tolls not accepting cash or cards

Carawaystick

The eastlink and port tunnel have stopped taking card payment and banknotes for the tolls.
If you drive along the toll road, have you not raised a debt? which can be discharged by legal tender?
there is a way to turn aroud at the eastlink, but not at the port tunnel toll.

It can't be legal for a state authoity or city council to refuse legal tender, can it?
especially when they have the ability to introduce bylaws to deal with the present situation, and the wherewithall to provide staff the ppe to deal with handling cards and cash

L1011

The M50 accepts no form of payment at all except tags and ANPR. Suspect that blows the debt/legal tender argument up.

Atlantic Dawn

L1011 wrote: »

The M50 accepts no form of payment at all except tags and ANPR. Suspect that blows the debt/legal tender argument up.

But neither of those tolls support post trip payment as per M50.

Victor

Vendors are entitled to set their own terms and conditions. You know that they are currently only accepting certain payment methods.

It also means you can plan for this.

mdebets

Victor wrote: »

Vendors are entitled to set their own terms and conditions.

That's only true for vendors where you pay prior to receiving goods or services, not if you pay after the fact. In the later case, you have a debt, in which case the vendor has to accept legal tender.
A supermarket for example could make you pay in Monopoly money if they wanted to, but a restaurant on the other hand must allow you to pay with legal tender, as you have already consumed your meal and have a debt to pay to the restaurant.
I don't know, what you technically pay for if you drive through the port tunnel. Paying for driving through has most likely accured a debt, in which case they have to accept cash, if you only pay for crossing the barrier (and they give you an opportunity to turn around and drive back through the tunnel again without having to pay) they can attach whatever conditions they want.
There might also be a law that allows the state in cases of emergency to suspend the legal cash rules, but I don't know if that exists.

Carawaystick

L1011 wrote: »

The M50 accepts no form of payment at all except tags and ANPR. Suspect that blows the debt/legal tender argument up.

You can still pay cash at my local shop, to settle your debt for the westlink toll.

moonshadow

Just get a few folk to drive up and stop there for an hour or two in confusion , won't take long for Joe DUffy to get it closed for a few months

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

The eastlink and port tunnel have stopped taking card payment and banknotes for the tolls.
If you drive along the toll road, have you not raised a debt? which can be discharged by legal tender?
there is a way to turn aroud at the eastlink, but not at the port tunnel toll.

It can't be legal for a state authoity or city council to refuse legal tender, can it?
especially when they have the ability to introduce bylaws to deal with the present situation, and the wherewithall to provide staff the ppe to deal with handling cards and cash

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only legal obligation on acceptance of legal tender is to accept no more than 50 coins denominated in Euro under S10 of the Economic and Monetary Union Act 1998, it does not apply to notes (and of course cards are not legal tender) and I don't believe there is any common law provisions on the issue.

Victor

Looking at the bye-laws, although I may be over-interpreting this.

11.2
No person shall operate or attempt to Operate a Toll Booth Collecting Machine By the insertion of objects other than current coins of the state of the appropriate denomination (or tokens authorised by the Corporation or the Bridge Company to be used for the payment of such tolls) or otherwise interfere with a Toll Booth Collecting Machine with the intention of dishonestly obtaining for himself a pecuniary advantage.

Sleeper12

But, but, but, East Link & port tunnel both accept cash. The lane for coins is still open so they meet the legal tender requirements. Obviously cards aren't legal tender.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only legal obligation on acceptance of legal tender is to accept no more than 50 coins denominated in Euro under S10 of the Economic and Monetary Union Act 1998, it does not apply to notes (and of course cards are not legal tender) and I don't believe there is any common law provisions on the issue.

I think you're wrong, but of course I could be wrong in thinking that. I think the default (at common law) is that all legal tender currency is good to settle debts of any amount. The function of s.10 of the 1998 Act is not to require creditors to accept coins, but to limit the number of coins which they are bound to accept. As there is no provision dealing with legal tender banknotes, creditors must accept these in any amount.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

As there is no provision dealing with legal tender banknotes, creditors must accept these in any amount.

Am I right that there is no obligation to give change?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Am I right that there is no obligation to give change?

Yes.

If the no change policy wasn't clear until after the service it would fall under an unfair term surely?

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If the no change policy wasn't clear until after the service it would fall under an unfair term surely?

It was announced on national airways & was in national print media. This is usually enough notice. I can't say if it was on RTE TV news or not but I'm willing to bet that it was

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're wrong, but of course I could be wrong in thinking that. I think the default (at common law) is that all legal tender currency is good to settle debts of any amount. The function of s.10 of the 1998 Act is not to require creditors to accept coins, but to limit the number of coins which they are bound to accept. As there is no provision dealing with legal tender banknotes, creditors must accept these in any amount.

For once I'm not certain

I was under the impression that there was no requirement for the acceptance of notes (and yes I agree that actually also applies to coinage despite the 1998 Act) for the settlement of a debt, I have certainly never come accross anything in common law to indicate such. I think all the common law recognises is that legal tender (in the monetary sense) is a legitimate way to pay off that debt, however it does not mean anyone has to accept it, rather it only means you cannot be sued for recovery of debt if you offered to pay and it was refused.

Something to note is that the essence of money is not that it is a legal means of settling debts, the essence is that it is universally accepted by law or custom in exchange for real wealth or in settlement of debt.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was announced on national airways & was in national print media. This is usually enough notice. I can't say if it was on RTE TV news or not but I'm willing to bet that it was

I'm just referring to in general, like a small carpark for example.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm just referring to in general, like a small carpark for example.

I don't believe any business is legally obliged to make change. It's up to the consumer to have the exact amount afaik

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't believe any business is legally obliged to make change. It's up to the consumer to have the exact amount afaik

Understandable.

my thought however is that if I have you a 20 for an item costing 10, it's reasonable to assume you will give me ten back to make the exchange even based on the pruor agreement ie I'm paying you ten for the goods.

To then say "we don't give change" and refuse to budge in any manner would go against the principle of reasonable belief and fair trade.

A bus for example gives you the choice to get off instead of paying over the fare price so while they don't give change, you go into the agreement knowing that you will be paying more than originally intended if you choose to continue. So, if a shop uses the no change policy, they must give the customer the opportunity to walk away from the deal in the same manner that if I offer legal tender but they can only accept credit card, they aren't obliged to give me the item for free.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Yes, my thought however is that if I have you a 20 for an item costing 10, it's reasonable to assume you will give me ten back to make the exchange even based on the people agreement ie I'm paying you ten for the goods.

You shouldn't make assumptions. I've seen people very supprised when they discover that a particular business doesn't take cards or has a minimum spend.

If you give me a 50 euro note for something that costs 1 euro there is no legal responsibility for me to give you any change. Businesses giving change do so out of a good will gesture. The responsibility is on the consumer to have the exact change.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Understandable.

my thought however is that if I have you a 20 for an item costing 10, it's reasonable to assume you will give me ten back to make the exchange even based on the pruor agreement ie I'm paying you ten for the goods.

To then say "we don't give change" and refuse to budge in any manner would go against the principle of reasonable belief and fair trade.

A bus for example gives you the choice to get off instead of paying over the fare price so while they don't give change, you go into the agreement knowing that you will be paying more than originally intended if you choose to continue. So, if a shop uses the no change policy, they must give the customer the opportunity to walk away from the deal in the same manner that if I offer legal tender but they can only accept credit card, they aren't obliged to give me the item for free.

legal tender as a concept is not relevant to purchasing items in a shop

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You shouldn't make assumptions. I've seen people very supprised when they discover that a particular business doesn't take cards or has a minimum spend.

If you give me a 50 euro note for something that costs 1 euro there is no legal responsibility for me to give you any change. Businesses giving change do so out of a good will gesture. The responsibility is on the consumer to have the exact change.

Think your missing my point here. The business not taking card doesn't mean I get the item for free does it? No because the transaction merely doesn't go ahead. The same applies for the customer, a chance to walk away. It's a requirement.

Similarly, 'reasonable assumptions' do exist within the legal system and can be used in court.

Minimum spend, on a Visa at least, is against the visa business agreement. If you are authorized to take Visa by Visa, you have agreed to not have a minimum requirement.

I'm not arguing for or against by the way, just discussing the situation.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Similarly, 'reasonable assumptions' do exist within the legal system and can be used in court.

You are missing the point. There is no obligation to provide change. It's up to the consumer to bring exact change. Expecting change when you aren't entitled to change is not a reasonable assumption. Ignorance of the law is never a defence in court. Just because you always believed that you were entitled to change doesn't mean that you are entitled to change.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Minimum spend, on a Visa at least, is against the visa business agreement. If you are authorized to take Visa by Visa, you have agreed to not have a minimum requirement.

This is nothing to do with the consumer. The shop can totally legally impose a minimum spend on cards. Any agreement between the retailers and the card provider has nothing to do with the consumer.

L1011

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the consumer. The shop can totally legally impose a minimum spend on cards. Any agreement between the retailers and the card provider has nothing to do with the consumer.

Can impose it until their merchant agreement is terminated after complaints about it and they can't take payments at all, you mean.

Sleeper12

L1011 wrote: »

Can impose it until their merchant agreement is terminated after complaints about it and they can't take payments at all, you mean.

My point is the retailers agreement has nothing to do with the consumer. They can report all they want.



Point of interest, I do know some business that were reported to the card company for minimum spend with no consequences at all. Still imposing minimum spend to this day.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are missing the point. There is no obligation to provide change. It's up to the consumer to bring exact change. Expecting change when you aren't entitled to change is not a reasonable assumption. Ignorance of the law is never a defence in court. Just because you always believed that you were entitled to change doesn't mean that you are entitled to change.

Just to clarify, it's your belief that it's not reasonable to believe something unless there's a set law stating it? Do you know common law?

The legal system is peppered with common, statute and case law that uses 'reasonable belief'. It's actually a fairly important aspect of our Justice system.

I take there's no law about giving change but I'm taking about no going back. I'm very very confident that if I went to buy something, produced a note and the shop neither gave me change nor allowed me to cancel the purchase citing their non written 'no change because no law says I have to' policy, I would win that case before a court. That's not a fair contract and the fact that shops are giving change every single day for odds on 100+ years is a fairly substantial precedent.

Never heard the ignorance being no defence argument outside of criminal law and I don't think it's that simple in tort.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the consumer. The shop can totally legally impose a minimum spend on cards. Any agreement between the retailers and the card provider has nothing to do with the consumer.

That makes no sense, if it's a breach of contract with Visa, then it's not legally imposed.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Just to clarify, it's your belief that it's not reasonable to believe something unless there's a set law stating it? Do you know common law?

I suppose you are a sovereign citizen or something. Respectfully, you've been posting nonsense. There is no legal obligation to make change. Your expectations doesn't make a legal obligation. Believe it or not the obligation is for the consumer to provide exact amount if that is all they want to pay. You are trying to swap the consumers responsibly to provide the exact amount & make it the retailers responsibly.

Here's one for you. Your hair cut is 15 euro and you give 20. The Barber usually gets a fiver tip from most clients. Based on your assumption common law nonsense, the Barber keeps the fiver because he assumed you would tip him in the was he's accustomed to being tipped. Will common law protect him? I think not

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suppose you are a sovereign citizen or something. Respectfully, you've been posting nonsense. There is no legal obligation to make change. Your expectations doesn't make a legal obligation. Believe it or not the obligation is for the consumer to provide exact amount if that is all they want to pay. You are trying to swap the consumers responsibly to provide the exact amount & make it the retailers responsibly.

Here's one for you. Your hair cut is 15 euro and you give 20. The Barber usually gets a fiver tip from most clients. Based on your assumption common law nonsense, the Barber keeps the fiver because he assumed you would tip him in the was he's accustomed to being tipped. Will common law protect him? I think not

That post says all I need to know about your legal background

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

That makes no sense, if it's a breach of contract with Visa, then it's not legally imposed.

It's not in breach with a contract between the retailer and the consumer. The agreement between the retailer & the card company has nothing to do with the consumer. The fact that the card companies don't enforce this condition has nothing to do with the consumer from the retailers point of view. Your contract is with the card company. What the card companies promise you has nothing to do with the retailer. You, the consumer, cannot enforce a contract condition between the retailer and the card company. Its none of your business. You can complain to the card company but in practice they don't punish or withdraw service from the retailer.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

That post says all I need to know about your legal background

Look its best I leave it there. I'm in retail & service since before you were born by the looks of it. No one here seems to agree with you but you continue to push your sovereign citizen stance. I'm posting facts and you are making up stuff that makes no legal sense. It has been a has been explained to you. Legal tender requirements are met by the toll company. Warnings have been in the national newspaper & tv. They have no legal responsibility to issue change. They are all facts.

Didn't say enforce did I? You are moving goalposts. You said it's legal to impose a condition that's specifically banned in the contract.

Visa have stated in their contract with the shop that a customer cannot have a minimum set. If you set a minimum and try to hold me to that minimum, your in breach

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Look its best I leave it there. I'm in retail & service since before you were born by the looks of it. No one here seems to agree with you but you continue to push your sovereign citizen stance. I'm posting facts and you are making up stuff that makes no legal sense. It has been a has been explained to you. Legal tender requirements are met by the toll company. Warnings have been in the national newspaper & tv. They have no legal responsibility to issue change. They are all facts.

First off, Common law my dear man, is the foundation of our legal system. Our legal system is a common law system. Its absolutely nothing to do with freemen and brethan law.

Second, only you have said I am wrong. No one else has commented except to tell you that you were wrong about the minimum spend.

Third, You aren't grasping the point I am making, presumable because you don't know the law or our legal system. I'm well aware they don't legally have to give change. I'm completely fine with that point and have said so 3 times now. I have moved into another area concerning the rules of contract. If you don't know that area, fine but stop commenting

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Second, only you have said I am wrong. No one else has commented except to tell you that you were wrong about the minimum spend.

No one commented about the minimum spend because I'm not wrong about it. I have & have had various business in the retail & service sector for over 30 years. I know the law around these issues. You have been told about the legal requirements for the retailer and the coscumer. I can promise you this. You will be laughed out of the small claims court for trying to use common law against a toll company for not providing you with change.

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Similarly, 'reasonable assumptions' do exist within the legal system and can be used in court

I assume you are talking about the "reasonable expectations" doctrine, strictly speaking it is not applicable here in contract law, even the UK Court of Appeal has specifically held the doctrine is not a rule or principle of law there, rather it is merely an "objective".

Rather you would be dealing with promissory estoppel in this jurisdiction where a promise or representation as to intention may in certain circumstances be held binding on the representor or promisor, however as a price displayed for an item in a shop is an invitation to treat as opposed to an offer there is no promise or representation that the price displayed is the price of the offer.

Nobody should use a shop with a minimum spend. That would solve far more than reporting them. Drive them out of business.

Sleeper12

ReginaldSmythV wrote:

Nobody should use a shop with a minimum spend. That would solve far more than reporting them. Drive them out of business.

This is an option for the consumer. Most businesses would buckle. The Donaghmede Inn takes no cards at all. Cash or cheque. It's a big busy pub with two barmen on from opening in the morning right through. Any young people waving cards about get shown the atm right outside the door. They are giving the choice of withdrawing cash or going elsewhere... One of the two chippers in my area has minimum spend for cards. 5 euros I believe. People have reported him but the card company ignored the complaints. He is a just eat chipper and does plenty of card transactions. He's not afraid of cards but still has a minimum spend as he is permitted to do by law

One can surmise the reasons for only taking cash, though one good thing that may come if this virus ever ends is that it could increase our pace towards a cashless society.

Sleeper12

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

One can surmise the reasons for only taking cash, though one good thing that may come if this virus ever ends is that it could increase our pace towards a cashless society.

I gave back my card machine as the costs were too high. Card payments were the most expensive way for us to get paid. This is the only reason we don't take card payments. Happy to take cash, cheque, Revelut & bank transfer though. All of our clients get a VAT receipt so we don't do "cash jobs"

The J Stands for Jay

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You shouldn't make assumptions. I've seen people very supprised when they discover that a particular business doesn't take cards or has a minimum spend.
.

It's surprising because it's against the terms of their merchant agreement with the business's service provider.

Sleeper12

McGaggs wrote: »

It's surprising because it's against the terms of their merchant agreement with the business's service provider.

Again I have pointed out that agreements between the card company & the retailer have nothing to do with the consumer. The card companies seem to do little or nothing when these places are reported. Some retailers pay a set fee per transaction. This can be 75c for a credit card & 1.5 euro or more if someone uses a company credit card. Someone wanting to spend 1 euro is going to cost the retailer.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Again I have pointed out that agreements between the card company & the retailer have nothing to do with the consumer. The card companies seem to do little or nothing when these places are reported. Some retailers pay a set fee per transaction. This can be 75c for a credit card & 1.5 euro or more if someone uses a company credit card. Someone wanting to spend 1 euro is going to cost the retailer.

You seem to be totally skipping over the fact that if the retailer is breaking the terms with the credit card company then they should not be offering the service in the first place. So there can never be a contract between the retailer and the consumer to use the card machine at all.

GM228

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

You seem to be totally skipping over the fact that if the retailer is breaking the terms with the credit card company then they should not be offering the service in the first place. So there can never be a contract between the retailer and the consumer to use the card machine at all.

The retailers contractual obligations with the merchant has nothing to do with their contractual obligations with the consumer, you don't enter into a contract with the retailer to use their machine, you enter into a contract to purchase whatever you are purchasing, how you make payment is a different matter.

Sleeper12

ReginaldSmythV wrote:

You seem to be totally skipping over the fact that if the retailer is breaking the terms with the credit card company then they should not be offering the service in the first place. So there can never be a contract between the retailer and the consumer to use the card machine at all.

This is between the retailers and the card provider. It has nothing to do with the consumer. If the card provider does not enforce the terms of the contract then they are allowed to do this. They don't have to enforce all of the terms. I have an online store & we have shirt loads of T&Cs. They are there to cover my ass but in reality we enforce very few of the T&Cs. This is the case in most businesses

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

The retailers contractual obligations with the merchant has nothing to do with their contractual obligations with the consumer, you don't enter into a contract with the retailer to use their machine, you enter into a contract to purchase whatever you are purchasing, how you make payment is a different matter.

The only option in that scenario should be cash as the machine shouldn’t be there.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No one commented about the minimum spend because I'm not wrong about it. I have & have had various business in the retail & service sector for over 30 years. I know the law around these issues. You have been told about the legal requirements for the retailer and the coscumer. I can promise you this. You will be laughed out of the small claims court for trying to use common law against a toll company for not providing you with change.

**** me ragged are you still going on about this?

I never said I was going to cite common law over getting change. No where did I say that. Can you not tell the difference between that and what I actually said regarding fair contract?

Once again I will try, the issue isn't in getting change. The issue is in not being given the choice to exit the contract ie purchase when I produce a note higher in value then the cost. I have said it numerous times, your either not reading it or deliberately ignoring. My issue is in your belief that because you don't need to give change, you can keep the money and refuse to cancel the transaction.

And you don't know the law, you can't because you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the legal system. You still appear to think common law is some made up fairy tale and the rules of law not applicable.

In regards minimum spend, a moderator pointed out the flaw in your argument. A condition of a contract being breached is a breach of contract. The effected party may continue with the contract but it's still a breach. You seem to think that if there's no punishment, a breach wasn't committed.

Sleeper12

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

**** me ragged are you still going on about this?

I never said I was going to cite common law over getting change. No where did I say that. Can you not tell the difference between that and what I actually said regarding fair contract?

Once again I will try, the issue isn't in getting change. The issue is in not being given the choice to exit the contract ie purchase when I produce a note higher in value then the cost. I have said it numerous times, your either but reading it deliberately ignoring.

And you don't know the law, you can't because you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the legal system. You still appear to think common law is some made up fairy tale and the rules of law not applicable.

In regards minimum spend, a moderator pointed out the flaw in your argument. A condition of a contract being breached is a breach of contract. The effected party may continue with the contract but it's still a breach. You seem to think that if there's no punishment, a breach wasn't committed.

Go away & annoy someone else


First off the moderated didn't point out any flaw. It's been pointed out by other posters that the contract between the retailer & the card company has nothing to do with the consumer. It's none of their business. L1011 suggested that contract could be terminated but I have never seen this happen. I know retailers that have been reported & nothing happens.



I know retail law. I know that the toll company meets legal tender requirements & I know that it's up to the consumer to ensure thay have exact change. There is no requirement in any law that the retailer must make change. For all your waffling about your vast knowledge about the law I suggest you spend a day or two in the small claims court to learn the facts of life.



Just to be clear here, no one is agreeing with you. In fact others have pointed out that you are wrong. Now I'll Unfollow so I don't have to read any more made up nonsense

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

I assume you are talking about the "reasonable expectations" doctrine, strictly speaking it is not applicable here in contract law, even the UK Court of Appeal has specifically held the doctrine is not a rule or principle of law there, rather it is merely an "objective".

Rather you would be dealing with promissory estoppel in this jurisdiction where a promise or representation as to intention may in certain circumstances be held binding on the representor or promisor, however as a price displayed for an item in a shop is an invitation to treat as opposed to an offer there is no promise or representation that the price displayed is the price of the offer.

https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/pricing/rules-on-pricing/

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html

S.I. No. 27/1995 - European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995. (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/si/27/made/en/print?)

I am sorry but you are wrong. It's written in Black and White regarding the requirement to display the correct price as well as fairness in the contract and more importantly as I have argued from the start, the right to withdraw from the agreement where the shop isn't willing to give change.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Go away & annoy someone else


First off the moderated didn't point out any flaw. It's been pointed out by other posters that the contract between the retailer & the card company has nothing to do with the consumer. It's none of their business. L1011 suggested that contract could be terminated but I have never seen this happen. I know retailers that have been reported & nothing happens.



I know retail law. I know that the toll company meets legal tender requirements & I know that it's up to the consumer to ensure thay have exact change. There is no requirement in any law that the retailer must make change. For all your waffling about your vast knowledge about the law I suggest you spend a day or two in the small claims court to learn the facts of life.



Just to be clear here, no one is agreeing with you. In fact others have pointed out that you are wrong. Now I'll Unfollow so I don't have to read any more made up nonsense

Your refusing to read. Gotcha

tphase

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Go away & annoy someone else


First off the moderated didn't point out any flaw. It's been pointed out by other posters that the contract between the retailer & the card company has nothing to do with the consumer. It's none of their business. L1011 suggested that contract could be terminated but I have never seen this happen. I know retailers that have been reported & nothing happens.



I know retail law. I know that the toll company meets legal tender requirements & I know that it's up to the consumer to ensure thay have exact change. There is no requirement in any law that the retailer must make change. For all your waffling about your vast knowledge about the law I suggest you spend a day or two in the small claims court to learn the facts of life.



Just to be clear here, no one is agreeing with you. In fact others have pointed out that you are wrong. Now I'll Unfollow so I don't have to read any more made up nonsense

Jesus wept!
Even I understand niners argument and I have no legal training....