Man makes his own credit card, sues bank for breaking terms
65 replies, posted
[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]
What stops me from just crossing out the "void of altered" bit?
[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[B] most banks in [U]America[/U][/B] 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]
Luckily for me, I'm from Canada.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[IMG]http://gyazo.com/688fb9ccebe79df756f129ad72226de7.png[/IMG]
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
It was sarcasm, people.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;41769365]What stops me from just crossing out the "void of altered" bit?[/QUOTE]
Nothing. But usually they'll have those lines in an obvious location, making it hopefully easy to see (for the firm), which means its easy to not sign the contract.
Of course thats' assuming they are paying attention.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;41769365]What stops me from just crossing out the "void of altered" bit?[/QUOTE]
if they compare the one you changed and the original contract you can instantly see any changes you've made to it so that wouldn't work
ITT: Nobody understands contract law.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("ITT" - Orkel))[/highlight]
I hope he wins.
Fuck the banks.
ingenius idea to get free money
-snip-
He is Russian.
Couldn't the bank just have sent him a contract which it had already signed?
I'd imagine that he would not be able to alter it, because then he'd be changing terms that the other party already have agreed to.
[QUOTE=JonniXD;41769968]Couldn't the bank just have sent him a contract which it had already signed?
I'd imagine that he would not be able to alter it, because then he'd be changing terms that the other party already have agreed to.[/QUOTE]
If I sign a contract and then send it to you and you sign it, the contract is valid n shit
But I sign a contract, send it to you, and then you alter it I have to re-sign it again. It's pretty straight forward.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;41769712]ITT: Nobody understands contract law.[/QUOTE]
A contract is just an agreement. You both agree, you carry out the terms that you agreed on.
eg. buying groceries or buying stuff from craigslist (usually a verbal contract)
[QUOTE=iJeax;41769412]Luckily for me, I'm from Canada.
[/QUOTE]
What continent is Canada in?
Now that I think about it, is a country "on", "in", or "part of" a continent?
[QUOTE=deadoon;41770199]What continent is Canada in?
Now that I think about it, is a country "on", "in", or "part of" a continent?[/QUOTE]
Assuming this isn't a joke soaring high in the stratosphere above my head, Canada's on the continent of North America, itself part of the Americas (North, Central, South). It's directly north of the United States, and shares its southern border with it.
As for the right term, I think all three work fine. I believe "in" and "part of" are more commonly-used than "on", at least from what I've heard.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;41770295]Assuming this isn't a joke soaring high in the stratosphere above my head, Canada's on the continent of North America, itself part of the Americas (North, Central, South). It's directly north of the United States, and shares its southern border with it.
As for the right term, I think all three work fine. I believe "in" and "part of" are more commonly-used than "on", at least from what I've heard.[/QUOTE]
The original post stated that banks in America have a term against protection, probably as generalisation of USA.
[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]
A contract isn't a contract until it is signed, which means that any modification of the proposal done before signing won't have been a modification of the contract. All contracts are invalidated by modifying and have to be signed again.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;41769712]ITT: Nobody understands contract law.[/QUOTE]
ITP: Someone tries to be a smartass
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;41769992]
A contract is just an agreement. You both agree, you carry out the terms that you agreed on.
eg. buying groceries or buying stuff from craigslist (usually a verbal contract)[/QUOTE]
O rly... didn't know what a contract was, thanks...
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=proch;41771756]ITP: Someone tries to be a smartass[/QUOTE]
If that's a smartass comment, oh dear.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
This is just Russia. No western country would accept such a method of forming a contract (whereby a party modifies the terms in a manner [discretely, with poor intentions etc] done by the person in the story) as acceptable or binding.
[QUOTE=katbug;41766279]Is what he did legal in any way?[/QUOTE]
He basically sent them a new oferta, but what he would have to do is modifiy his version sufficiently and clearly. If he didn't, it could really be construed as fraud.
So it mostly depends on how clean and clear his changes where.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41771549]A contract isn't a contract until it is signed, which means that any modification of the proposal done before signing won't have been a modification of the contract. All contracts are invalidated by modifying and have to be signed again.[/QUOTE]
It's generally a different thing with banks. What they do is send you a model, often presigned contract by the bank as an offer. So the only thing you have to do is sign it yourself and mail it back to them.
The contract is already signed on their end so any modifications to it are clearly against their first offer so are able to clearly avoid anything like this.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;41771790]O rly... didn't know what a contract was, thanks...
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
If that's a smartass comment, oh dear.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
This is just Russia. No western country would accept such a method of forming a contract (whereby a party modifies the terms in a manner [discretely, with poor intentions etc] done by the person in the story) as acceptable or binding.[/QUOTE]
The other party had accepted the contract without reading it and had already acted upon it by giving him a card from it, and are complaining that they didn't read, if you don't read a contract and the terms in it are legitimate, you are bound to it if you sign it.
They are in total fault due to negligence in their part, just as you would be if you signed a binding contract without reading it.
[QUOTE=deadoon;41772242]The other party had accepted the contract without reading it and had already acted upon it by giving him a card from it, and are complaining that they didn't read, if you don't read a contract and the terms in it are legitimate, you are bound to it if you sign it.
They are in total fault due to negligence in their part, just as you would be if you signed a binding contract without reading it.[/QUOTE]
In many jurisdictions, notification of any changes in a counter-offer is required. Simply sending back a changed contract does not often suffice and notification. Performance of the contract occurred on terms which were not clear.
[editline]10th August 2013[/editline]
That and the bank had probably already agreed to the contract provided to the person, and then the counter-offer was made.
It doesn't matter what a contract says if it isn't signed. You can remove anything from it, and add anything you want. If the other party signs it, they are legally bound by it, regardless if they actually read it or not. There is not term that can be added to a contract that is legally binding before being signed.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;41772201]He basically sent them a new oferta, but what he would have to do is modifiy his version sufficiently and clearly. If he didn't, it could really be construed as fraud.
So it mostly depends on how clean and clear his changes where.
It's generally a different thing with banks. What they do is send you a model, often presigned contract by the bank as an offer. So the only thing you have to do is sign it yourself and mail it back to them.
The contract is already signed on their end so any modifications to it are clearly against their first offer so are able to clearly avoid anything like this.[/QUOTE]
Clearly in this case it wasn't as a judge [b]already ruled in his favour[/b].
[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]
But he just use his infinite money to bribe everyone, or at least the banks infinite money
[QUOTE=DogGunn;41772286]In many jurisdictions, notification of any changes in a counter-offer is required. Simply sending back a changed contract does not often suffice and notification. Performance of the contract occurred on terms which were not clear.
[editline]10th August 2013[/editline]
That and the bank had probably already agreed to the contract provided to the person, and then the counter-offer was made.[/QUOTE]
Which they then accepted. It doesn't matter that the offer was changed, they accepted the counter-offer.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;41772595]It doesn't matter what a contract says if it isn't signed. You can remove anything from it, and add anything you want. If the other party signs it, they are legally bound by it, regardless if they actually read it or not. There is not term that can be added to a contract that is legally binding before being signed.[/QUOTE]
The bank doesn't even have to sign it. Many jurisdictions recognize sending the product (credit card in this case) as accepting the terms of the contract.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41772763]Which they then accepted. It doesn't matter that the offer was changed, they accepted the counter-offer.[/QUOTE]
They clearly were not to know that a counter-offer was even made, as designed by the method that the person modified the contract. This may invalidate a contract. Regardless, estoppel exists in some jurisdictions, even for express or written contracts, and even when performance (i.e. the sending of the credit card) or partial discharge of the contract to be has occurred.
Simply put, you attempt to sneakily modify a standard form contract, and then make a claim based upon those changes in any western country... you're gonna have a bad time.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;41772595]It doesn't matter what a contract says if it isn't signed. You can remove anything from it, and add anything you want. If the other party signs it, they are legally bound by it, regardless if they actually read it or not. There is not term that can be added to a contract that is legally binding before being signed.[/QUOTE]
They actually are not. They also need to sign the contract in good faith and the person signing the contract must have athority.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41772763]Which they then accepted. It doesn't matter that the offer was changed, they accepted the counter-offer.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
The bank doesn't even have to sign it. Many jurisdictions recognize sending the product (credit card in this case) as accepting the terms of the contract.[/QUOTE]
Again, mere acceptance is not something that makes a contract in itself valid.
a) the contract must deal with things that are allowed by law
b) the contract must be signed in good faith (aka I know what I am signing in the first case) Scanning and changing a contract before mailing it in might create fairly large issues with this.
c) the person signing the contract must have authority to sign
d) the person offering the contract must have good faith that the person signing it has authority to accept it
e) the contract must be accepted without coercion, in a clear state of mind, without the use of force and a bunch of other stuff.
Contract law is not as simple as merely accepting something.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;41773293]They actually are not. They also need to sign the contract in good faith and the person signing the contract must have athority.
Again, mere acceptance is not something that makes a contract in itself valid.
a) the contract must deal with things that are allowed by law
b) the contract must be signed in good faith (aka I know what I am signing in the first case) Scanning and changing a contract before mailing it in might create fairly large issues with this.
c) the person signing the contract must have authority to sign
d) the person offering the contract must have good faith that the person signing it has authority to accept it
e) the contract must be accepted without coercion, in a clear state of mind, without the use of force and a bunch of other stuff.
Contract law is not as simple as merely accepting something.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point is or how anything you said is relevant.
A judge has decided it is a legal binding contract, end of discussion.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;41773096]They clearly were not to know that a counter-offer was even made, as designed by the method that the person modified the contract. This may invalidate a contract. Regardless, estoppel exists in some jurisdictions, even for express or written contracts, and even when performance (i.e. the sending of the credit card) or partial discharge of the contract to be has occurred.
Simply put, you attempt to sneakily modify a standard form contract, and then make a claim based upon those changes in any western country... you're gonna have a bad time.[/QUOTE]
And on what authority do you make this claim? Russia is a western country and a judge has decided it's a legal binding contract.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41775201]If people had to know what they're signing for it to be legal, all of the "READ AND ACCEPT TERMS AND CONDITIONS" I've accepted do not apply to me.[/QUOTE]
I'd be exempt from literally every game I've installed's TOS.
[quote]
Dimitry Agarkov, the man who hoodwinked Russia’s largest online bank by penning his own byline terms to a credit card contract, “fears for his life” because he feels threatened by the bank he is suing for $700,000.
“I fear for my life and plan to leave Voronezh and Russia,” Agarkov said as quoted by RIA Voronezh.
[/quote]
[url]http://rt.com/business/tinkoff-bank-agarkov-credit-299/[/url]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41775201]If people had to know what they're signing for it to be legal, all of the "READ AND ACCEPT TERMS AND CONDITIONS" I've accepted do not apply to me.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, you are clearly notified of those terms and conditions. Stealth edits like these are something else.
Also most TOSes have no real worth, not even in the US really.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.