What is the plain-English meaning of &#39;obliged to receive&#39;?
<p>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'?</p>

<p>Not just an academic question, I've actually found myself right in the middle of the exact situation of 
<a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/2013/699.010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/2013/699.010</a></p>

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

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

<p>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.</p>

property legal-terms