what's the deal with $USD in argentina?

[solerboy]

Most short term rentals are made to tourists who book their accomodation before arriving and arrive at their apartments straight from the airport. For them paying in dollars is convenient and it would not occur to them it may or may not be illegal.

The people who will suffer most if landlords are forced to accept peso contracts will be Argentinians and long term residents from other countries. Landlors will simply refuse to do business with these people in the first place.

Why put up with whingey perma tourists when you can earn more from genuine tourists who are happy and willing to pay in dollars.

 

[TheBlackHand]

If you want to go to extremes, the property owner can also say the contract is void because it's technically not a two year lease with a guarantee and simply change the locks.

A void contract as you so eloquently stated is a VOID contract and as such the tenant has no legal right to the property

PROBLEM SOLVED.

It is impossible to reneg a void agreement...by definition. That's a legal certainty which seems to elude you. An unwary tourist who signs an agreement requiring payment in dollars is not renegging on the agreement when he tells the landlord to go pound sand while offering pesos at the official rate of exchange.
A property owner may not lawfully insist on what he wants if what he wants is payment in dollars. You can argue semantics, but most people would agree it is not a reasonable option to violate the law re rental property especially against unwary tourists who don't know better.

 

[TheBlackHand]

As it is most people I know who own property in Buenos Aires are preferring to simply rent their properties furnished or unfurnished but for 2 year contracts with a guarantee. They get a solid rental with 100% occupancy for 2 years. They get a tenant with an Argentinian property owner co-signer and most importantly they have no hassle from some perma tourist tenant trying to strong arm them or trying to rewrite the contract half way through the rental. They also don't have to worry about having to pay utilities, ABL taxes, building expenses or cleaning lady costs. The property owners who decide to continue to deal with perma tourists will simply become more strict and stringent as to who they will rent to and under what conditions.

Life is a two way street.

Most short term rentals are made to tourists who book their accomodation before arriving and arrive at their apartments straight from the airport. For them paying in dollars is convenient and it would not occur to them it may or may not be illegal.

The people who will suffer most if landlords are forced to accept peso contracts will be Argentinians and long term residents from other countries. Landlors will simply refuse to do business with these people in the first place.

Why put up with whingey perma tourists when you can earn more from genuine tourists who are happy and willing to pay in dollars.

 

[scarface]

If you want to go to extremes, the property owner can also say the contract is void because it's technically not a two year lease with a guarantee and simply change the locks.

A void contract as you so eloquently stated is a VOID contract and as such the tenant has no legal right to the property

PROBLEM SOLVED.

Are you sure? I know you and some others desperately want to be right, but I doubt you are. Is a lease that is for less than 2 years and w/o a guarantor void? Even if it is, may a landlord use self help to evict by simply changing locks without notice or court process after the tenant has been occupying the premises? I'd be surprised, but perhaps the resident lawyer could opine.
p.s. Thanks for the compliment on my eloquence. Wish I could say the same for you.
p.p.s. By the way, is complying with applicable law "going to extremes?" That's a novel thought.
p.p.p.s. Problem solved ? (somehow I tend to doubt yours will be).

 

[TheBlackHand]

From what i'm reading it's sounds like you are advocating squatting. If there is no contract because both parties consider it void and rent hasn't been accepted or paid then you are trespassing and have no legal right to the property. If you want to try and squat on property that doesn't belong to you that's your business. But I think most foreigners aren't dead beat squatters.

Are you sure? I know you and some others desperately want to be right, but I doubt you are. Is a lease that is for less than 2 years and w/o a guarantor void? Even if it is, may a landlord use self help to evict by simply changing locks without notice or court process after the tenant has been occupying the premises? I'd be surprised, but perhaps the resident lawyer could opine.
p.s. Thanks for the compliment on my eloquence. Wish I could say the same for you.
p.p.s. By the way, is complying with applicable law "going to extremes?" That's a novel thought.
p.p.p.s. Problem solved ? (somehow I tend to doubt yours will be).

 

[scarface]

duplicate of message

 

[scarface]

From what i'm reading it's sounds like you are advocating squatting. If there is no contract because both parties consider it void and rent hasn't been accepted or paid then you are trespassing and have no legal right to the property. If you want to try and squat on property that doesn't belong to you that's your business. But I think most foreigners aren't dead beat squatters.

Not sure what you are reading, but it appears that either you aren't reading or aren't comprehending what has been written here. I am not advocating squatting or tresspassing and nothing I have written could possibly be interpreted as such. You seem to be making stuff up to come across as right.

Your earlier posts demonstrated a failure to comprehend the legal meaning of "void" as applied to a contract term. Thereafter, I pointed out that legally it is impossible to reneg on a lease term that is void (i.e to pay dollars as rent). In an effort to save face and to prove yourself right you then argued "the property owner can also say the contract is void because it's technically not a two year lease with a guarantee and simply change the locks." I said you were probably wrong. Now you have changed your statement in a significant way, but I'd be willing to bet you are still wrong.
The first hypo to which I already replied unequivocably implies the tenant has already occupied the property (or else why change locks). This flatly contradicts the latest version of your hypo wherein you now posit that "no rent has been accepted or paid" (ergo no occupancy yet by the tenant). This is a big difference between your two hypos, but even if no rent had been paid and even if the tenant had yet to take possession, I seriously doubt that the landlord could wiggle out of a duly signed and delivered 2 year lease simply because the landlord opted to forego a guarantor in the lease contract because I don't believe the absence of a guarantor makes the lease void.
I would be surprised if a landlord who was willing to forego a guarantor could subsequently treat a duly signed lease as void if he later changed his mind, much less simply lock out his tenant if the tenant has already occupied the apt. I would be willing to bet a lunch that leases are not void if there is no provision for a guarantor. I would be willing to bet a dinner if landlords could lawfully (without judicial process) change locks to evict a tenant already in possession of an apt. I'm not an AR lawyer, but I can assure you if that happened in San Francisco where I was a Legal Aid lawyer specializing in landlord/tenant problems, the landlord would soon find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit for damages.

I'm not sure why some people here want to rationalize improper conduct by landlords who try to evade the laws that prohibit them from demanding dollars for rent. That improper conduct would require short term tourist visitors and longer term expats to travel with large amounts of cash. That is not safe. That was the concern of the OP of this thread. Hopefully, he and others will not be bullied into paying dollars by unscrupulous landlords having learned contract clauses providing for dollar payments are void. The contract is otherwise valid and a landlord can be made to accept pesos at the legal rate even it it contains such a dollar payment provision.

 

[solerboy]

Not sure what you are reading, but it appears that either you aren't reading or aren't comprehending what has been written here. I am not advocating squatting or tresspassing and nothing I have written could possibly be interpreted as such. You seem to be making stuff up to come across as right.

Your earlier posts demonstrated a failure to comprehend the legal meaning of "void" as applied to a contract term. Thereafter, I pointed out that legally it is impossible to reneg on a lease term that is void (i.e to pay dollars as rent). In an effort to save face and to prove yourself right you then argued "the property owner can also say the contract is void because it's technically not a two year lease with a guarantee and simply change the locks." I said you were probably wrong. Now you have changed your statement in a significant way, but I'd be willing to bet you are still wrong.
The first hypo to which I already replied unequivocably implies the tenant has already occupied the property (or else why change locks). This flatly contradicts the latest version of your hypo wherein you now posit that "no rent has been accepted or paid" (ergo no occupancy yet by the tenant). This is a big difference between your two hypos, but even if no rent had been paid and even if the tenant had yet to take possession, I seriously doubt that the landlord could wiggle out of a duly signed and delivered 2 year lease simply because the landlord opted to forego a guarantor in the lease contract because I don't believe the absence of a guarantor makes the lease void.
I would be surprised if a landlord who was willing to forego a guarantor could subsequently treat a duly signed lease as void if he later changed his mind, much less simply lock out his tenant if the tenant has already occupied the apt. I would be willing to bet a lunch that leases are not void if there is no provision for a guarantor. I would be willing to bet a dinner if landlords could lawfully (without judicial process) change locks to evict a tenant already in possession of an apt. I'm not an AR lawyer, but I can assure you if that happened in San Francisco where I was a Legal Aid lawyer specializing in landlord/tenant problems, the landlord would soon find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit for damages.

I'm not sure why some people here want to rationalize improper conduct by landlords who try to evade the laws that prohibit them from demanding dollars for rent. That improper conduct would require short term tourist visitors and longer term expats to travel with large amounts of cash. That is not safe. That was the concern of the OP of this thread. Hopefully, he and others will not be bullied into paying dollars by unscrupulous landlords having learned contract clauses providing for dollar payments are void. The contract is otherwise valid and a landlord can be made to accept pesos at the legal rate even it it contains such a dollar payment provision.

In the case of short term visitors, the Landlord would not sign the contract until the client has demonstrated that he can pay the rent in dollars. So whether a contract is void or not void is not relavant, because a contract will not exist at that point. The payment and signing of the contract will be simultanious.

 

[scarface]

In the case of short term visitors, the Landlord would not sign the contract until the client has demonstrated that he can pay the rent in dollars. So whether a contract is void or not void is not relavant, because a contract will not exist at that point. The payment and signing of the contract will be simultanious.

Your hypothetical is problematical to the point of "ludicrousosity."

Okay, some landlords who deal with tourists may continue to disregard the law by holding out for dollars only perhaps because of greed or ignorance. I'm not sure how they will know for sure that the tenant will abide by the void clause to pay more than the initial reserve/downpayment in dollars. They run the risk that the savvy tenant will refuse to pay the balance in dollars. Landlords may find that they will not get paid unless they accept pesos at the official rate which they are obligated to do.
Of course, they could play hardball by pocketing any downstroke and then refusing to turn over possession until the dollars (not the peso equivalent) were paid. That's pretty risky. First they lose the tenant and the balance of the rent. More importantly, landlords and especially real estate agencies who make a business of renting to tourists will find that if they do this, even just a few times, they will get bad publicity that will hurt/ruin their business, not to mention lawsuits by outraged knowledgeable customers and possible prosecutorial action for criminal fraud.
Other landlords and real estate agencies will simply ask for more pesos up front than they otherwise would. Problem solved. Tourists will no longer have to travel with large amounts of cash. Hopefully, landlords and especially temp rental agencies will stop requiring payment in dollars once the law becomes widely known.

 

[TheBlackHand]

Three consecutive walls of text that no one read. The guy obviously has some personal issues. Let him rant alone. Most tourists aren't the type of people that will renege on contracts anyway. They are for the most part, honest and understand what a private contract is. Only a very small minority of people are shady enough to try to change the terms mid stream or try to squat on someone elses property without paying the rent under the terms that were agreed to in the contract.

Personally if I were renting my apartment out, I would insist on a two year lease with a guarantee and a requisite credit and judicial check. Period. Let the short termers deal with hotels. That way they don't have to deal with " evil " landlords.

In the case of short term visitors, the Landlord would not sign the contract until the client has demonstrated that he can pay the rent in dollars. So whether a contract is void or not void is not relavant, because a contract will not exist at that point. The payment and signing of the contract will be simultanious.