B&Q Rejecting Cash?

No, the is still the invitation part. The price on the till may be different to the price on the shelf. They may be guilty of a miss-pricing offence if this is the case but that is still legally the price at which the invitation is made.

Because established law says that they can.

I don't suggest that you try it

tim

Reply to
tim (moved to sweden)
Loading thread data ...

Ever had pound coins in change from a shop in Liverpool? I take a penknife to every one and hand back the lead ones.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Not exactly, the contract has already been made before the customer offers the cash. The customer only has to bring the article for sale to the till, to be deemed to have made an offer of payment (assuming they don't say something like "Can you tell me how much this is ?")

If the assistant rings the article up on the till and says "That will be £10, please", this is deemed acceptance of the offer and a contract is formed.

In theory, the customer now *has* to pay for the goods and the store

*has* to accept legal tender (Coins or notes (except for Bank of England notes outside England and similar for BOS notes etc.) The only items of legal tender valid throughout the UK are £1 and £2 coins).

Absolutely, *but* they can't refuse once the article has been rung up on the till since they will have accepted your offer.

Yes, but, in theory, if you offer legal tender in payment and the shop decline to accept it after they've rung up the sale, you can walk out of the shop with the goods.

I don't recommend trying it though as the staff in most shops haven't the foggiest idea about the law and you might find yourself rugby tackled if you did so. :-)

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

The message from "Blueyonder" contains these words:

AIUI the price is the invitation to offer and the proffered cash the offer.

Reply to
Roger

Legal tender only has meaning in the context of payment of a debt and then it only means that, if you offer the exact amount of the debt in legal tender, you cannot be sued for non-payment of the debt if the other person refuses payment in that form. It has no meaning in day-to-day transactions, which are a negotiated agreement between vendor and buyer. If the vendor does not want to accept a particular mode of payment, for example, any pound coin with a Welsh symbol on the obverse, that is entirely up to the vendor and taking the goods after payment has been refused would be theft.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

The staff also probably have duff notes taken out of their wages in many of these kinds of stores. Certainly happens at Wilkinsons, where the staff become very reluctant to accept anything more than a tenner, just in case.

-- JJ

Reply to
Blueyonder

No argument there - I'm not trying to say the price on the shelf means anything.

This I'm not so sure about. The payment is the 'consideration', which is separate from the offer and acceptance. The customer offers to take the goods for an appropriate payment, and the store accepts that offer by agreeing to it. At no point yet has any cash changed hands, been seen, or payment method been agreed (except perhaps implied in the store's standard terms and conditions of payment, which probably states somewhere something like "only cash that meets our stringent tests of authenticity can be accepted").

took the doors to the counter, said "I want to buy these at the marked price please", B&Q rang it through the till and said "okay - that will be £10 please". According to those docs, the offer has been made by the customer and accepted by the store.

But this shop didn't refuse to sell it - they accepted the offer of a sale. It was only after the cash was handed over (long after the contract was agreed) that they changed their mind, or more accurately, they refused to accept the cash handed over as acceptable tender. If the customer was unable to provide that 'consideration' then it would be a different matter, but it seems the customer was certainly able and willing to pay.

Whether the cash was real or fake, is always up for argument, so the store can always claim that in not being able to prove the cash was genuine, the customer was not able to meet their part of the contract.

In the end though, you would think customer relations would be a good reason for B&Q to take a few risks, wouldn't you?

-- JJ

Reply to
Blueyonder

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:30:43 GMT,it is alleged that "Blueyonder" spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

Is that kind of thing even *legal*? Surely it's the business that's in posession of the duff notes, not the employee.

Silly me, I assumed workers had rights

Probably should have asked this in uk.legal, but legalspeek tends to upset me when they try to redefine English words and phrases to mean something totally different. Kind of like redefining 'competent person' to mean something other than 'person who is competent'.

Reply to
Chip

So the sequence is

- invitation to treat

- customer makes offer

- store accepts offer

- customer attempts to pay but store considers payment invalid.

That's not quite what you said at the outset, but the point is subtle in practical terms.

Well not quite. The issue at hand in the Boots case was that what one party deemed to be an offer (the goods being on display) was not an offer, it was an invitation to the customer to make an offer. Not the same.

Yes, I know. I was simply making the point that a shop is not required to accept an offer from the customer.

So the dispute was whether the store considered the form of payment to be genuine.

Which leaves everybody nowhere.

You would, but not the people on the till at a few pounds an hour.

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:21:58 GMT someone who may be John Anderton wrote this:-

Even better. The shop staff have now used threatening words and behaviour towards the customer. They have also assaulted the customer.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:36:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

So, shops don't offer goods. Fascinating.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:39:50 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Grumpy owd man" wrote this:-

Taking out a "counterfeit detector" pen and testing every note in one's change tends to make the point quite well.

Reply to
David Hansen

Two locla charity shops got "given" fake £20s on the same day - which means neither take £20s any more. People are mostly understanding and pop along to one of the other local shops to break into their note.

Reply to
mogga

No they don't. Read the legal references.

Most people make the mistake of not doing so.

Reply to
Andy Hall

And if you done that whilst I was behind you in the Q i'd tell you to go and do it somewhere else or words to that effect.

-- Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:29:07 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Fascinating.

Two lawyers, three opinions.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:22:18 GMT someone who may be "The3rd Earl Of Derby" wrote this:-

Feel free to do so. Threatening words with many witnesses.

Reply to
David Hansen

Possibly also committed wrongful arrest if they try to detain the customer, and a civil wrong of defamation.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

They can because there is no obligation on them to accept any form of payment, including cash. If they choose not to take your money, then no contract exists and the goods are not yours to take away.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

There is if they have entered into a contract to provide goods (e.g. a door) in exchange for, say, £50. Failure to provide you with the door when you try to give them £50 is a breach of that contract.

No, the contract is in place *before* you give them any money. If they decide not to ring up the sale *then* no contract exists.

Giving them money merely fulfills your side of the contract, which has already been implicitly agreed by you taking the door to the checkout and them ringing up the purchase.

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.