LEGAL TENDER IS LAWFUL MONEY WHEN PRESENTED IN A COURT OF LAW IN ORDER TO SETTLE A DEBT IS IT NOT?
Legal tender is money that MUST be accepted as payment
LEGAL TENDER BOTH AS DEFINED ON THE US DOLLAR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND’S NOTES ARE PROMISES TO “PAY ALL DEBTS” - ARE THEY NOT?
No. Legal tender is not in any way a "promise to pay".
AND IN THE CASE OF THE US$ NOTES STATED AS “GOOD TO PAY ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” ARE THEY NOT?
This simply means that the US notes can be used to pay either private or public debts.
LEGAL TENDER IS THE OFFERING OF “PROMSSORY NOTES” IS IT NOT?
No. Legal tender is in no way a "promssory note", or even a promisory note.
LEGAL TENDER IS THEREFORE A “PROMISE TO PAY” IS IT NOT?
No. Legal tender is the medium of payment.
BUT THE WORD “TENDER” IS A VERB AND NOT A NOUN - IS IT NOT?
Like many words in the English language, it can be either one, depending on the context
THEREFORE “TENDERING” IS AN ACTION AND NOT AN OBJECT - CORRECT?
Yes. In that context, the word "tender" is a verb. So what? In other contexts, the word tender can be a noun.
AND WHAT OF LEGAL? IS THAT NOT APPERTAINING TO FORCE OF LAW – COERCION – THE STATE AND USE OF FORCE?
Only in the sense that the law (both US and UK) specifically state that the respective legal tender for each country must be accepted as payment for a debt.
A PROMISE ALWAYS INFERS THAT THE ACTUAL ARTICLE IN NOT PRESENT [OR NOT TO BE HANDED OVER OR CANNOT BE DELIVERED] AT THAT MOMENT OTHERWISE THE PROMISE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT WOULD IT NOT?
First of all, that is an incorrect use of the word "infer". Since legal tender is not a promise of any kind, the rest of the sentence is gibberish.
A “PROMISE TO PAY” IS A “LESS FORMAL” PLEDGE THAN AN IOU IS IT NOT?
If I write a document entitled "promise to pay" and otherwise identify who is to pay, who is to be paid, how much is to be paid and when it is to be paid, this document would, IMHO, be just as formal as any document labelled IOU or "Promisory Note" and printed on top-quality rag paper. And just as binding, so it doesn't matter if it is more formal or not.
A “PROMISE TO PAY” IS THEREFORE NOT AS BINDING AS AN IOU IS IT NOT?
See the above
A CHEQUE IS ALSO A PROMISE TO PAY IS IT NOT?
No. A cheque is an order to my bank, or other deposit holder, to take some of the funds I have on deposit and give them to someone else. Although, I believe that post-dated checks can be treated as promisory notes. But, no one is obliged to accept a promisory note in settlement of a debt.
A CHEQUE IS AN “EVIDENTIAL IOU” IS IT NOT?
I don't know what "evidential" means, but since a cheque is not an IOU, the sentence is gibberish.
AND AN IOU, AS WE HAVE SEEN, HAS MORE SUBSTANCE AND LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY THAN A MERE PROMISE DOES IT NOT - PROMISES ARE OFTEN BROKEN AND UNENFORCEABLE – BUT IOU’S….?
IANAL, but I believe that even an oral promise to pay can be just as valid and enforceable as any other, just like an oral contract. The problem with oral contracts, and oral promises, is proving that the promise was made and that it means what the one attempting to enforce it claims it means.
Again, since a cheque is NOT an IOU or a promisory note, your sentence is at best, completely irrelevent.
Oral contracts are frowned upon by the legal establishment, but, given the right circumstances, they can be every bit
as binding as a written contract.
The only thing he got correct, IMHO, was his statement that tendering is an action.
