In article ,
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Every other explanation I've ever been given of legal tender is that it also
applies before the court stage

I don't believe it does.

- indeed a court would likely immediately
strike the pursiuit of a debt where the creditor had declined legal tender.

Again, I don't think it would. The debt wouild still exist, and
in the absence of cash paid into court, the creditor will never be
satisfied. This seems unfair.

And the explanation further down implies that the concept exists precisely
to protect the consumer from being charged late payment fees by a creditor
refusing to accept the payment offered.

I think this is an incorrect belief. I can think of no reason why
a contract can not specify the way in which payment will be made (subject
to unfair contract laws, of course).

(I assume that a cabbie can't decline a payment made with a £50 Bank of
England note but *can* say that he can't give change on it?)

I think a cabbie can decline payment made with a £50 BoE note. The
act of offering him payment in such a way means that no crime has
been committed, but does not extinguish the debt. Consider a cabbie
who honestly, but mistakenly, thinks the note is a forgery.

Cheers,
Mike

--
Mike Bristow