Author: Dr. Fabio Joffre Calasich, Director of Litigation at WBC
Do you have a contract, loan, antichresis, or any other obligation agreed upon in US dollars? If that obligation has already matured or is about to mature, the recent change in the exchange rate regime will have significant consequences on the way it can be enforced or fulfilled through legal proceedings.
The recent decision by the Bolivian State to abandon the fixed exchange rate regime and adopt an Official Exchange Rate (OER) determined daily by the Central Bank of Bolivia has generated an intense economic debate. However, one of its most relevant effects will likely occur in the field of Private Law and, particularly, in judicial proceedings aimed at collecting obligations agreed upon in foreign currency.
In recent days, various interpretations have emerged regarding the impact of this new exchange rate regime on obligations expressed in US dollars. Nevertheless, the starting point must be a fundamental premise: the modification of the exchange rate regime does not alter the content of previously assumed contractual obligations nor does it modify the currency agreed upon by the parties.
The Bolivian Civil Code expressly regulates monetary obligations and distinguishes different legal scenarios. Regarding debts in foreign currency, the applicable provision is Article 406, which states:
“The payment of debts in foreign currency may also be made in national currency according to the exchange rate on the day of maturity and the place established for payment.”
This provision contains two clearly differentiated legal rules.
The first is that the obligation subsists in the foreign currency freely agreed upon by the parties. If the contract establishes payment in US dollars, that constitutes the due performance. This conclusion is grounded in Article 406 of the Civil Code itself, as well as in the principle of autonomy of will and the binding force of contracts enshrined in Article 519 of the same legal body (pacta sunt servanda).
The second rule is particularly relevant in the new economic context. Article 406 acknowledges that the debtor may fulfill the obligation in national currency; however, such conversion is not left to the moment when actual payment is made nor to the initiation of legal proceedings. The law expressly sets the moment that must serve as reference: the day the obligation matures.
This precision has important practical consequences.
Obligations that matured before the new exchange rate regime came into force must be converted, if payment in national currency is chosen, using the official exchange rate in effect on the date of that maturity, even if the claim is filed months later or the judgment is issued when the Official Exchange Rate is different.
Likewise, obligations that mature after the implementation of the new regime must be converted according to the Official Exchange Rate in effect on the date of that maturity.
The law does not take as reference the date of the claim, the payment demand, the judgment, or the enforcement. The legally relevant moment is the maturity of the obligation.
This interpretation preserves legal certainty and prevents subsequent market fluctuations from altering the economic balance originally agreed upon by the parties.
The recent Supreme Order No. 0584/2026, issued by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, constitutes an important jurisprudential precedent in this matter. The ruling correctly reaffirms that the scarcity of dollars in the market does not constitute a legal impossibility that allows for the unilateral modification of an obligation agreed upon in foreign currency, reaffirming the binding force of the contract and the principle pacta sunt servanda.
However, the reasoning developed in that ruling deserves an interpretive clarification.
The Supreme Order analyzes the problem primarily through Article 407 of the Civil Code, relating to payment in special currency. However, when dealing with obligations expressly agreed upon in foreign currency, the provision called upon to resolve the conflict is Article 406, as it constitutes the special rule that regulates precisely that category of obligations.
The difference is not insignificant, as Article 406 of the Civil Code regulates the payment of obligations in foreign currency.
Whereas Article 407 regulates obligations assumed in special currency or according to their intrinsic value.
Both scenarios possess a distinct legal nature.
Interpreting that every obligation agreed upon in dollars must be resolved through Article 407 would lead, in practice, to emptying Article 406 of its content, disregarding the principle of normative specificity and the systematic structure of the Civil Code itself.
The expression “special currency” corresponds to a different category from the fiat currency issued by a State. Its scope encompasses those instruments whose value derives from their own characteristics or intrinsic value, and may find application, for example, with respect to certain digital assets, precious metals, or other goods conventionally used as means of payment. Foreign currencies, on the contrary, have specific regulation under Article 406 and do not require resorting to the exceptional regime provided by Article 407.
Another matter of undeniable practical relevance then arises.
Article 406 makes no reference to the “parallel exchange rate”, the “market exchange rate”, or even the “official exchange rate”. It solely uses the expression “exchange rate”.
The systematic interpretation of the legal framework leads to understanding that this expression refers to the Official Exchange Rate in effect on the date the obligation matures. Regarding fiat currencies, the official exchange rate constitutes the only objective, uniform, and legally verifiable parameter that guarantees certainty in the enforcement of obligations and preserves the legal certainty of contractual transactions.
A different interpretation would introduce variable, subjective, and uncertain criteria incompatible with the predictability required by the Law of Obligations.
Consequently, the recent change in the exchange rate regime does not modify the currency in which the obligations were agreed upon nor does it alter the rules set forth by the Civil Code for their fulfillment.
What truly changes is the value of the Official Exchange Rate that must be used when the debtor exercises the faculty provided by Article 406 to pay in national currency.
Therefore, in future judicial proceedings the debate should not focus solely on what the new Official Exchange Rate is.
The decisive legal question will be to determine when the obligation matured and what the Official Exchange Rate in effect on that date was, as it is that moment and no other that the legislator has chosen to preserve the economic balance originally agreed upon by the parties and guarantee the legal certainty of contractual relations.
