[lolinder]

No, your claim is backwards—if the parties have agreed that dimes are valid payment of debt then that agreement must be upheld. Absent a prior agreement to accept dimes, the party receiving the money may refuse any combination of currency that they see fit.

In other words, an agreement isn't required in order to refuse legal tender, an agreement would be required to make it mandatory.

A court might decide that an agreement to accept cash without specifying in what form was meant to include dimes, but I see no evidence anywhere that a court has to rule that way if the contextual evidence suggests something else was probably meant.

[amenhotep]

"legal tender" is a term of art that specifically means a creditor must accept it, and your big quote clearly supported this, discussing only the common misconception that legal tender means it can't be refused in an offer to purchase. You are arguing backwards yourself.

[gamblor956]

No you're still wrong.

The law says that coinage is valid legal tender for an offer to settle a debt but the counterparty is not required to accept it... unless they contractually agreed to do so.

Only the U.S. government is required to accept payment in coins. Many states also require their agencies to accept payment in coinage but some have laws limiting the size of debts that can be paid this way.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

[amenhotep]

That link is, again, about the difference between offers to purchase and offers to settle debts.

Think logically about this. What do you think legal tender even means otherwise? Why would you need a special term to denote a form of payment that a creditor can accept if they want to? I could accept settlement in jelly beans if I wanted to. The entire point is that you must accept legal tender, that is what makes it different from everything else.