Man makes his own credit card, sues bank for breaking terms
65 replies, posted
[quote]When Dmitry Argarkov was sent a letter offering him a credit card, he found the rates not to his liking.
But he didn't throw the contract away or shred it. Instead, the 42-year-old from Voronezh, Russia, scanned it into his computer, altered the terms and sent it back to Tinkoff Credit Systems.
Mr Argarkov's version of the contract contained a 0pc interest rate, no fees and no credit limit. Every time the bank failed to comply with the rules, he would fine them 3m rubles (£58,716). If Tinkoff tried to cancel the contract, it would have to pay him 6m rubles. [/quote]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html?fb]Source (Telegraph)[/url]
This guy literally said "fuck the system"
Is what he did legal in any way?
You can edit contracts as long as whoever you're making it with signs off your version with your changes, there's a good discussion about it on the [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1jycfx/russian_man_outwits_bank_700k_with_hand_written/]reddit thread[/url]
That's really boss haha i should of done this a long time ago
Pretty clever.
I wonder how the Credit Card company like the taste of their own medicine.
When a person signs a contract there's no way to get out but when a bank fails to read the small print suddenly its ok to breach the agreed terms. If the russian justice system isn't as corrupt as the government they will make the payment to the man
This is in no way fraud, i bet those banker twats get rich because of every idiot that doesn't read the contracts
"We didn't actually read the contract."
Haha that's a big fuck you to the bank. Can't wait to see if Argarkov wins his court case he's pursuing or if he'll just go to prison.
So to get this clear, contractually he paid no interest, as in the contract, bank flips a shit and courts side with the man, now the man wants to sue the bank because they attempted to close his account
did i interpret this correctly?
if so he will get a lot of monies
What he did is technically legal (I'd always dreamed of doing something like this), but a bank can afford expensive lawyers, they have the money to do all the dirty tricks like bribe everyone, and besides, they are in Russia.
The man is in the right but I fear he can't win.
[QUOTE=Nikita;41766407]What he did is technically legal (I'd always dreamed of doing something like this), but a bank can afford expensive lawyers, they have the money to do all the dirty tricks like bribe everyone, and besides, they are in Russia.
The man is in the right but I fear he can't win.[/QUOTE]
exactly. but if it gains enough media momentum maybe the justice system will make the bank an example
[QUOTE=Nikita;41766407]What he did is technically legal (I'd always dreamed of doing something like this), but a bank can afford expensive lawyers, they have the money to do all the dirty tricks like bribe everyone, and besides, they are in Russia.
The man is in the right but I fear he can't win.[/QUOTE]
A judge already ruled in his favour though.
[QUOTE=Nikita;41766407]What he did is technically legal (I'd always dreamed of doing something like this), but a bank can afford expensive lawyers, they have the money to do all the dirty tricks like bribe everyone, and besides, they are in Russia. The man is in the right but I fear he can't win.[/QUOTE] my thoughts too. while i really want him to win, banks can be so devious, it's an incredibly dangerous game he is playing. and banks will change the rules to suit them. my guess, they'll say something about how the contract wasn't allowed to be altered thus making everything he's done null and void.
[QUOTE=Xmeagol;41766404]So to get this clear, contractually he paid no interest, as in the contract, bank flips a shit and courts side with the man, now the man wants to sue the bank because they attempted to close his account
did i interpret this correctly?
if so he will get a lot of monies[/QUOTE]
He's suing them for breach of contract because the bank didn't pay the fines they had to according to the contract.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;41766457]my thoughts too. while i really want him to win, banks can be so devious, it's an incredibly dangerous game he is playing. and banks will change the rules to suit them. my guess, they'll say something about how the contract wasn't allowed to be altered thus making everything he's done null and void.[/QUOTE]
A contract is only a contract once all parties have signed it. No contract was altered as the document he sent back was no contract until the bank signed it. It has not been changed after the bank signed it.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41766567]A contract is only a contract once all parties have signed it. No contract was altered as the document he sent back was no contract until the bank signed it. It has not been changed after the bank signed it.[/QUOTE] well i hope he gets away with it. every month i get offerd a credit card from my bank, maybe i'll have a longer read of those terms and conditions now.
One of the best fuck you's I have ever seen
[QUOTE=mblunk;41766280]You can edit contracts as long as whoever you're making it with signs off your version with your changes, there's a good discussion about it on the [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1jycfx/russian_man_outwits_bank_700k_with_hand_written/]reddit thread[/url][/QUOTE]
Life advice:
[quote=Lord_Yaxley]Yep. I was buying a house a few years ago, and I got my solicitor to go through the housebuilders contracts. My solicitor was going through it and scoring out terms, writing in our own terms through the whole thing. He sent it off, and they replied with a few of ours crossed out, but the majority left in. After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing we agreed and all signed.
That's the point of a contract.
If you are applying for a store card, mortgage or whatever, feel free to cross out terms. Add your own terms. Make sure you initial each new term, and as long as they are reasonable, you might find the credit company or bank agree. Everything can be negotiated, although it will likely take up more time.[/quote]
Another guy said he does this on small contracts like rentals; so he isn't liable for damages to skis and doesn't have to pay as much if he returns them late.
I didn't know people get lucky negotiating stuff like that. I guess it's more taking opportunities than luck.
I really should have considered doing something like this on my house rental just to see if I could get some of the stranger terms adjusted to work for us better. Still a very cool way to get back at the banks, it's tempting to try it, seeing as they technically should t be able to sue you just for modification of a non-agreed set of terms.
Changing terms in a contract is perfectly legal, since contracts are contracts between people that those people make up.
However, consumers who didn't read a contract and had reason to believe that something would be a certain way because it's normal business practice have often won court cases. And since these contracts are usually premade and automatically put in the system, someone altering the contract with the same letterhead as if it's the same thing can easily be assumed to be null. Or even fraud on his part since he literally forged their contract and not draw a new one up or strike parts out as I understand it.
This reminds me of some guy who got a fake huge check in the mail from some get rich quick company as a promotion, and he cashed it as a joke and since the check turned out to actually have all the right parts of a check, he actually got the money.
Do you have to tell the person you've made changes to the contract? Like in this guys case he scanned it to his computer and I'm assuming Photoshopped out the shit he didn't like and re-added his own terms. Would he have to mention, oh by the way I changed some things? Or is that the other persons responsibility to re-read the contract after the person signs it and hands it back over.
[QUOTE=iJeax;41768276]Do you have to tell the person you've made changes to the contract? Like in this guys case he scanned it to his computer and I'm assuming Photoshopped out the shit he didn't like and re-added his own terms. Would he have to mention, oh by the way I changed some things? Or is that the other persons responsibility to re-read the contract after the person signs it and hands it back over.[/QUOTE]
Legally if you sign the contract you're assumed to have read it. Hence why "well I didn't read the fine print" doesn't (usually) hold up in court.
Informing the other party that you've made changes is one of those good faith things.
[QUOTE=iJeax;41768276]Do you have to tell the person you've made changes to the contract? Like in this guys case he scanned it to his computer and I'm assuming Photoshopped out the shit he didn't like and re-added his own terms. Would he have to mention, oh by the way I changed some things? Or is that the other persons responsibility to re-read the contract after the person signs it and hands it back over.[/QUOTE]
If you "agreed" on a version and then switch the contract for another one that looks exactly the same, it still doesn't work, since the other guy obviously thought you gave him the same contract to sign as you just read/just gave him.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;41768395]If you "agreed" on a version and then switch the contract for another one that looks exactly the same, it still doesn't work, since the other guy obviously thought you gave him the same contract to sign as you just read/just gave him.[/QUOTE]
I'm meaning if someone faxes you a contract, you Photoshop out the shit you don't like and replace it with your own terms, THEN sign it, and then fax it back and they sign it, would it work? Like Protocol said above, not informing the other party you've made changes is one of those good faith things.
This thread gave me so many ideas..
[QUOTE=iJeax;41768431]I'm meaning if someone faxes you a contract, you Photoshop out the shit you don't like and replace it with your own terms, THEN sign it, and then fax it back and they sign it, would it work? Like Protocol said above, not informing the other party you've made changes is one of those good faith things.
This thread gave me so many ideas..[/QUOTE]
That's basically what he did.
[QUOTE=ole johan;41768479]That's basically what he did.[/QUOTE]
Do most people not know you can do this? You'd think you'd hear about something like this more often. Like I said, this gives me ideas.
[QUOTE=iJeax;41768431]I'm meaning if someone faxes you a contract, you Photoshop out the shit you don't like and replace it with your own terms, THEN sign it, and then fax it back and they sign it, would it work? Like Protocol said above, not informing the other party you've made changes is one of those good faith things.
This thread gave me so many ideas..[/QUOTE]
The problem is that those contracts are normally standardized and also refer to terms that are on their website or something. They are also automatically added to the system without them signing it at all or anything like that.
[QUOTE=iJeax;41768431]I'm meaning if someone faxes you a contract, you Photoshop out the shit you don't like and replace it with your own terms, THEN sign it, and then fax it back and they sign it, would it work? Like Protocol said above, not informing the other party you've made changes is one of those good faith things.
This thread gave me so many ideas..[/QUOTE]
Dont get caught on a technicality like notification of term changes...
Most contracts state that they're void if modified in any way by any other party than the originating firm. That's how most banks in America avoid people like this - they say the contract was invalidated by modifying it, and banks can just check for that one line that stipulates modification inside it to verify that that term still stands.
[QUOTE=areolop;41768765]Dont get caught on a technicality like notification of term changes...[/QUOTE]
But do such technicalities exist in the (US) legal system? I would think that it wouldn't matter if you notify them of contract changes or not.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;41769295]Most contracts state that they're void if modified in any way by any other party than the originating firm. That's how most banks in America avoid people like this - they say the contract was invalidated by modifying it, and banks can just check for that one line that stipulates modification inside it to verify that that term still stands.[/QUOTE]
You could change that line that says that it's void. I suppose if they're checking it though, you would probably get caught.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.