either the legislation or case law in which this was
established.
It is so well established and so stunningly obvious that it has even
become the standard and universal dictionary definition of legal tender.
I note that your confusion between uk.legal.moderated and
alt.usage.english persists.
In one of those places, dictionary definitions and the likes of Strunk
and White are authorities. In the other, legislation and case law
prevail.
If there is any on the particular point, which you have conspicuously
failed to identify and quote.
Since you disagree with all the plain dictionary definitions of the expression, which are all in complete agreement, it is for *you* to give
your alternative definition *and* to support it.
Please do so.
If it is as "well established" and as "stunningly obvious" as you
claim, you'll have no difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant
legislation or any one of the no doubt innumerable cases in which the
principle was used.
Absent either of those, it is clear that it is neither legally "well
established" nor "stunningly obvious".
That's a non-sequitur. The courts have not answered every question
under the sun, nor do they need to where there can be no dispute, as
here where the meaning is clearly that set out in dictionaries of the
English language.
As you are unable to provide the requested cite, your claim remains
legally unsubstantiated.
You have provided no alternative definition. You have no alternative,
let alone any reason why any you may have should supplant the clear
accepted meaning of the term in ordinary English.
There is no case law to say the sun will rise tomorrow, or that grass
is green. Your reliance on it even to tell you the simplest things
that are baseline knowledge is astonishing.
Neither the motion of the planets nor the effects of chlorophyll in
photosynthesis are regulated by UK law.
The point remains.
However, both contracts and debt are regulated by UK law and as your
claim that the use to which legal tender can be put must be covered by
one of both of these, as I've stated above, you should have no
difficulty whatsoever in citing relevant legislation or any one of the
no doubt innumerable cases in which the principle was used.
Failing that, I suggest that, not only is your claim not supported in
law, but legislation exists which proves it to be mistaken.
Yes, I know you don't agree with that,
That's because it doesn't exist and is not mistaken. You haven't quoted what you apparently rely on simply by proclaiming it is so.
but it is what it is whether you acknowledge it or not.
And both of those will need to be post 2011 to overrule Part 2 of
The Court Funds Rules 2011 [1] which clearly show that the courts do
not accept cash, even if in the form of "legal tender", as payment
into court for a debt, or indeed anything, unless one doesn't have a
current account and possibly other limiting circumstances apply.
The Court is not the creditor. The debtor is not in debt to the
Court. He is in debt to the creditor. It is the creditor who must
accept legal tender if offered in settlement of the debt.
I respectfully refer you back to the earlier discussion on the defence
of tender before claim and the necessary elements thereof. If you've
forgotten, were not paying attention or didn't understand what was
being said, I'll post a summary below.
What the courts will accept is not the same as what a creditor is
obliged to accept if offered in payment of a debt.
The courts are operating what is simply an escrow account.
In any case, as you say below, the courts do accept 'cash' in certain instances, and it would be immoral and inconsistent if it didn't accept
the same form of payment from anyone else if insisted upon. If it can,
that can only be because it is not the creditor and can therefore refuse
to accept any form of payment if it doesn't want to. It is someone
else's debt to a third party, not to itself.
Anyway, 'cash' is not synonymous with 'legal tender' and your discussion
has no bearing on the latter.
That's why it is totally irrelevant what monies the Court will accept.
It is highly relevant. You are mistaken.
Well, so you proclaim from on high, but with no substantiation whatsoever.
In any case, you say above that the Courts do sometimes accept cash,
that presumably being in legal tender.
Legislation dictates that the court will only accept cash from people
that do not have a current account. If one has a current account, the
legislation states that the court does not need to accept cash, legal
tender or otherwise. They're not going to say, "We'll accept £10 in
50p but not £15." Rather should they say, "We do not accept cash from
people without a current account." there is precisely zero that can be
done about it as their position is supported in law.
This is an unambiguous and unequivocal situation proving that your
statement claiming that legal tender means "a debtor can pay in coins
and notes that must be accepted if offered to pay off the debt" is
nonsensical. The court do not accept it. There is no "must" and this
word is the source of the sentence's power.
Not so. It is not payment to pay off the debt. It is payment to a
third party escrow account that may or may not eventually be passed on
to the creditor. It is payment on account in order to protect the
debtor's position at law.
"Legal tender means a debtor can pay in notes and coins that might,
will probably, could, should, etc. be accepted if offered to pay off
the debt" doesn't really cut it.
That's why all the dictionary definitions say it *must*.
The fact that the courts set rules about the circumstances in which
they will accept cash prove that is nonsense to claim that it *must*
be accepted to pay off the debt, since one of the reasons detailed
in the legislation cited covers making a payment into court to avail
of the defence of tender before claim.
In short, I've cited relevant legislation which demonstrates your
claim to be false. Either quote more recent legislation or case law
that overrides this or your (legally) unsupported claim fails.
Payment into Court is not payment made to the creditor.
Let us take the example that started this thread:
The debtor (D) draws petrol and then goes to the petrol station kiosk
to pay them (C) for the petrol D has placed in his car. D proffers
his £20 coin and C refuses to accept it. C invites D to pay by
another means. D refuses as D believes C must accept the £20 coin as
it is legal tender. C invites D to complete their "No Means to Pay"
form. D refuses as D insists he has a means to pay but C will not
accept it. C call the police who inform C it is a civil matter unless
and until D leaves the premises without having paid. All sides agree
a stalemate has occurred because C will not accept the £20 coin and D
will not proffer an alternative means of payment, nor will D leave
until payment is accepted whereupon, acknowledging the stalemate, C
permits D to leave the premises on the understanding that C will
pursue D for the outstanding amount.
D does not have to accept stalemate. He is perfectly in the right. He created a debt with the petrol station by filling up his car. He
offered payment to settle that debt using legal tender that all of the definitions of that term say *must* be accepted in such circumstances.
The petrol station had no right to refuse his offer, nor would the
police have had any cause to act against him. He was not obliged to
remain or complete any silly form such as you suggest. He had the means
to pay. He had offered it in legal tender.
By refusal to accept the legal tender offered to settle his debt, and in
the absence of any conspicuous signs that such would not be accepted by
the petrol station before he created the debt, I say that repudiates the debt. Why should the debtor be made to jump through whatever artificial hoops the petrol station might devise? Should he have to pay in Koi
carp if that's what they demand? If not, why not?
C has D on CCTV and use that to obtain D's details and follow the
pre-action protocol inviting D to pay the outstanding amount of £20 in
a way that is acceptable to C,
What right do they have to demand payment in any particular way if that
is not specified conspicuously in advance? The whole point of legal
tender, in full accordance with the accepted dictionary definitions, is
that legal tender provides a means of payment that is beyond dispute and
must be accepted if offered. The only logical corollary is that if it
is refused the debt is repudiated. 'No I don't want your money' is what
it amounts to.
including bank transfer, debit / credit card, fuel card or cash whilst
stipulating that, again, they do not accept NCLT as a form of
payment. C's letter to D states that if the full amount is not paid
within 28 days of the date of the letter then C will commence legal
action against D without further correspondence for a court order
requiring payment and that the cost of any legal proceedings and any
other amounts the court orders must be paid will be added to the
debt. Additionally, the letter states that it is being sent in
accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PDPAC)
contained in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) [1] which stipulate that
D should acknowledge receipt of C's letter within 14 days and that the
court has the power to sanction D should he fail to respond.
They can threaten what they like. But it doesn't mean they have a case
in law.
D writes back offering to attend C's premises and pay with the £20
coin previously tendered.
There's no reason at all why he should do that. Why should he be
obliged to?
C responds reminding D that they have previously stated that they do
not accept NCLT as payment and with no further communication or
payment from D, at the expiration of the 28 days, C issues against D.
Fine. You can never guard against being sued even by someone wihtout
any justification.
At this point, D's main options are:
(1) Avail of the defence of tender before claim which will require D
to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 37.2 which requires D to make a
payment into court of the amount D says was tendered. As D has a bank
account, the court will not accept cash from D so he will need to pay
either by personal cheque or by electronic means, failing which D
cannot rely on the defence until payment is made;
No need. That would acknowledge an ongoing debt which D considers no
longer exists.
(2) File a defence other than tender before claim. Feel free to draft
whatever defence you think appropriate in the circumstances but, as
would be expected by the court, your defence should include reference
to the legislation or case law upon which you are basing your defence;
It's all as above. The debt has been repudiated by the petrol station refusing to accept settlement of the debt in legal tender.
(3) Make an offer to settle; or
No need. The debt has been repudiated.
(4) Ignore the claim.
Working through those in order, (1) still leaves D with his £20 coin
so D's insistence on using it to pay for fuel has failed. Similarly,
should an order be made in C's favour for options 2 and 4, or as a
condition of option 3, C can request that the payment be made into
court rather than direct to C again leaving D with his £20 coin, and
potentially a not insignificant costs order should he use anything
other than option 1.
He should simply claim that the refusal of his offer of settlement that
had to be accepted cancelled the debt.
Before you respond, I will remind you that I have used the defence of
tender before claim and therefore know how the procedure works first
hand so please do not expect me to entertain any fanciful notions from
you or claims about the matter which have no basis in fact or in law.
There is no need for him to go down that route at all. There is no outstanding debt to be paid by any means.
Similarly, you have previously made reference to a defence of "No
debt.". Unless you have some impressive cites with which to support
that claim, any suggestion of using such a defence under option 2 will
result in judgment for C and a costs order, to be paid into court.
So you say, but once again from on high with no substantiation.
*Why* is the debt not repudiated by refusal of payment in a form all the references we've seen here in this thread agree *must* be accepted if offered? What do *you* say are the consequences if it is refused?
If you think I'm biased and that isn't what would happen at all, I am
happy to defer to the opinion of a neutral legally qualified member of
the group. Francis Davey, a qualified barrister, has previously
posted here on the matter of the defence of tender before claim and
legal tender and I respect and trust anything he would have had to say
on the matter so am happy to defer to his professionally qualified
opinion. If you have someone equally qualified in mind, please let me
know.
Well, rather than just bandy names around, you'd better quote him, or
what you say has no significance..
Alternatively, I have a colleague that is a JP and some acquaintances
that are District Judges that I can ask for their professional
opinion, but they don't post here, so I would have to provide an
overview of anything they had to say no the matter. In any event,
we've long since passed the point where your posts stating what you
"think", "believe" and / or "understand..." are going to cut it.
Why can't *you* just define what *you* think legal tender is and means, backed up of course by any legislation and case law you can find?
On 12/11/2023 23:29, Norman Wells wrote:
Why can't *you* just define what *you* think legal tender is and
means, backed up of course by any legislation and case law you can find?
Courts may well take some account of dictionary definitions in the
absence of any other guidance/. But since the Bank of England have
clearly stated that legal tender only needs be accepted for debts if the contract specifically says so, that would surely take precedence.
Also, since neither the Court Funds Office (for debts) or any other
courts (for fines etc*) accept cash in any form, never mind
commemorative LT coins, surely no court would rule that a private
individual must accept it because of what some dictionary says.
* <https://www.gov.uk/pay-court-fine-online>
On 15/11/2023 12:29, Reentrant wrote:
On 12/11/2023 23:29, Norman Wells wrote:
Why can't *you* just define what *you* think legal tender is and
means, backed up of course by any legislation and case law you can find?
Courts may well take some account of dictionary definitions in the
absence of any other guidance/. But since the Bank of England have
clearly stated that legal tender only needs be accepted for debts if
the contract specifically says so, that would surely take precedence.
No. The courts will take all arguments into consideration and decide if necessary between them.
On 03/11/2023 10:33, Simon Parker wrote:
On 31/10/2023 14:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/10/2023 11:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/10/2023 00:15, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/10/2023 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/10/2023 11:54, Simon Parker wrote:
Tangentially, I'm going to stick with calling them NCLT as that'sIt's not obliged to exchange *any* coins it produces. It is not
not as much to type as "Commemorative Coins issued by The Royal Mint". >>>>>
responsible for putting any of them into circulation. It just makes >>>>> them for the Bank of England to do that. It has no autonomy in that >>>>> respect.
Do you have a cite for that claim please? Preferably either from
legislation for from the BoE or TRM?
"Today, the Royal Mint is a limited company under the control of the
Treasury the department responsible for developing and carrying out
the UKs financial policies and has an exclusive contract to supply
all of the countrys coins"
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/personal-finance/savings-investing/the-royal-mint-everything-you-need-to-know
Note that its activities are governed by 'contract'.
It wouldn't need a contract if it was acting autonomously.
And who, pray tell, are the parties to the contract. On one hand we
have The Royal Mint and on the other we have whom precisely?
Because your claim above, (still visible), is that The Royal Mint "just
makes them [coins] for the Bank of England" to "put... them into
circulation".
The exact identity doesn't matter. It will be either the Treasury or
the Bank of England which is owned by the Treasury.
Wikipedia says:
"Operating under the legal name The Royal Mint Limited, it is a limited company that is wholly owned by His Majesty's Treasury and is under an exclusive contract to supply the nation's coinage".
The Bank of England alone is responsible for money supply in the UK
including the measure M0 which comprises 'sterling notes *and coin*
[emphasis added] in circulation outside the Bank of England (including
those held in banks' and building societies' tills), and banks
operational deposits with the Bank of England'.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/details/further-details-about-m0-data#:~:text=week%20in%20arrears.-,Definitions,with%20the%20Bank%20of%20England.
It has jurisdiction over the amount of notes *and coins* in circulation.
The Royal Mint doesn't. It just makes them under orders, not off its
own bat. It does not have responsibility for M0.
Does your source support your claim that the Royal Mint makes coins for
the Bank of England and that the Bank of England puts coins into
circulation?
No need for a narrative answer, a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
I suggest to you that the answer is No.
Well, you're wrong.
I predict that you will avoid saying so in your reply and will don your
symbolic leotard to perform whatever linguistic gymnastics you think are
necessary to avoid admitting the obvious, which is that the Royal Mint
does not make coins for the Bank of England, nor does the Bank of
England put coins into circulation.
Do you really think the Royal Mint can on its own decide just to make as
many coins as it likes and flood the UK economy with them?
I've previously quoted the pages from the BoE wherein they make clear
that they, (the BoE), are responsible for *banknotes* and TRM are
responsible for *coins*. TRM also detail the mechanism by which they
get coins into circulation and nowhere in that process does the BoE
figure.
"The Bank of England monitors and reports on these measures to assess
the overall money supply and its impact on the economy.
The main components of the money supply in the UK include:
M0: also known as the "narrow money" or the "central bank money,"
represents the most liquid forms of money. It includes physical
currency (banknotes and coins) in circulation issued by the Bank of
England".
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-makes-up-the-money-supply-in-the-uk-economy#:~:text=The%20Bank%20of%20England%20monitors,most%20liquid%20forms%20of%20money.
I'll take the word of the Bank of England and The Royal Mint over that
of a web-page of an on-line A-level Economics course of unknown
provenance, especially when the page itself admits that the majority of
its content is out-of-date. I assume you didn't read your source
material in its entirety in your haste to quote something that appeared
to support your position.
I see you've resorted yet again to kicking the source rather than what
it says, especially when what it says is in no way incompatible with the
Bank of England.
I respectfully draw to your attention the penultimate paragraph which
starts with the phrase, "It's worth noting that..." which can roughly be
translated as "the goal posts have moved but we haven't updated our
course content to reflect these changes and are sticking with the above,
despite knowing it is out-of-date."
Kicking the source rather than dealing with the substance is not exactly persuasive.
Still, at least you quoted *something*. It doesn't support your points
and is clearly inaccurate, but you quoting something is progress so I
shall celebrate the progress, however small.
Thank you. Would you like to deal with the substance now please?
Which brings is nicely to your question: "in what sense are the >>>>>>>> coins even currency as they purport to be, let alone legal tender >>>>>>>> as the Royal Mint which put the 20 indication on them, still
says they are?"
The short answer is: they aren't.
Oh, yes, they are.
And all you need do now is provide a legal cite, (that is either
legislation or case law), proving what legal obligations exist with >>>>>> regard to legal tender.
Well, it's nice that you now seem to accept at last that they are
legal tender as I said.
I have never said that NCLT are not legal tender and there's
something of a huge clue to that effect in the last two letters of
the abbreviation I've used consistently throughout the thread.
As you are claiming that I have said something that I have clearly
not said, I would like you to cite the Message-ID in which your claim
that I said it is supported. Alternatively, I ask that you withdraw
the claim and make clear you were mistaken when you made it.
Well, you said above, in answer to my question how they were currency
or legal tender, 'The short answer is: they aren't'.
I see your poor comprehension skill have led you astray, again.
Allow me to clarify:
Q: "in what sense are the coins even currency as they purport to be"?
A: "They aren't."
The Royal Mint specifically state that they are not widely accepted and
are non-returnable. They are therefore not currency.
On the other hand, the monarch's legal proclamation under the Coinage
Act 1971 says it shall be legal tender for the payment of any amount in
any part of our United Kingdom.
Sounds a bit like being currency to me whatever the Royal Mint tries to
spin. Looks just like it too.
Moreover, on 19 October, you said here:
"I have come to the conclusion, having had another day's worth of
caffeine and a sleep, that it [legal tender] doesn't actually mean
anything".
It seems therefore that you're rather confused and don't actually know
what you're talking about.
Now you're saying legal tender does mean something, but won't say
what, even though the universal definition given in many, many
dictionaries, according to you, is wrong.
Very strange.
The confusion is all yours, I can assure you.
There is no doubt what constitutes legal tender. For example, the old
1 coin in the centre console of my car is not legal tender as it has
been demonetised. (But it is useful for releasing trolleys at
supermarkets should this be required.) However, the,(dramatic pause
whilst I check the money in my pocket...) 11p of copper coins in my
pocket amongst the other coins is legal tender, as are the notes in my
wallet. But the Euro notes in the "man drawer" at home are not legal
tender.
Given any configuration of various notes and coins, it is possible to
determine what is legal tender and what is not.
However, the point at issue remains, namely, what does this actually mean?
Well, why don't you tell us? You see, all the dictionaries agree with
one another, and you have given nothing whatsoever to say they're wrong.
Maybe there's a reason for that.
As I said in an earlier post to the thread, "I note we have reached the
stage in the discussion where you've worked yourself up into such a
frenzy that you are now throwing out wild statements with no basis in
fact merely in an attempt to score points and support whatever it is you
are trying to say. In my experience, it is typically around this point
that further discussion becomes impossible as you enter a cycle or
repeating yourself endlessly."
Ad homs do not an argument make.
The 20 coins *are* legal tender *and* bear a currency value, which is
why I say someone must honour them if fraud somewhere along the line
is to be avoided.
And if you had a legal cite to support your claim that "someone must
honour them" what you say would might be worth something. However, as
it remains unsupported and unverified, it is worthless.
It's a clear case of fraud. If no-one will honour them they are
counterfeits being made to look for all the world like coins, and being passed off as such.
They should also accept proper legal tender such as 20 coins and,
even though they're not obliged to, I think the Bank of England has
a duty and an obligation to even if they pretend otherwise.
The BoE should accept them, at cost to itself, even though it is not
obliged to do so?
Yes, of course. It already accepts obsolete notes and coins,
including the old superseded 1 coins, and it clearly accepts its duty
to do so. What logical basis can it possibly have for not honouring
the nation's current *legal* tender?
The Bank of England accepts old 1 coins, does it? Cite please.
Where do *you* think deposits in pound coins accepted by banks and
building societies go? Do you think they just hoard them? Or do they
seek some sort of exchange for 'real' money through the banking system,
ie at the apex from the Bank of England?
The Royal Mint is out of the game. It says it 'does not accept the
return of UK coins from members of the public or individual businesses directly. Only UK coins that meet the technical specifications set out
to UK banks can be returned via the UK banking system', which of course
is fully in accord with them producing the coins under contract to the
BoE. It has no responsibility to anyone other than their contractors.
Granted, some banks and building societies accept them for payment into
an account, as will the Post Office in certain circumstances. But even
then one cannot walk up to the counter with an old 1 coin and exchange
it for a new one. And none of the above involves the Bank of England as
you have claimed. Compare and contrast this process for old 1 with
that for old banknotes. I shall award a "Norman Acquired Clue" point
for each difference you are able to identify between the two processes.
I recommend researching what happens to old 1 coins. Free Clue: it
doesn't involve the Bank of England, but the Royal Mint figures heavily
in the process. Almost as if the Bank of England is responsible for
notes in circulation whilst The Royal Mint is responsible for the coins.
If only that had been made clear somewhere, eh?
You'll have to support what you simply declare, I'm afraid. I'm not
going to make your points for you, if indeed you have any.
Like say, for example, the Bank of England FAQ page [1], on which they
state: "We are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes. For
information on coins, please visit Royal Mint."
But that's only the Bank of England's FAQ page. What do they know, eh?
They're clearly wrong and you know better. You can't prove it, but
they're wrong and you know it and that's good enough for you so it
should be good enough for everyone else too.
I can't find that exact quote where you say.
Anyway, where do *you* suppose the banks and building societies who
accept old 1 coins as deposits send them in order to get them
converted into transferable money?
I don't need to suppose. I know the answer. That's the difference
between us. You rely on guess work and supposition. I speak from a
position of knowledge and experience.
Of course you do.
This might explain why your claims are frequently mistaken and demonstrably so.
Do you think it's the Royal Mint
<SFX: ding, ding ding> Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
And I don't "think", I know - big difference.
(in which case how and why?)
I could tell you the answer, but you'll learn more if you research it
for yourself.
Yes, of course. But it's your point, and therefore for you to make, if
you can.
You could do worse that start with this BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45031769 which will tell you where
the banks sent the old 1 coins and what happened to them.
There's even a video from inside an establishment featuring an interview
with a spokesperson who says, "We've already withdrawn 1.2 billion of
the round pounds...".
Ask yourself: Was that video shot in the Bank of England or the Royal
Mint? (Free Clue: the video is in the Welsh section of the BBC site. Is
the Bank of England located in Wales? Where is The Royal Mint situated?)
The Royal Mint is not part of the UK's banking system. The Bank of
England is. It is the latter which accepts old and obsolete coins and converts them into numbers in the sender's bank account. When it has
enough, it sends them to the Royal Mint, presumably under another
contract, to melt them down. It does not have crucibles and smelters of
its own, so it needs a contractor to do that. The Royal Mint does not reimburse the banks directly as far as I'm aware, but could only do that under the direct authority of the Bank of England. Anyway, why should
it? It didn't profit by 1 for every coin it produced under contract,
did it, so why should it be responsible for any reimbursement?
or actually the Bank of England which routinely does that sort of thing?
The Bank of England does not "routinely" do anything with coins. They
state: "We are only responsible for Bank of England banknotes." [1] That
they have anything to do with coins is a figment of your imagination
which you have repeated numerous times in an attempt to convince
yourself it is true. It remains as completely false now as it was when
you first said it and each time you repeat it you demonstrate that your
views on these matters are entirely mistaken and have no basis in
reality. Unfortunately, that does not prevent you repeating them ad
nauseam.
I suggest you look up who is responsible for the money supply in the UK,
in particular the M0 measure.
It is not the Royal Mint, in case that helps.
The Bank of England are wrong. The Royal Mint are wrong. The BBC are
wrong. You, and you alone, are correct.(!)
No, it's just your faulty interpretation of what they say.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that NCLT bear a currency
value has not precluded the issuing authority from instructing
banks not to accept them.
The Royal Mint is a factory that makes them under contract.
I recommend reading, and it would be helpful in moving the discussion
forward if you made an effort to understand, the document I have
previously linked on the change in governance, structure, operation
and policy of TRM.
Doing so will, hopefully, disabuse you of many of the mistaken
notions, wrong ideas and incorrect statements you have made in this
thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, TRM is an Executive Agency [2].
No, not since 2009 actually. It's just a limited company.
I give to you the first sentence of the Strategic Report (page 7 of the
PDF) from The Royal Mint's Annual Report for 2022-2023 [2]:
"His Majesty's Treasury ('HM Treasury') owns 100% of the shares of
The Royal Mint Limited through an Executive Agency, the Royal Mint
Trading Fund."
The Royal Mint Limited is indeed a Limited company,. But 100% of its
shares are owned by the Royal Mint Trading Fund - an Executive Agency.
The Royal Mint is an Executive Agency, not "just a limited company",
"actually". (It isn't even a single limited company, there are several
in the Royal Mint Group.)
Any other erroneous claims you'd like debunking or is there any chance
you might stop spouting easily disproved nonsense any time soon?
The Royal Mint that makes the coins is a limited company set up, if it
can, to make a profit from the manufacturing contracts it can secure. It
is not an Executive Agency, nor is it 'the Treasury' which ultimately
owns it. It is what it is, not what its owners are.
If you do not know or understand what that means, you could do worse
than read and understand this guidance document on Executive Agencies
[3].
No need since it isn't.
Yes, about that...
But what point were you trying to make anyway?
You see, above, I provided a source confirming the Royal Mint operates
under an exclusive contract to supply all of the countrys coins,
which was the point you seemed to be contesting but haven't established.
I see you've worked yourself into a tizzy (again!) and got yourself all
confused (again!).
I stated that the Bank of England issues the country's banknotes whilst
The Royal Mint issues the coins, and have provided numerous reputable
cites that confirm this, with another to add to the pile in this post
from the Bank of England's FAQ page.
You claim that, and I'll quote verbatim to reduce wriggle room for your
reply: "It [The Royal Mint] just makes them [coins] for the Bank of
England to do that [put them in circulation]". (I say "reduce" wriggle
room rather than "eliminate" as I fully expect more linguistic
gymnastics in your reply in which you'll attempt to prove that black is
white, up is down and wrong is right).
There's no need. I stand by everything I said.
However, your claim is clear: 'The Royal Mint just makes coins for the
Bank of England which puts them into circulation'. A similar claim you
made was that "All the Royal Mint does is make the coins to the BoE's
orders, just as De La Rue prints the notes."
Yes.
In support of this claim, you have provided a quote a firm of middle-men
that recommend financial advisers to members of the public and an
A-Level Economics course, which admits its content is out-of-date.
Unfortunately for you, neither source confirms your claim that The Royal
Mint 'just makes coins for the Bank of England' nor that it is 'the Bank
of England that puts coins in circulation."
The Bank of England, not the Royal Mint, controls and is responsible for
the money supply in the UK, coins as well as notes. The Royal Mint has
no autonomy or power in this. It merely makes and distributes what it
is told.
The principal is the party that 'issues' them and, I say, is
responsible for any after care.
I concur.
And respectfully draw to your attention, though not for the first
time, the second sentence from the BoE's page on notes and banknotes
[4], namely:
"Coins are manufactured and issued by the Royal Mint."
Note: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint" (emphasis mine).
They are *made* by the Royal Mint *under contract*. I suppose to
someone whose grasp of English may not be all it might be that may
indicate that they are 'issued' by it, but that is not anyway
significant. It just makes them to order, no more and no less. The
Treasury, or the Bank of England working in conjunction with the
Treasury, as it does, is the contracting party which dictates how much
and how many, so as to satisfy the policy imperatives of the M0 part
of money supply for which they are responsible. The Royal Mint has no
responsibility to anyone except its contractors, ie the Treasury or
the Bank. And that's why it says it won't exchange coins with the
general public.
Woah, woah, woah! Stop right there, Norman! Put the goal posts down and
back away from them.
I cannot begin to imagine how disappointing it must be to be proven
wrong so frequently but I can understand how this might make one
desperate to prevent it happening (again!)
However, don't think for a second that you can suddenly slip "HM
Treasury" into the discussion without me noticing and pretend that all
previous references to "the Bank of England" can now be substituted with
"HM Treasury" as if that's what you'd meant all along.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
They act in concert. The Treasury makes the policy, the Bank of England
acts in accordance with it, doing all the practical stuff, like
regulating the money supply, ie coins as well as notes.
But the banks have been instructed by TRM not to accept TRM
issued NCLT.
TRM has no authority for such 'instruction'.
Oh dear!
A couple of questions on which you would do well to reflect:
Which organisation issues banknotes?
Which organisation issues coins?
If your answer to both questions is the same, you have one of the
answers wrong.
Actually, the answer *is* the same to both, and is correct.
It is sad duty to inform you that, despite having given you every
clue necessary to answer the questions correctly, you have failed in
this task and, despite your mistaken belief that your answer is
correct, you are, in fact, (and equally sadly not for the first
time), completely mistaken on the matter.
The unambiguous statement on the BoE's own web-site states, as noted
above: "Coins are... *issued* by the Royal Mint". [4].
When made under contract, that is plainly misleading to anyone seeking
precision. But it's of no significance unless it's deliberately
trying to shift its own responsibility for the money supply.
"We, [the Bank of England], are only responsible for Bank of England
banknotes."
That's imprecise. 'Responsible' in what way?
Here is a link to The Royal Mint's overview of how new coins are
circulated. [3]
Please quote the section from that page that details any involvement
from the Bank of England as you had previously claimed.
The Royal Mint is a limited company. It can't just make and push any
number and value of coins into the UK economy. That's the Bank of
England's responsibility. If the Mint was allowed to do so, it would
have a licence to, er, 'print' money.
The answer is the Bank of England which is in charge of the nation's >>>>> money supply and the entire currency. All the Royal Mint does is
make the coins to the BoE's orders, just as De La Rue prints the
notes. Neither of those 'issues' them as if they have autonomy to do >>>>> so. They don't.
I recommend researching a matter before issuing proclamations as
one's credibility may be dented if one continually makes statement of
fact that are demonstrably wrong.
I think you need to do the demonstrating of that. And you haven't.
You may find that difficult, though, as what I said is correct.
The BoE *does not* order The Royal Mint to make coins.
The Royal Mint is not equivalent to De La Rue.
That you think so demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of
the matter.
Strange that you don't seem able to support any of your
counter-arguments with facts.
You've had references to show that the Bank of England is responsible
for the UK's money supply, including coins, and that the Royal Mint has
an exclusive contract to supply the nation's coinage, but you don't seem
able to accept or understand that, or be able to counter it.
<ad homs snipped>
Are you seriously suggesting that the banks have to accept the >>>>>>>> NCLT to discharge a debt despite them being in receipt of a
letter from TRM, a copy of which has been published and can be >>>>>>>> seen by all, instructing them not to accept NCLT?
Yes. It's the function of legal tender.
Is it? Do you have a cite for that please? (Above rules on
acceptable cites still apply.)
Legal tender is 'coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered >>>>> in payment of a debt'. The only alternative you've offered is that
it doesn't mean anything at all. Which is absurd.
It is my sad duty to inform you that your dictionary definition does
not accord with legislation which has been both cited and quoted in
the thread and is therefore of no relevance whatsoever in a *legal*
newsgroup. (AUE is still over there though ----->)
There is no such legislation that proves your point.
I have cited or quoted the legislation at least six times. Courts do
not accept cash, including legal tender, except in very, very limited
circumstances.
So, they do and can accept cash, even if they prefer not to.
If courts do not have to accept legal tender if offered
in payment of a debt then there is no "*must* be accepted" and the
definition fails.
The courts are not accepting it in payment of a debt, to which they are
not a party, but merely to set up an escrow account, in which case I
guess they can pick and choose a bit, just as long as they don't deny anyone's access to justice.
I acknowledge that this truth is uncomfortable for you as it completely
defeats the entire foundation upon which you have built your argument in
this thread, but a truth does not become false just because it is
uncomfortable for Norman Wells.
Ad homs aside ...
Since you disagree with universally accepted definitions of the term
'legal tender', it falls to you to define it in another substantiated
way, which you have conspicuously avoided so far. Will you at last do
so please?
Given that you have quoted from my post of the 19th October several
times, I find it astonishing that you attempt to claim that I have
"conspicuously avoided" "to define it [legal tender] in another
substantiated way".
So, just for clarity, what exactly is your definition of the term, when you've stated that it is in fact meaningless? >
Another example of you going to extreme lengths to try and prove your
point regardless of the facts again ably demonstrating the pointlessness
of attempting to continue the discussion with you.
More ad homs aside ...
I ask again: "Do you have a cite for that please?"
How many more definitions, all in agreement with one another, do you
need? I must have given you at least 8 already.
You don't have a cite. Thanks for admitting it, at last. Wow, you are
hard work sometimes. (Ed: pretty much all the time, surely?)
Why are they all wrong? You seem to have neglected to say.
No, 'issues' is just vague and sloppy writing by someone trying to
write a simple, publicly accessible website of no legal significance
and understandably unwilling or unable to explain detailed matters of
contract and responsibility.
Ah, I see. The Bank of England's web-site is "vague and sloppy
writing... of no legal significance" but the dictionary definitions upon
which you have based your arguments are so precise and accurate they are
able to supplant the legislation that contradicts them.(!)
Not 'supplant' but aid true interpretation, especially where there is no supported alternative especially from you.
On 15/11/2023 14:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/11/2023 12:29, Reentrant wrote:
On 12/11/2023 23:29, Norman Wells wrote:
Why can't *you* just define what *you* think legal tender is and
means, backed up of course by any legislation and case law you can
find?
Courts may well take some account of dictionary definitions in the
absence of any other guidance/. But since the Bank of England have
clearly stated that legal tender only needs be accepted for debts if
the contract specifically says so, that would surely take precedence.
No. The courts will take all arguments into consideration and decide
if necessary between them.
Can you provide any examples to back up your claim? if not are you happy
to be a test case?
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:20:09 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33, Simon Parker wrote:
On 31/10/2023 14:20, Norman Wells wrote:
Wikipedia says:
"Operating under the legal name The Royal Mint Limited, it is a limited
company that is wholly owned by His Majesty's Treasury and is under an
exclusive contract to supply the nation's coinage".
The Bank of England alone is responsible for money supply in the UK
including the measure M0 which comprises 'sterling notes *and coin*
[emphasis added] in circulation outside the Bank of England (including
those held in banks' and building societies' tills), and banks’
operational deposits with the Bank of England'.
Only circulating legal tender coins are currency and designed to be spent
and traded at businesses and banks. Commemorative coins are not currency or circulating legal tender.
Do you really think the Royal Mint can on its own decide just to make as
many coins as it likes and flood the UK economy with them?
Yes, except for circulating coins (currency) which are only supplied to and released into circulation by HM Treasury and accounted for within m0.
Other coins manufactured by the Royal Mint are sold to dealers and directly to the
public as being commemorative or collectable and are not circulating legal tender or currency.
On 15/11/2023 16:34, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 14:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/11/2023 12:29, Reentrant wrote:
On 12/11/2023 23:29, Norman Wells wrote:
Why can't *you* just define what *you* think legal tender is and
means, backed up of course by any legislation and case law you can
find?
Courts may well take some account of dictionary definitions in the
absence of any other guidance/. But since the Bank of England have
clearly stated that legal tender only needs be accepted for debts if
the contract specifically says so, that would surely take precedence.
No. The courts will take all arguments into consideration and decide
if necessary between them.
Can you provide any examples to back up your claim? if not are you
happy to be a test case?
How do you think the courts decide *anything* except by taking all the arguments into consideration and deciding if necessary between them?
On 15/11/2023 15:17, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:20:09 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 03/11/2023 10:33, Simon Parker wrote:
On 31/10/2023 14:20, Norman Wells wrote:
Wikipedia says:
"Operating under the legal name The Royal Mint Limited, it is a limited
company that is wholly owned by His Majesty's Treasury and is under an
exclusive contract to supply the nation's coinage".
The Bank of England alone is responsible for money supply in the UK
including the measure M0 which comprises 'sterling notes *and coin*
[emphasis added] in circulation outside the Bank of England (including
those held in banks' and building societies' tills), and banks
operational deposits with the Bank of England'.
Only circulating legal tender coins are currency and designed to be spent
and traded at businesses and banks. Commemorative coins are not currency or >> circulating legal tender.
They are coins. They look exactly like coins. They bear the monarch's
head. They bear a currency value. They are produced legitimately by
the Royal Mint. They are legal tender. They can be spent or traded at
their face value.
There is no official designation of 'circulating' or 'non-circulating',
nor any such thing as 'being designed' to be spent and traded. They
either can be or they can't. And, being legal tender, they can.
Since you obviously disagree, please say what design features they have
that distinguish them from other coins of the realm we all use every
day, and how anyone is supposed to know.
Do you really think the Royal Mint can on its own decide just to make as >>> many coins as it likes and flood the UK economy with them?
Yes, except for circulating coins (currency) which are only supplied to and >> released into circulation by HM Treasury and accounted for within m0.
I'm glad you accept that 'HM Treasury' (probably through its
wholly-owned Bank of England) contracts the production and release into
the economy of what you call 'circulating coins (currency)' with the
Royal Mint. Do please tell that to other non-believers here.
But there is in fact no official distinction between 'circulating coins'
and 'non-circulating coins'. That is a fictional divide speciously
promoted by the Royal Mint presumably as a smokescreen to divert
attention from the fact that, if any legal tender coins they produce
can't actually be redeemed anywhere at face value, they are producing
and circulating counterfeit coinage and therefore committing fraud.
Other coins manufactured by the Royal Mint are sold to dealers and directly to the
public as being commemorative or collectable and are not circulating legal >> tender or currency.
There is no official designation of 'currency'. If you disagree, please
give links to where that is defined and is made legally significant.
Do please also say why the monarch, on the advice of the Privy Council,
has seen fit to proclaim such coins as legal tender. If they're not
intended to be used, surely they should not be so designated, nor should
they look for all the world as if they are intended to be used in that
way. It's just totally deceptive and fraudulent otherwise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:00:21 |
| Calls: | 6,711 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,920 |
| Posted today: | 1 |