This session continues our examination of how the law distinguishes between money, money-like instruments, and non-monetary forms of value. Through five historically and doctrinally significant cases, we will explore the boundaries of what constitutes money for legal purposes, with particular attention to payment obligations, circulation, and state recognition.
We will consider:
-
When banknotes are treated as equivalent to coin;
-
Why some instruments (e.g. cheques or gift tokens) cannot discharge a debt;
-
How context, statutory purpose, and commercial practice shape what courts recognise as “money”;
-
The limits of using physical or foreign currency for legal payment;
-
The distinction between tender and satisfaction of obligations.
Please see below link to case materials which is assumed reading in order to participate in the discussion, Required Reading (Total: 24 pages):
-
Crawfurd v Royal Bank of Glasgow (3 pages)
Banknotes treated as equivalent to coin; not subject to vindication. Establishes legal protection of circulating paper money in Scottish commercial law. -
Miller v Race (5 pages)
English court confirms that banknotes pass by delivery and are treated as cash in law and commerce. Foundational to the common law’s functional treatment of money. -
O’Dea v Merchants Trade Expansion Group Ltd (7 pages)
Gift tokens issued by a company were not “money” or valid consideration under the Sale of Goods Act. Demonstrates the limits of non-state, non-currency instruments in legal obligations. -
Davies v Customs & Excise Commissioner [1975] 1 WLR 204 (4 pages) Vouchers accepted as payment treated as money for VAT purposes. Tax applied to full face value, not net reimbursement.
-
Chapman & Hobbs (1885) 29 H D 1007 (5 pages)
A cheque is not money or legal tender. Tender of a cheque does not discharge a debt unless accepted and honoured. Reinforces the legal distinction between money and instruments.
Discussion led by Adrian Cartland.