tolls not accepting cash or cards

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....

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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.

The 1995 Regulations do not change the common law position in relation to invitation to treat, offer, acceptance or conclusion of a contract when buying goods with a displayed price, in fact when the EU brought about a Directive which specifically had a condition to invitation to treat, or invitation to purchase as they called it, it was specifically without prejudice to the law of contract.

It only makes a term invalid if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded.

No price is agreed until the offeror makes an offer, the offeree can then accept or reject that offer and only then is a price agreed and the contract concluded.

A price displayed on goods for sale is not an offer, therefore no price is yet agreed.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

The 1995 Regulations do not change the common law position in relation to invitation to treat, offer, acceptance or conclusion of a contract when buying goods with a displayed price, in fact when the EU brought about a Directive which specifically had a condition to invitation to treat, or invitation to purchase as they called it, it was specifically without prejudice to the law of contract.

It only makes a term invalid if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded.

No price is agreed until the offeror makes an offer, the offeree can then accept or reject that offer and only then is a price agreed and the contract concluded.

A price displayed on goods for sale is not an offer, therefore no price is yet agreed.

No, I realise that. They do however show that good faith / fairness is a legal requirement in contracts.

I disagree about the price issue. By displaying a price, you are inviting a purchase at that price.

Similarly, by stating a price for use of the m50 toll you are inviting people to drive through your toll for that price and as there is no further action by the toll company, they can be no further discussion.

They set a price = offer
I drive through the toll = acceptance

Oh and dont mention common law, apparently that's some mad hippy crap made up by lunatics

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, I realise that. They do however show that good faith / fairness is a legal requirement in contracts.

I disagree about the price issue. By displaying a price, you are inviting a purchase at that price.

Similarly, by stating a price for use of the m50 toll you are inviting people to drive through your toll for that price and as there is no further action by the toll company, they can be no further discussion.

They set a price = offer
I drive through the toll = acceptance

Oh and dont mention common law, apparently that's some mad hippy crap made up by lunatics

This is incorrect, it is well established in law that an item with a price displayed is an invitation to treat, not an offer. The price is irrelevant until the offer stage.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, I realise that. They do however show that good faith / fairness is a legal requirement in contracts.

I disagree about the price issue. By displaying a price, you are inviting a purchase at that price.

Similarly, by stating a price for use of the m50 toll you are inviting people to drive through your toll for that price and as there is no further action by the toll company, they can be no further discussion.

They set a price = offer
I drive through the toll = acceptance

Oh and dont mention common law, apparently that's some mad hippy crap made up by lunatics

while you can certainly offer to purchase the item at the price displayed the retailer is under no obligation to accept

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

while you can certainly offer to purchase the item at the price displayed the retailer is under no obligation to accept

Indeed because as I already said the indication of a price is not an offer, it's no more than an invitation to treat, a position long held by the courts.

The key difference between an offer and invitation to treat as regards a price displayed can be explained by the fact that displaying a price is simply saying "I may be interested in selling this item for X"’, this is just an expression of interest and therefore an invitation to treat, picking up something to buy at an advertised price is not an acceptance of an offer, rather it's an offer to buy, and only when cash is handed up and accepted is an offer actually made and accepted.

So you are both going to ignore the automatic tolls and tills that I mentioned?

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So you are both going to ignore the automatic tolls and tills that I mentioned?

what is you think has been ignored? the point about prices displayed has already been answered and you are wrong. the point about giving change has already been answered and you are wrong

Peregrinus

Consider an automated car park with a sign outside that says "Parking. One euro per hour."

The design of the car park is such that you can't enter without taking a ticket, and you can't leave without using your ticket at an automated barrier. If you use your ticket within 10 minutes of entry you can exit for free; otherwise you'll need to pay. The machine accepts notes, coin and credit cards, but it doesn't give change.

Right. This is not like bringing an item to the checkout at a shop. Once you enter you're committed; you can't leave without paying. Plus, by the time you approach the barrier to leave, you have already used the service offered. So this is more like ordering a meal in a restaurant; the contract is formed, at the latest, when you eat the meal, or when you park your car. On a classical analysis, you are bound to pay for your parking.

So, you drive up to the barrier, having parked for three hours, and the machine wants three euros to lift the barrier. You have no credit card. You have no coins. But you have a five euro note. This will get you out, but you'll get no change.

Legally, what's the position?

And would the position be any different if the sign outside the car park said "Parking. One euro per hour. No change given."?

L1011

The Eastlink was FOC earlier today; presuming that's now the case for the forseeable.

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So you are both going to ignore the automatic tolls and tills that I mentioned?

What exactly are we ignoring?