Brian wrote:
>
> I have suggested previously that if tolls were paid in
> pennies either to the manned kiosks or into the autotolls
> that would bring the point home to the powers that be.
I think there is some rule or statute which sets quite a low max limit as to how much you can pay in pennies.
Quite like the idea of a mass turnout with everybody submitting a £50 quid note. More potential for causing mayhem.
Now THAT would be an idea for a Backroomers meet, it would involve cars, a drive, a legal protest, possible publicity for HJ if there were enough of us, and potential for a gin afterwards. Possibility for countrywide venues, Dartford, Severn, Humber, Forth, BNRR when its built.
|
.......a gin afterwards....
Thought you would turn out posh Stuart.
David
|
Posh? me? So my net persona is a bit off then.
Why did I say gin? Don't know really, suppose partial to occasional G&T, but then beers OK, but nearly TT these days.
Maybe gin came from thinking of different venues near home, first thought was beer & skittles in the Clent hills, then the ideal prospect for me came to mind.
A walk across the fields, step onto a gin palace for a little evening cruise down the Severn. Very civilised, not a sweaty bikini nor speed camera in sight. More or less on topic
|
|
|
|
> I think there is some rule or statute which sets quite a low
> max limit as to how much you can pay in pennies.
There is. The description of Legal Tender.
> Quite like the idea of a mass turnout with everybody
> submitting a £50 quid note. More potential for causing mayhem.
Actually, from the same law that wouldn't be Legal Tender, either.
The definition of Legal Tender specifies that *must* be accepted in settlement, not something which *may* be accepted.
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> > I think there is some rule or statute which sets quite a low
> > max limit as to how much you can pay in pennies.
>
> There is. The description of Legal Tender.
>
> > Quite like the idea of a mass turnout with everybody
> > submitting a £50 quid note. More potential for causing
> mayhem.
>
> Actually, from the same law that wouldn't be Legal Tender,
> either.
>
> The definition of Legal Tender specifies that *must* be
> accepted in settlement, not something which *may* be accepted.
Who is the *must* implied upon? I can see the argument that it lets say the Revenue off the hook when someone offers to pay their tax in 1p coins.
Because of the max amount rules they do not *have* to accept it, and therefore the person still legally owes the debt.
OK I bow to greater knowledge here, but (there is always a but) I know there are limits for coins, ie the one I CAN remember is that you can't pay a debt of more than £10 in 50p coins.
I also remember that banknotes have *unlimited* legal tender. Thats not my definition BTW, but forget where it came from.
Now what does unlimited mean?
I think its intended to mean that if I agreed a deal with a garage to buy a Ferrari for cash, then I could pay in used fivers if I wanted.
(Memo to self, remember to look in the shed to see if they are still there ;-)
Mark, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the garage could say no we want it in twenties and fifties then that is what I would have to pay them with. Is that really right?
If that IS the case equally do the toll fee notices say in their treatise to make a contract in which they allow you past in payment for a fee that only certain denominations are accepted. I don't know I'm just asking. Next time I go through a toll I'll take note.
If they don't I still think it would be an interesting exercise if enough folks went beyond the point of no return, up to the toll booths, (are they before or after the bridge/tunnel?) and submitted the fee with a big banknote.
So for the first few times they will have the change, but after that what are they going to do? Make you turn round and go the other way?
Not being argumentative here, just interested in the possibilities for legal protests that just might be a bit of a hoot at the same time.
Another thought if its not legal tender one way, what about the change, could we refuse to accept change in denominations WE don't like? Remember when there was a shortage of fivers and you always ended up with a pocket/purse full of coins?
There is a proper definition of legal tender in Halsey's English law or similar, anybody got a copy out there?
|
> Now what does unlimited mean?
>
> I think its intended to mean that if I agreed a deal with a
> garage to buy a Ferrari for cash, then I could pay in used
> fivers if I wanted.
> (Memo to self, remember to look in the shed to see if they
> are still there ;-)
Absolutely, you can be in fivers to an unlimited amount. However, for it to be legal tender, it must be the *exact* amount. Therefore, if the figure ended in 1.99, for example, and you paid with fivers, you'd either have to give the exact amount, or if you paid over the garage wouldn't have to accept it, but if they did you have no *right* to receive change.
> Mark, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the
> garage could say no we want it in twenties and fifties then
> that is what I would have to pay them with. Is that really
> right?
Not really. Each type of currency has a maximum amount. I can't remember the amounts, and anyway they may have changed, so if you say its 10 quid in 50p then you are probably right.
Notes, are just notes, without differentiation.
The Garage, in this example, has no right to say what you must pay him in, other than the fact that it must be legal tender. Therefore, you can use any combination you like, provided it is under the various maximums for each type, and provided it settles the debt. If you can only pay more, then you have to accept that you have no right to the change - of course, it would be commercial suicide for any enterprise to do this, but that is their right.
> Another thought if its not legal tender one way, what about
> the change, could we refuse to accept change in denominations
> WE don't like? Remember when there was a shortage of fivers
> and you always ended up with a pocket/purse full of coins?
You could, except for the small detail that you have no legal right to receive change, unless it was agreed beforehand.
> There is a proper definition of legal tender in Halsey's
> English law or similar, anybody got a copy out there?
Yes, do you *really* want me to dig it out ?
M.
|
> > There is a proper definition of legal tender in Halsey's
> > English law or similar, anybody got a copy out there?
By the way, I assume you mean "Halsbury's Laws of England".
|
By the way II.
Did you know that scottish bank notes are not Legal Tender anywhere, not even in Scotland ?
Bear in mind, Legal Tender means something which cannot be refused in settlement, this doesn't mean that "not Legal Tender" cannot be accepted.
|
Thanks Mark & Brian.
Blowing my own wotsit, Halsey's Halsbury's Schmalsbury's, for a none legal bod working totally from memory I reckon that was close enough for you to know what I was on about.
As for something that cannot be refused being legal tender, that opens up a lot of possibilities there methinks!
|
I remember my economics teacher telling us pretty similar things to Mark, in that you cannot make a payment which is a burden (ie write a cheque on a flag stone, which would be legal, but would be difficult to move and therefore a burden). That is why change should not be paid over a value of £**.
Jonathan
|
Neither cheques nor credit cards are legal tender.
There is a precedent which differs slightly for government payments. Something along the lines of "normally accepted method" must be accepted. It was related to some govt. office in Scotland refusing to accept scottish notes as they are not legal tender, and the courts slapped him around the ear.
You'd have to be pretty determined, but there might be some scope for movement there.
There was also another about some bridge toll protest in Scotland. Initially they tried to pay in all coins and got the Legal Tender issue; They then changed to paying in the smallest combination of denomination without offending Legal Tender practices - I seem to recall it was still sufficient to disrupt the toll booths.
I can try and scrape the bottom of my brain if anybody really cares ?
|
> Neither cheques nor credit cards are legal tender.
You know, I should say "weren't". There was a couple of changes recently, one related to the Euro and the other to the standing of E-Payments.
I didn't pay any attention, but that or another recent change may have affected it.
M.
|
|
Stuart B wrote:
> If they don't I still think it would be an interesting
> exercise if enough folks went beyond the point of no return,
> up to the toll booths, (are they before or after the
> bridge/tunnel?) and submitted the fee with a big banknote.
I crossed the Severn bridge with no cash in the summer. Bloke took what I had (1.63 IIRC) and waved me on. You can't go back it's a motorway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
