2

I've come across this phrase several times when reading legal texts, and it's always confused me. If someone is "[not] obliged to receive [something]", does this more closely mean they are [not] "required to accept", or am I far off there mark here, and maybe we're using 'receive' in the sense of 'received pronunciation'?

Not just an academic question, I've actually found myself right in the middle of the exact situation of https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/2013/699.010

And want to make sure I understand fully what that sentence means before I dive in head first.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

"Obliged to receive" and "required to accept" mean the same thing in the context you reference.

In the context of the statute you reference, it means that the general rule is that a hotel has no legal liability for theft of personal valuables from your room if they offer you an opportunity to put the items in a safe. But, they don't have to allow you to put items worth more than $300 in the safe, and if if they don't allow you to put an item worth more than $300 in the safe, they are not liable if the valuable item worth more than $300 is stolen from your room.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .