Where To Buy Guyanese Dollars In Phuket

[IrishIvan]

I have some legal problems and we have come to an agreement in a dollar value. Now the guy who is sueing me hasnt specified the currency. I havent got any intention of paying him, but I thought it would be a great idea to send some of this monopoly money just to drive him wild.

15 baht gets 100 dollars. He is going for a few thousand so for around 450 baht it should be a great surprise for him when he opens the envelope to find this money in there. It will be quite the wild goose chase for him, as the old goose (or turkey) doesnt use the internet and wont be able to check the exchange rate

[KarenBravo]

You can't. Why not buy Indonesian Rupiah instead.

Available and roughly 9000 = US1.

[Guest]

Zimbabwean dollar might have the best exchange rate, if those are still available.

[KarenBravo]

Zimbabwe is now using the US dollar.

[Guest]

Yes, but he bank notes should be still around.

Not sure if the other party would be able to give change back.

[hkt83100]

Yes, but he bank notes should be still around.

Not sure if the other party would be able to give change back.

Good find!

[IrishIvan]

You can't. Why not buy Indonesian Rupiah instead.

Available and roughly 9000 = US1.

We agreed on a dollar amount

[SueOriginal]

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

[hansgruber]

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

If you read the original post. The settlement isn't his priority, its to mess the guy around by giving him the least possible amount but in dollar denomination.

The op obviously has a good sense of humor.

[SueOriginal]

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

If you read the original post. The settlement isn't his priority, its to mess the guy around by giving him the least possible amount but in dollar denomination.

The op obviously has a good sense of humor.

Yes, I did. But as far as I can see there are real legal issues involved as papers have been signed. So to give the least possible amount in dollars probably was meant to be done within a legal framework.

Indeed, quoting just in Dollars, Pounds, Franks etc. in a contract occasionally brings some savings for a debtor, but these are exceptional cases.

[IrishIvan]

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

Thanks heaps for all that, I read it all but couldnt find any where in your post where to get Guyanese or some equally worthless dollars in Phuket.

I tried ebay but they dont have it. Any other ideas members?

[hansgruber]

Maybe try nana plaza or soi 3 in Bangkok. Has to be some of that currency amongst all those Africans.

[qdinthailand]

Zimbabwean dollar might have the best exchange rate, if those are still available.

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

If you read the original post. The settlement isn't his priority, its to mess the guy around by giving him the least possible amount but in dollar denomination.

The op obviously has a good sense of humor.

Perhaps the OP is a real <deleted> and the guy he's messing with - who won the award - isn't such a bad sort. Ya never know!

[Shot]

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

I think you missed the point.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Shot

[Guest]

I think you missed the point.

In the way yes.. the other way no.

That was a well written post which broke the typical yadayada discussion rules. It gave new information to think about.

I'm happy to read posts like that, even on the threads, which are made to be jokes.

Law student, keep on posting.

[hansgruber]

I think you missed the point.

In the way yes.. the other way no.

That was a well written post which broke the typical yadayada discussion rules. It gave new information to think about.

I'm happy to read posts like that, even on the threads, which are made to be jokes.

Law student, keep on posting.

All laws aside, it sucks the fun out of what the op is trying to achieve and doesn't help, just like your post.

[Guest]

All laws aside, it sucks the fun out of what the op is trying to achieve and doesn't help, just like your post.

The point is to view things in different angles at the same time.. kind of multitasking.

[hansgruber]

All laws aside, it sucks the fun out of what the op is trying to achieve and doesn't help, just like your post.

The point is to view things in different angles at the same time.. kind of multitasking.

The point was to source African dollars. Not legal advice.

[Guest]

All laws aside, it sucks the fun out of what the op is trying to achieve and doesn't help, just like your post.

The point is to view things in different angles at the same time.. kind of multitasking.

The point was to source African dollars. Not legal advice.

The benefit of riding a bike instead of going with a train, is to have freedom to take a peek to a side road if there is something new to look at. Sometimes it's the journey, not the destination, which matters.

[KarenBravo]

The point is to view things in different angles at the same time..

What.....like a blow-fly?

You need compound eyes to do that.

Edited January 11, 2013 by KarenBravo

[Guest]

The point is to view things in different angles at the same time..

What.....like a blow-fly?

You need compound eyes to do that.

Srtabismus offers the same. Then again, depth perception does suffer.

[FritsSikkink]

Maybe try nana plaza or soi 3 in Bangkok. Has to be some of that currency amongst all those Africans.

Guyana is in South America, not Africa

[hansgruber]

Maybe try nana plaza or soi 3 in Bangkok. Has to be some of that currency amongst all those Africans.

Guyana is in South America, not Africa

You're right. I read it as Ghana.

I might need glasses.