No, I am sorry, but we just do not agree. You and I have a problem and we do not agree. The sheep are dead. I am offering you 1000 bushels of apples. You don't want them. What do you want? 10,000 eggs. I don't have those and don't want get into the egg business. How about 400 lbs of copper bars? You say no. You want gold. Well, OK, maybe. How much? You say 40 ounces. I say No, that's too much, I counter with 28. You say No, not enough. Back and forth, back and forth. If we cannot agree, you go without the sheep you paid for, which is fine with me. I tried being reasonable. You rejected all of my offers. You can pound salt for all I care. So, you sue me in a court of law with competent jurisdiction. Lacking any definition of legal tender, it is entirely up to the whim or wisdom of the bench. That is not objective law.
In a discussion with Henry Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand said that Roman law was objective. It definitely was not based on individual rights, but it was written down and posted for all to know and it was uniformly enforced. That made it objective. Maybe Ayn Rand was wrong about that. But if you so, you are going to have to make a case.