Legal tender: using commemorative coins to pay off debt This question is somewhat related to: Paying debts in cash in a petty way The Royal Mint issues commemorative coins. For example, they issued £20 coins (made out of silver) but usually shops and banks don't accept them. They are legal tender, however. If I was sued and had to pay a debt to someone in court, could I use my commemorative coins to pay off part of the debt? The Royal Mint website says this: Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
If I was sued and had to pay a debt to someone in court, could I use my commemorative coins to pay off part of the debt? Yes, in to a court. As per your quoted section from the Royal Mint's Legal Tender Guidelines: ... a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. And further down it says: We receive a lot of enquiries about our popular silver commemorative coins (including £5 crowns, £20, £50 and £100 coins) and their legal tender status. Each issue is authorised by Royal Proclamation in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Coinage Act 1971. This means that in common with coins in general circulation these coins have legal tender status. [my emphasis]
If by invalidated you mean you do not have to pay it back, no it is not invalidated. The way a loan is supposed to work is that you are given the money and then you could spend it or use the unused portion of the money to pay back the loan. The $400 that you did not use would technically be considered payment on the loan and you would owe $300.
A settlement can include whatever terms the parties agree on, short of terms prohibited by law. Usually one party gives up at lest some claims. Then other party nay also give up,claims, or make a payment, or both. There may be other terms as well, including confidentiality of the details. It is not uncommon for both parties to give up all claims against each other. Settlement agreements are legally binding on both parties. We cannot advise on what kind of settlement a particular person should take in a particular case. For tht, consult a lawyer.
You have read it: legally It doesn’t matter if you haven’t read it in fact. At law, you have. Therefore you cannot avoid obligations or consequences by saying “ I didn’t read it”. It’s an extension of the common law principle that if you affix your ‘mark’ to a document you were acknowledging that you understood it and would abide by it: even if your mark was an X because you were illiterate. There are protections. At common law an unconscionable term is unenforceable and may void the contract entirely. Additionally, many jurisdictions have passed legislation to make unfair contract terms unenforceable, particularly in contracts of adhesion. Further, consumer protection laws often have non-excludable warranties that operate in spite of the contract.
The note you have quoted does not accurately summarise the decision, which is available on BAILII. What happened was: IOC agreed to sell 5,000 tons of salt to Mumtazzudin. Atlas paid IOC for the salt on behalf of Mumtazzudin. Because Atlas paid, Atlas received the bills of lading. Thus, the salt was pledged to Atlas to secure the money owed by Mumtazzudin. Atlas endorsed the bills of lading over to Chabbra for value. In other words, Atlas sold Chabbra the right to be repaid by Mumtazzudin, and to take delivery of the salt as security for the debt. Mumtazzudin persuaded the shipowner to hand over the salt without presenting the bill of lading. Chabbra sued the shipowner for conversion (destroying the value of its security). What does “refused to redeem the pledge when the bills of lading were tendered to them by Chabbra” mean? Chabbra, as the pledgee of the bills of lading, was entitled to possession of the salt, until Mumtazzudin “redeemed the pledge” by paying Chabbra the amount originally advanced by Atlas. But Mumtazzudin managed to get the salt without the bills of lading, so it refused to pay Chabbra. Why would a savvy seller even transact with buyers who couldn’t pay for the transaction upfront? The alternative may be that the sale is not made at all. However, that is not what happened in this case – the seller got paid.
Yes, they can be sued civilly Or, for that matter, be prosecuted by another jurisdiction- pardons only work within the jurisdiction that issued them. In a common law jurisdiction, the pardon cannot be used as evidence Nor, for that matter, can a criminal conviction. This is partly because the elements that need to be proved for the civil wrong won’t correspond to the elements of the crime. But mostly, because it just isn’t allowed.
I assume that the loan was legal, in light of rule changes pertaining to non-borrowing spouses. If so, there is really no recourse other than to repay the loan. This article explains the current options / restrictions in an understandable manner, but of course it is too late to do anything about it. If there was actually fraud or coercion in the loan, or if the elder party was mentally incompetent, there might be some legal recourse, but we don't have any evidence of fraud, coercion or incompetence here.
In the UK, broadly speaking it is not illegal to pay a ransom. However, there may be circumstances such that arranging or paying a ransom constitutes a terrorist financing offence - although a prosecution might be deemed against the public interest. I'm not aware of any such prosecutions. Section 15 (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence for a person to provide money or other property if he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Section 17 makes it an offence for a person to enter into or become concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and the person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Section 17A makes it an offence for an insurer to make a payment under an insurance contract against kidnapping and ransom if he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that the money or other property has been, or is to be, handed over in response to a terrorist demand. Section 18 makes it an offence for someone to enter into or become concerned in an in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by or on behalf of another person of terrorist property. If a person becomes aware in the course of his trade, profession or business (e.g. the banker assembling the money) that someone may be arranging a ransom to pay a terrorist, section 19 makes it an offence for that person to not disclose to a constable as soon as reasonably practicable his belief or suspicion and the information on which it is based. In terms of maritime piracy kidnappings in the area of Somalia for example, although the Government has tried to link them to terrorism there is no direct evidence of systematic links. But if it became known that such a connection exists, then the knowledge or suspicion element of the terrorist financing offences might be provable. In Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member [2011] EWCA Civ 24 (a case partly about whether ransom payments by shipowners to pirates were as a matter of English law against public policy) the Court of Appeal was not aware of illegality in the payment of ransoms under international law. The UK Government supported the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2133 in January 2014, which among other things "Calls upon all Member States to prevent terrorists from benefiting directly or indirectly from ransom payments or from political concessions and to secure the safe release of hostages".