Refusing cash payments
Discussion
Flintstone said:
Swoxy said:
Silent1, when people mispronounce words slightly, do you pretend you can't understand them?
Sorry, what did you say?And who is Shirley?
Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
NGUAGE
Sometimes, a complete misunderstanding can occur between the writer and the reader. As there may be little or no opportunity for a dialogue between reader and writer to determine the intention of the writer (fora such as PH being an exception), it behoves the writer to "get it right". In verbal communication, there is a continuous and immediate feedback, whereby the listener can have the speaker clarify what they said and meant.
Consider the following sentences:
"The speaker's tone affected a dampening in the general mood of the audience." At face value, this indicates that the speaker's tone changed a dampening that was occurring in the audience's mood. Whether this was for the better - it lifted it - or the worse - it deepened it - is not discernable from the text. If the writer had used "effected" (as in the original I modified), the meaning would have been clear ... well, at least to those who know the difference.
"I am going to the capital building." Does this mean that the writer is travelling to the main building in the capital city or to a cash repository, or did they intend to write "capitol"?
"The company is sited for pollution." This could indicate that the company is located somewhere where there is pollution (perhaps they are a "clean-up" service provider), or is situated where they can cause pollution. The original word was "cited", meaning summonsed.
"He complemented her outfit." Does this mean the man was attired or adorned in a manner that matched the look of the lady's dress - perhaps a florid complection to match her rose-coloured attire - or did the writer intend the reader to understand that the man had said nice things about the dress ("complimented")?
"In her affairs, the lady was discrete." Well, yes, there was only one of her; or perhaps she had only one affair or one (affair/man/woman) at a time, but it's likely that the word the writer intended was "discreet"?
"I will appraise you later." Is it the speaker's intention that they will inform me ("apprise") or assess ("appraise") me later?
"The minors went down the pit." Young people, or "miners"?
Just because I like it (read into that what you may) "I laid the lady on the bed." Lucky me ... possibly!
And have you heard about the tyre-fitter who can not only torque the torque, but can also work the work?
Now (at last!) to the particular words used by the OP. Consider this sentence: "There going their to get they're things." It takes you (albeit, fractionally) longer to read and understand this than the correct: "They're going there to get their things." Add all those small delays together, and the time wasted is no longer minor.
Those of us who do not put finger to paper to trace our way across the page, read ahead by several words. Every time we come across a solecism, it slows down our reading. We have to go back and re-read the phrase, sentence or paragraph.
All my remarks above notwithstanding, with the written word we have the opportunity to re-read and re-digest the sentence without missing the next pearls of wisdom.
When listening (similarly), we continually process the words and context and 'guess' the next word to be uttered. If that word is not what we expected, we skip back and mentally re-process the sentence. Normally, this takes so little time, we do not miss what the speaker is saying next ... but all of us will have had experiences where we do miss the next utterances. A cause of this is that forward processing being disrupted by an uncommon or unusual word, or one used out of context or mispronounced. Then we are often obliged to turn to that hackneyed phrase, "I'm sorry, what did you just say?"
Many moon ago, I saw film of an experiment where a speaker's words were simultaneously transcribed by three very experienced Pitman shorthand writers, three just-qualified Pitman shorthand writers and three 'long-form' writers, and translated into French by three expert translators. The text being read by the speaker was laced with solecisms. In the context of this discussion, the best of these was the inclusion of words out of context, such as in, "I was walking along the railway station platform reading my elephant when the train arrived." The experienced Pitman shorthand writers all transcribed the words as spoken. They were listening to the words, not the context. The long-form writers all wrote "elephant" then crossed it out and wrote "newspaper", as did one of the just-qualified Pitman writers (the other two wrote nothing). They all missed the next one or two sentences ... which contained important remarks that should have been noted. The translators all lost concentration too, one saying nothing for four sentences.
And, Swoxy, if people mispronounce words to the extent that I do not understand what they are saying, I ask them to repeat themselves ... and (gently) correct them if necessary. This response might be effected (or even 'affected') by my cultural upbringing; you might have had the experience of a French-speaker mispronouncing English words and you accommodating them, yet any mispronouncing of French by you to (the same) French person being met by obvious puzzlement or even a 'complete ignoral'.
Those of fewer years than mine and a lesser education in English often struggle to read English as written (in particular) by Indians who have been well-educated in India. Their sentence construction and use of words is often that of late-Victorian and Edwardian English. And, for the record, I do appreciate that my written English is of an uncommon standard owing to my unbringing, education and extensive reading. I love the English language and cannot abide its corruption through ignorance, an overly casual approach and appallingly bad teaching. My writing varies between flowery and terse. It depends upon the context, the communication medium, and my mood. I trust that it is seldom 'sloppy', except by design.
Toodle pip.
Streaky
Swoxy said:
Silent1, when people mispronounce words slightly, do you pretend you can't understand them?
When people use incorrect spelling or the wrong word or bad grammar, or other solecisms appear in the written word, the reading rate slows down. After a (short) while, this can result in the piece being discarded, unfinished. Examples dribble their way through PH.Sometimes, a complete misunderstanding can occur between the writer and the reader. As there may be little or no opportunity for a dialogue between reader and writer to determine the intention of the writer (fora such as PH being an exception), it behoves the writer to "get it right". In verbal communication, there is a continuous and immediate feedback, whereby the listener can have the speaker clarify what they said and meant.
Consider the following sentences:
"The speaker's tone affected a dampening in the general mood of the audience." At face value, this indicates that the speaker's tone changed a dampening that was occurring in the audience's mood. Whether this was for the better - it lifted it - or the worse - it deepened it - is not discernable from the text. If the writer had used "effected" (as in the original I modified), the meaning would have been clear ... well, at least to those who know the difference.
"I am going to the capital building." Does this mean that the writer is travelling to the main building in the capital city or to a cash repository, or did they intend to write "capitol"?
"The company is sited for pollution." This could indicate that the company is located somewhere where there is pollution (perhaps they are a "clean-up" service provider), or is situated where they can cause pollution. The original word was "cited", meaning summonsed.
"He complemented her outfit." Does this mean the man was attired or adorned in a manner that matched the look of the lady's dress - perhaps a florid complection to match her rose-coloured attire - or did the writer intend the reader to understand that the man had said nice things about the dress ("complimented")?
"In her affairs, the lady was discrete." Well, yes, there was only one of her; or perhaps she had only one affair or one (affair/man/woman) at a time, but it's likely that the word the writer intended was "discreet"?
"I will appraise you later." Is it the speaker's intention that they will inform me ("apprise") or assess ("appraise") me later?
"The minors went down the pit." Young people, or "miners"?
Just because I like it (read into that what you may) "I laid the lady on the bed." Lucky me ... possibly!
And have you heard about the tyre-fitter who can not only torque the torque, but can also work the work?
Now (at last!) to the particular words used by the OP. Consider this sentence: "There going their to get they're things." It takes you (albeit, fractionally) longer to read and understand this than the correct: "They're going there to get their things." Add all those small delays together, and the time wasted is no longer minor.
Those of us who do not put finger to paper to trace our way across the page, read ahead by several words. Every time we come across a solecism, it slows down our reading. We have to go back and re-read the phrase, sentence or paragraph.
All my remarks above notwithstanding, with the written word we have the opportunity to re-read and re-digest the sentence without missing the next pearls of wisdom.
When listening (similarly), we continually process the words and context and 'guess' the next word to be uttered. If that word is not what we expected, we skip back and mentally re-process the sentence. Normally, this takes so little time, we do not miss what the speaker is saying next ... but all of us will have had experiences where we do miss the next utterances. A cause of this is that forward processing being disrupted by an uncommon or unusual word, or one used out of context or mispronounced. Then we are often obliged to turn to that hackneyed phrase, "I'm sorry, what did you just say?"
Many moon ago, I saw film of an experiment where a speaker's words were simultaneously transcribed by three very experienced Pitman shorthand writers, three just-qualified Pitman shorthand writers and three 'long-form' writers, and translated into French by three expert translators. The text being read by the speaker was laced with solecisms. In the context of this discussion, the best of these was the inclusion of words out of context, such as in, "I was walking along the railway station platform reading my elephant when the train arrived." The experienced Pitman shorthand writers all transcribed the words as spoken. They were listening to the words, not the context. The long-form writers all wrote "elephant" then crossed it out and wrote "newspaper", as did one of the just-qualified Pitman writers (the other two wrote nothing). They all missed the next one or two sentences ... which contained important remarks that should have been noted. The translators all lost concentration too, one saying nothing for four sentences.
And, Swoxy, if people mispronounce words to the extent that I do not understand what they are saying, I ask them to repeat themselves ... and (gently) correct them if necessary. This response might be effected (or even 'affected') by my cultural upbringing; you might have had the experience of a French-speaker mispronouncing English words and you accommodating them, yet any mispronouncing of French by you to (the same) French person being met by obvious puzzlement or even a 'complete ignoral'.
Those of fewer years than mine and a lesser education in English often struggle to read English as written (in particular) by Indians who have been well-educated in India. Their sentence construction and use of words is often that of late-Victorian and Edwardian English. And, for the record, I do appreciate that my written English is of an uncommon standard owing to my unbringing, education and extensive reading. I love the English language and cannot abide its corruption through ignorance, an overly casual approach and appallingly bad teaching. My writing varies between flowery and terse. It depends upon the context, the communication medium, and my mood. I trust that it is seldom 'sloppy', except by design.
Toodle pip.
Streaky
b2dan said:
Can a company refuse to accept cash as a method of payment?
Depends on the circumstances.The definition of "legal tender" is that it cannot be refused in settlement of a debt. Cash, in any reasonable quantities, is legal tender in England (at least, English notes are).
The key thing is "debt". When you're standing at the counter in a shop, there is no debt because you haven't removed the goods from the shop. You are simply offering to buy the goods. The shopkeeper can therefore decide whether or not to accept the payment you're offering, regardless of what it is. However, where a company has irreversibly provided you with goods or services that cannot be returned, then a debt exists and they cannot refuse legal tender, e.g. cash. For example, if you've contracted someone to chop down a tree, they can't put the tree back up again; or in a restaurant if you've eaten the meal you can't return it - and in these circumstances legal tender must be accepted.
AIUI, all this only applies in England.
dmjw01 said:
b2dan said:
Can a company refuse to accept cash as a method of payment?
Depends on the circumstances.The definition of "legal tender" is that it cannot be refused in settlement of a debt. Cash, in any reasonable quantities, is legal tender in England (at least, English notes are).
The key thing is "debt". When you're standing at the counter in a shop, there is no debt because you haven't removed the goods from the shop. You are simply offering to buy the goods. The shopkeeper can therefore decide whether or not to accept the payment you're offering, regardless of what it is. However, where a company has irreversibly provided you with goods or services that cannot be returned, then a debt exists and they cannot refuse legal tender, e.g. cash. For example, if you've contracted someone to chop down a tree, they can't put the tree back up again; or in a restaurant if you've eaten the meal you can't return it - and in these circumstances legal tender must be accepted.
AIUI, all this only applies in England.
dmjw01 said:
b2dan said:
Can a company refuse to accept cash as a method of payment?
Depends on the circumstances.The definition of "legal tender" is that it cannot be refused in settlement of a debt. Cash, in any reasonable quantities, is legal tender in England (at least, English notes are).
The key thing is "debt". When you're standing at the counter in a shop, there is no debt because you haven't removed the goods from the shop. You are simply offering to buy the goods. The shopkeeper can therefore decide whether or not to accept the payment you're offering, regardless of what it is. However, where a company has irreversibly provided you with goods or services that cannot be returned, then a debt exists and they cannot refuse legal tender, e.g. cash. For example, if you've contracted someone to chop down a tree, they can't put the tree back up again; or in a restaurant if you've eaten the meal you can't return it - and in these circumstances legal tender must be accepted.
AIUI, all this only applies in England.
B3njamin said:
dmjw01 said:
b2dan said:
Can a company refuse to accept cash as a method of payment?
Depends on the circumstances.The definition of "legal tender" is that it cannot be refused in settlement of a debt. Cash, in any reasonable quantities, is legal tender in England (at least, English notes are).
The key thing is "debt". When you're standing at the counter in a shop, there is no debt because you haven't removed the goods from the shop. You are simply offering to buy the goods. The shopkeeper can therefore decide whether or not to accept the payment you're offering, regardless of what it is. However, where a company has irreversibly provided you with goods or services that cannot be returned, then a debt exists and they cannot refuse legal tender, e.g. cash. For example, if you've contracted someone to chop down a tree, they can't put the tree back up again; or in a restaurant if you've eaten the meal you can't return it - and in these circumstances legal tender must be accepted.
AIUI, all this only applies in England.
£1 in 1p or 2P's
£5 in 5p or 10p's
Someone posted up a full list a while ago of the restrictions which I think were set up by some sort of case law where someone tried to pay a council tax bill by turning up outside the offices with a s
t load of pennies. I'm sure someone will correct me on the amounts.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff