Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

tolls not accepting cash or cards

Options
  • 22-03-2020 1:28am
    #1
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭


    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


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


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


  • Options
    #3
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,382 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    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.


  • Options
    #4
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    mdebets
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    moonshadow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,217 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #8
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #13
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Victor wrote: »
    Am I right that there is no obligation to give change?
    Yes.


  • Options
    #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


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


  • Options
    #15
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #16
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #18
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #20
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #23
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #26
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #29
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #30
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement