Reply With QuoteOutstanding
That's excellent!
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
We all know that no-one ever reads the reams of small print that comes with such things, and the banks (or whoever) always take the high ground and say "well, you should have read the small print", so it's quite nice to see that THEY dont read the small print either!!!
Brilliant and about time too!
I sincerely hope he wins. The banks deserve a dose of their own medicine!
Brilliant.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Win!
He should have used the card to buy a majority stake in the bank.
If only I had thought of that.
If it worked once...Originally Posted by lilolee
Genius.
Now, I'm no lawyer and I'm definitely not on the side of the credit companies, but..
Wouldn't he be guilty of some sort of misrepresentation or fraud? By rewriting the terms and conditions, wasn't he effectively representing the credit card company, whose terms and conditions he was writing? Sounds also a bit like two people signing a contract agreement, but before the second person signs, they completely rewrite the contract. I wouldn't have expected the company to read the contract, as they wrote it, or so they thought.
I hope he wins, but don't hold out much hope.
How would he be guilty of misrepresentation or fraud?
Any party can change the terms of a contract they are entering into, and if both parties sign said amended document, then the terms contained therein have been agreed.
Can't see how the bank is going to wriggle out of this one, but no doubt they'll throw their army of lawyers at it, in the hope of finding some arcane reason as to why the contract can be made null and void.
I suspect the penalties this chap has stated will be looked at and deemed unreasonable or without merit – it shouldn't matter, but the reality is that it will.
Equally if there's anything about withdrawing the card, which the contract is likely to give proviso for, then his terms could be seen as again unreasonable as it means only one party can cancel the agreement.
That aspect alone could be argued as effectively blackmailing the bank.
It sounds well dodgy....it's nothing like what the card companies do to us.
Top man!
A contract is for both sides. Whilst one side may initially author it, that doesn't mean it cannot be altered by either side as long as both sides agree to any alterations. In this case the bank did agree to the alterations, although they did not notice what they were agreeing to. I certainly can't see that he was guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation.
No, the implication in this case is that the agreement was altered before the bank signed it. In other words, they had a perfectly reasonable opportunity to review the written agreement before signing it but were careless enough to not do so. They could and should have checked that the proposed contract was agreeable to them before signing it, and they did not do so. In general as far as I know, the responsibility to check that what you are signing is agreeable to you is the same for both sides.
I certainly would have expected them to read it, since there is no inherent reason to expect that the contract has not been altered. To alter a proposed agreement is perfectly reasonable and normal behaviour. The bank is not under any obligation to sign a contract that is not agreeable to it (i.e. they are in the same position as the customer) and, as above, there is no reason why either side should not propose changes by writing them in or crossing out sections as long as both sides have an opportunity to review the contract before signing (as the bank in fact did).
It's a matter for the courts but I would have thought that the man's only error was to not draw the bank's attention to his proposed alterations.
Note, I am not a lawyer. All of the above is my own opinion based upon my understanding and general principles. I have no knowledge of Russian civil or criminal law.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th August 2013 at 21:50.
Indeed.
One approach might be for them to claim that the man did not bring his proposed contractual alterations to their attention (just as they might have been expected to bring special alterations of their own to the terms to his attention), so it is unfair for them to have to abide by the altered terms.
That too.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th August 2013 at 21:49.
That is actually funny, really funny. I am surprised that the bank did not check,some one will be getting a kick.
That is funny!!! Fair play to him, hopefully he wins but I doubt it.
I agree. A contract is negotiable by its definition.
If both parties sign then it is totally legal.
I admire his nerve and I hope he wins.
Interesting *runs off to check printer ink*
The guy must have gigantic balls... would you take on a Russian bank?
Hello, it's Russia! Might as well wipe your arse with contracts over there!
Posting Permissions
