Russian Man Changes Small Print in Credit Card Agreement, Then Sues

http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/A-Russian-Bank-Is-Sued-for/8/7/2013/id/51205

by nickkyit • 13 years ago

413 179 13 years ago

mathattack4• 13 years ago

Somehow I just can't see this working out well for him, but if it does, it says something about the rule of law in Russia.

ddoolin• 13 years ago

He already won the first case, so it already worked to some degree.

mathattack4• 13 years ago

Let's see if he gets his cash. :-)

rgbrenner• 13 years ago

The man sent his changes to the contract to the bank, and they signed and certified that agreement.

So what does it say about the rule of law in Russia?

olalonde2• 13 years ago

I think parent meant that if the man wins the case, it would be a sign that rule of law is indeed strong in Russia (not the opposite).

danijelb• 13 years ago

That says that Russian laws are fair - there's no difference between big companies and regular people. No one is protected. If a bank's client can sign a contract presented by the bank and be responsible to follow the rules in the contract the same should apply the other way around. Bank signed a contract without reading its contents and is required to follow what is written in the contract.

Contract is an agreement between two or more parties. You agree to the terms presented in the contract with your signature. Any law written in a way which protects companies is wrong. There should be no difference between a contract written by John Doe and a contract written by any company.

betterunix• 13 years ago

I would be surprised if it did not work out well in the USA, to be perfectly honest. There is nothing illegal in the extra terms he added to the contract, and the bank is not in any position to claim that it failed to read the contract. More likely, however, is that the news of this case has led every bank on the planet to institute a "check all paperwork" policy to prevent this from happening.

castis• 13 years ago

because what the world needs, is a slower banking process.

mathattack4• 13 years ago

I can't see a bank in the US accepting (and signing) an altered contract. It would have to happen by an accident.

They would then find it worthwhile to spend $7 million in legal fees to avoid the $700K cost, just to have precedent for the next person that tried it.

hamstergene• 13 years ago

This is just a man against just a bank, why do you expect rule of law to be the issue here?

The nature of corruption in Russia is not about that rich easily buy justice to win over poor, or that big companies are preferred over individuals, though that issues exist too, it's about those closer to Putin living by different law than regular people, but I don't see anyone like that involved.

oh_teh_meows• 13 years ago

Deep down I really want this man to win his case, if only just to show the flaw in fine prints that have screwed over many legally-challenged (for lack of a better term) people. You can argue that it's one's responsibility to look out for, read, and understand fine prints in any contract one signs, but then why are they in fine print in the first place? So as to not detract one's attention from the borderline dishonest big prints like INTEREST FREE LOAN* or something like that? So that you can make money off that few unfortunate souls who overlooked the fine prints?

IanCal5• 13 years ago

He won the first one, which left him only having to pay off the amount he owed (no cancellation fees). I hope he doesn't win the second one, as I'd expect ridiculous fees to be unenforceable on either side.

If a massive credit card agreement had a cancellation fee of $10, I'd expect to have to pay it. If the fee was $200,000 then I'd expect a court to say "Don't take the piss".

Just like we keep arguing that ridiculous terms in EULAs shouldn't be enforceable even if someone clicked ok, the bank shouldn't be held to this.

The contract was deemed valid though, which I think is awesome.

freeman4782• 13 years ago

But the bank as a company should be expected to know what it signs and so should not be protected from abusive clauses.

tomp• 13 years ago

You mean, like the people in the US weren't responsible for having signed a terrible home-loan agreement and then loose everything?

I know this is Russia, not the US, and law does not apply to the same extent, but I still hope the man wins.

cperciva• 13 years ago

Just like we keep arguing that ridiculous terms in EULAs shouldn't be enforceable even if someone clicked ok

IANAL, but I believe the general legal (as opposed to moral) arguments for ridiculous clauses being unenforceable is that contracts of adhesion face a strict inspection for unconscionability along with the suspicion that there might not be a true meeting of the minds if circumstances made it unlikely for one party to even be aware of what they were agreeing to.

Demiurge• 13 years ago

Brilliant, I'm so itching to try this in US.

mhb• 13 years ago

How would that work? I don't remember ever getting back a copy of a credit card agreement after I sent one back. I'm not even sure I've sent something back. Isn't that all on line now?

fsckin• 13 years ago

Just add the following: "Granting the account is considered acceptance of the terms."

fleitz• 13 years ago

Get a notarized copy of the agreement, then take them to court, then ask them to produce the original.

If you're really lucky you'll be able to add a fraud claim as they forge your signature on a unmodified copy of the agreement.

Whenever you deal with credit card companies, banks, etc, you should always make them reproduce the document.

mrt0mat0• 13 years ago

If you as a customer are held accountable for fine print that you never read, why isn't the reverse? This should be a no-brainer if you ask me. Hypocrites

msandford3• 13 years ago

The bank is going to argue that he forged documents. They'll probably win not because he is in the wrong but because of the (quite proper) turmoil that would result. It's a rare judge that'll uphold the rule of law when it might be inconvenient for big institutions.

IanCal5• 13 years ago

If the same thing that happened in reverse, what would you expect to happen?

Lets say that you were given some terms and conditions to read, the and the bank swapped them out for others just before you signed. The new terms contain a condition that you must pay them several hundred thousand dollars instead of 10.

Which way would you expect the court to rule? Which way do you think it should?

flog• 13 years ago

I've been wondering about this for years. I hate sales people telling me they can't negotiate as the contracts are standard... of course they can.

eksith5• 13 years ago

Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms.

I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way, but if it doesn't have that, there's nothing really stopping you from doing the same.

That said, legal teams for credit card companies and banks are notorious for finding ways to beat you with technicalities and/or drag their feet through the court system so your own bills rack up. They can claim bad faith, and/or fraud (which is a hot button) and add to the mix a DA willing to create a name for him/herself by putting away a scumbag white-collar "criminal" (I.E. Joe, the Photoshop user) and you've got a lot of risk behind it.

IanCal5• 13 years ago

Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms.

Yep, which is why he won the first case. The terms are ridiculous though (fee of $200,000 if the bank cancels the card), which is why I would expect it to be deemed excessive and thrown out (same as EULAs that demand someones firstborn).

eksith5• 13 years ago

Yeah, thrown out or severely reduced probably. It's pretty obvious he was very confident (and maybe a bit foolhardy) doing this or he wouldn't have put such a large number.

I'm curious as to whether he's done something similar previously.

Side note: There's a little-known legal provision that lets people sue a tele/direct-marketer if you ask them to take you off their list and they still keep contacting you. You have to take down the company name, get the name of the caller and ask them if they have "do not contact/call" and to put you on it. If they keep calling you after that (I think 3 times is the limit within 30 days or so), you can take them to small claims court.

gnicholas• 13 years ago

A court might not give him everything that he's asking for, but this situation isn't exactly like a EULA. Those are contracts of adhesion: drafted entirely by one party and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to a (generally) less-sophisticated party. Courts have special rules about construing provisions in those situations, but such rules wouldn't necessarily apply here (since the contractual language was the product of joint drafting). Of course, I'm not a Russian lawyer, so my 2 cents are probably worth more like 2 rubles....

jlgreco• 13 years ago

I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way

Couldn't part of your alterations include the removal of that section? Just strike that out, in addition to the other changes you are making.

eksith5• 13 years ago

I doubt that would work. Besides, the ones I've seen include a link to the original text on their website as well. Now if I take a screenshot of that (or maybe hit Archive.org for it) at the time of signing and if the text is different, I may be able to claim that the bank is forcing me to follow an agreement different from the one I signed.

But that's an extremely long shot and it still needs to rely on the bank fudging the records first.

ChuckMcM6• 13 years ago

This is the less well understood aspect of robo-signing. And a variation in the Russian system, since in the US you don't get back a "signed agreement" instead you either accept the terms or your don't. If you change them you need to go to the bank and have them sign the changes, and that triggers a discussion about "What changes?" and that leads to the Bank saying, "Uh, no, guess you don't want a card, ok."

But in organizations where such things are routinely signed by a clerical worker and returned (things like alarm service come to mind) you can make these changes and sometimes get away with them. At least in one case where I asked the clerk at Safeway to sign off on an altered terms and conditions on their loyalty card the manager came over and said that nobody in the store was authorized to sign on Safeway's behalf.

Clearly that did not work for the Russian bank which has already had the agreement litigated.

eksith5• 13 years ago

That's an interesting point.

We take credit card/bank card forms for granted in that nothing is returned to you except another copy of the same (hopefully) agreement, the card and monthly statement. Not the copy of the document you signed with their corresponding signature.

I wonder if this case will prompt some changes in the way they conduct their card affairs.

sciguy77• 13 years ago

I asked the clerk at Safeway to sign off on an altered terms and conditions on their loyalty card

What? Why?

jarrett8• 13 years ago

There are significant security flaws in the ways that contracts are traditionally executed. This case illustrates just one of those flaws. Other flaws include alteration after signing, signature copying and forgery, and repudiation (meaning "I didn't sign that"). Most of these arise from the information security weaknesses inherent in paper documents and emailed PDFs.

I have given a lot of thought to this problem. I even had a startup once devoted to solving it. My current thinking is that some form of digital signatures--perhaps PGP--is the best solution to all of this. As I discussed in a previous HN thread, we have a long way to go before the PGP user experience is acceptable for most computer-literate people. (When I say "user experience," I mean much more than the GUI. I mean the whole process of learning about PGP, creating keypairs, signing keys, etc..)

belorn• 13 years ago

Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms.

I was very surprised that the Russian court system found the contract valid. Surreptitious changing a contract prior to signing can make the contract invalid where I live. It might be a question of ill-intent, and that the court did not find it as such in this case.

scotty797• 13 years ago

It works like that. You print an empty contract from internet in two copies. Then you sign both copies, and you send it via mail to the bank. Bank signs both copies as well and sends one back to you. Then it provides the service.

Bank just offers you agreement to sign. Guy just offered the bank different agreement and the bank accepted it by signing.

Probably that's why in my country banks rather sends you already signed two copies of the agreement and you are supposed to sign both of them and send one back.

scotty797• 13 years ago

I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way.

How's that supposed to work? Bank offers agreement. You offer totally different agreement although superficially similar. It's not altered. It's new. If bank agrees then I don't see how it could get away. After all they are big supporters of the rule that if you signed something you declared that you agree with it and if you actually don't it's your loss.

leephillips• 13 years ago

But what if you erase the part that makes "the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way"?

jarrett8• 13 years ago

I'm going to comment as if the same thing hypothetically happened in the US, because I have no idea what Russian contract law is like.

Regarding criminal fraud: That might be tough to prove. See, for example, this part of Virginia's fraud law:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-178

Note that merely obtaining a signature under false pretenses is a crime. Of course, the definition of "false pretenses" is the sticking point. Technically, the customer did not make any false representations. It seems he merely expected the bank not to notice his "proposed" contractual changes. That would not seem to satisfy the elements of the crime, though I wouldn't bet my own freedom on that.

Regarding bad faith: It would be interesting to see if the court would find a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It's iffy. Generally, such a breach would arise from either party's conduct outside the signing of the contract itself. I.e. you do something underhanded to thwart the other party's enjoyment of his contractual rights, without breaching any specific term in the contract.

Could a breach of the implied covenant arise from the negotiation process itself? In my cursory search, I didn't come across any cases like that, but they could exist. In this case, there does seem to be some willful deception on the customer's part. One could argue, based on the circumstances, that he expected the bank not to notice his alterations. Perhaps this would be considered bad faith.

One could also argue that the contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. This can be a difficult case to make when there is a written contract. Nonetheless, in unusual circumstances, which this appears to be, a written contract can be voided for this reason. Here, one could argue that the two parties thought they were signing contracts containing radically different text, and thus there was no meeting of the minds.

Note that you can't just claim this any time you want to get out of a written contract. The default assumption is that your signature indicates you read and understood the contract. You have to show some unusual circumstance--such as one party's surreptitious alteration prior to signing--if you want to claim there was no meeting of the minds. And even then, a win is far from guaranteed.

mcbutterbunz• 13 years ago

Could "false pretenses" also include the letter head on the document? If you were to scan the document, change the lettering and produce an exact replica except for the fine print, could that fall under false representation since the bank was not the author of the document.

eridius• 13 years ago

Under normal circumstances, there is no negotiation when a bank sends you a credit card application. They expect you to just fill it out and send it back unaltered. Since this is the expected way to handle credit card application contracts, I expect the bank could easily argue that there was no meeting of the minds, as they could not have been expected to re-read the entire contract looking for alterations, and in fact it's reasonable to argue that the man who altered the contract did so knowing the bank would never notice.

smsm422• 13 years ago

>> Regarding criminal fraud: That might be tough to prove.

The problem is that fraud charge may be hard to prove, but may be much easier to initiate. And criminal investigation, even not resulting yet in a charge, may be rather annoying matter. For example, they could get (given a friendly judge) an order to seize all your computer equipment to look for signs of fraudulent activity. And keep "looking" for years, while you can't use them. And so on. If they arrange a cooperation of a friendly prosecutor, they can cost you lots of money while never getting to the court. Since they are paid by the taxpayers and you're not, you lose.

dalore• 13 years ago

If the bank can claim fraud because you changed the terms and conditions hoping they wouldn't notice, could we claim fraud for them sending the initial T&C in such small print hoping we wouldn't notice them? It should go both ways as the banks are trying to hope you don't read the terms and conditions.

Justsignedup• 13 years ago

I am honestly rooting for the guy. The way these contracts are made put the full burden on the customer and absolve the contract makers. I see similar things done with recent xbox TOS where you revoke your own right to make a class action lawsuit.

But in the end of the day, it's irrelevant, banks will use stronger language next time.

jarrett8• 13 years ago

I have found some more info on good faith and fair dealing as it pertains to this type of case. Robert Summers' 1968 article "'Good Faith' in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code" has a section on bad faith in the negotiation phase of contracts. That's exactly what we need.

I don't want to quote at length, and there's no particular passage that nails this case, but my overall sense from the article is that the contract could be voided for want of mutual assent. Or that perhaps even the contract could be judicially modified back to the bank's version.

Anyway, here's the most concise (heavily edited) quotation I could find from the article:

"There are many ways, short of fraud, by which one party can take advantage of another in driving a bargain. For example...his disinclination to read a printed form...At the least, if a person consciously takes advantage of such weaknesses, he acts in bad faith."

But, as of 1968, he said: "Case law under this section is scant." Has this changed? Quite probably. Do I have a Lexus or Westlaw account to find out? No.

Dylan168072• 13 years ago

Document A might have text talking about voiding if you change document A, but that won't do anything to a document B proposing a brand-new contract, not yet signed by the bank.

bradleyjg4• 13 years ago

This is why many professionally drafted contracts will have somewhere in the integration clause[1] language that says that the agreement can only be modified in writing, and only by a person with a specific title at the company.

[1] http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/contract-integ...

ripter2• 13 years ago

I don't see how that would prevent what he did. He provided a new contract that the bank signed. He didn't modify an existing agreement.

bradleyjg4• 13 years ago

I guess you're right about what happened here. I'm shocked that someone at the bank physically signed and returned the modified offer.

Spoom• 13 years ago

I'm not sure that such a clause would work here. The example legal clause in your link:

"This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of the Contract. The contract supersedes any prior agreements, understandings, or negotiations, whether written or oral. This Contract can only be amended through a written document formally executed by all parties."

While that clause could apply once the agreement is signed to any future changes, before that, isn't it just negotiation between the parties? (Whether it can be considered "good faith" or not is another matter, of course.)

jussij• 13 years ago

I'm no lawyer but doesn't this line provide the required protection:

This Contract can only be amended through a written document formally executed by all parties.

To me, that suggests the contract can only be amended if all parties provided a written document approving the amendments.

In this case, only one party provided the required documentation.

csense• 13 years ago

How frequently is the little guy is screwed when they don't read the big institution's fine print before they sign?

Finally, a big institution is screwed when they don't read the little guy's fine print before they sign!

umsm• 13 years ago

Ignorance is not bliss. You can't claim not to have knowledge of something and not suffer the consequences...

NegativeK• 13 years ago

The idea that everyone fully reads every EULA is completely unfeasible.

This means that ignorance isn't bliss, so much as a natural state in order to function. To me, that implies something is wrong.

peter303• 13 years ago

It would a fraudelant contract in the US. When you alter the text of contract in the US you must clearly highligh the alteration in the riginal text or as an admendment.

comrade_ogilvy• 13 years ago

And the contract change is not considered valid unless it was overtly accepted by an employee with appropriate authority. A random low wage employee processing these kinds of forms would be presumed to not have that authority with the business.

scotty797• 13 years ago

So you are saying that bank actually doesn't agree to anything when it signs a contract with you if it doesn't delegate for that properly esteemed clerk?

MAGZine• 13 years ago

What is the difference between a "new contract" and an "altered contract"?

smoyer3• 13 years ago

I did something similar with the non-compete and non-disclosure agreements my employer wanted me to sign when our company was purchased. It was a four page document and I simply altered the terms to suit what I thought was fair (I had no intention of stealing their IP, but I also didn't want them owning everything I created).

The HR representative signed both copies, gave me one and filed the other. The funniest part is that when I left a few years later, they couldn't find the one I'd signed and asked me to sign another during the exit interview ... I declined ;)

gesman2• 13 years ago

If they didn't initial these handmade changes (but rather just missed them) - i think they wouldn't be enforcable. They "lost their copy" likely for this purpose - so that they could argue that you "added changes" after the contract was signed.

foolfoolz• 13 years ago

what, how is this fair? housing lease agreements have initials on each section and page for this reason, so on big long contracts you can't change a small part. if you lose a copy of a contract, and the other party has a copy that is signed and dated by you (in all locations required), isn't that case closed?

jasonkolb2• 13 years ago

Is there a legal basis for this? I do this all the time, if I'm given a stock form to sign and I don't like it I just change it--it's much easier than trying to get it changed by them. Most employees don't care and don't know how to handle something like this so they just process it normally.

s_baby• 13 years ago

I think this only applies when you pen in changes. These are clean re-prints.

smoyer3• 13 years ago

They sent the document as a Word document and I changed the document ... In the past I've done the strike-through and initial way too. They initialed each page and signed the last page and I've got a fully executed copy. They didn't lose their copy on purpose and when the HR representative pointed out that they could inform my new employer about the terms of the NC and NDA, I told them I'd altered the original and that they didn't have my permission.

As I said before, I wasn't interested in taking their IP but rather eliminated the parts that are onerous to the employee and that might put my side projects at risk. I should also point out that I'm still on good terms with this company and have helped with various IP issues that weren't finished when I left.

objclxt• 13 years ago

I did something similar once when I was freelancing. Knowing the company had some payment issues in the past, I modified the contract so that I could delay delivery until I'd been paid in full (rather than invoicing upon delivery).

When they inevitably didn't pay me on time the CEO called me up to ask why they hadn't received the finished product from me. When I pointed out I'd modified the contract - which he had returned, signed - he said in a rather hurt voice "...but I never read it - I just assumed it hadn't been changed!". There is a lesson there!

RHSeeger• 13 years ago

I did more or less the same thing for the company I'm at now, and included a separate note in my response indicating what I changed and why. They seemed more than happy to sign it.

The next version of the agreement (we sign it once/year) actually included language very similar to my changes. Admittedly, I don't know if I impacted that or if it was independent, but it did make me feel good.

Havoc3• 13 years ago

Regardless of David vs Goliath sentiment, realistically one can't allow such a thing in a modern society.

e.g. I sent 3 documents out today requesting signatures from directors - signatures which by local laws bind the company they represent +- irrevocably. If you allow the scenario presented then clause #138 could easily have read "pay Mr Havoc a million a day".

kintamanimatt• 13 years ago

It's pretty much up to you to check what you're signing. Inconvenience isn't a get out of jail free card! Apply some technology to it or at the very least, get some of those acetate sheets for use with the old school overhead projectors, print your official contract onto that and use it as a poor man's diff!

SurfScore• 13 years ago

This man's got spunk! Get him to Silicon Valley with some venture capital and he'll make waves.

dctoedt• 13 years ago

This is why I often include a "redlining representation" in contracts I draft or review/edit. [1] Of course, that only works if you check to be sure the redlining representation is still in the copy of the contract you're actually being asked to sign.

[1] Clause: http://www.oncontracts.com/general-provisions/#sec-35. Explanation: http://www.oncontracts.com/surreptitious-contract-changes/ and http://www.oncontracts.com/surreptitious-contract-changes-ii...

D9u• 13 years ago

I LoL'd so much at this... I love it! That his bank failed to read the fine print, as so many of us do, yet signed the agreement anyway, is a hilarious case of poetic justice.

This reminds me of the story here awhile back regarding someone signing credit card receipts with increasingly absurd signatures, including a drawn picture in lieu of his legal signature.

http://consumerist.com/2009/02/03/dont-draw-genitalia-as-you...

RDeckard• 13 years ago

The girl in the picture looks like a leaner Kate Upton.

X4• 13 years ago

I should feel embarrassed that somebody alters contracts on his behalf, but this time I really feel happy for this guy. He exploited a Bank by playing out his own rules on them.

Just today I was thinking about Google and other big companies founded by Russians and then I see this little man hacking himself into success. I feel deep respect for persons who start from nothing, but with big success! Despite the prejudices people may have with Russian, some of them are really damn smart and this man proves it..

Thats quite an achievement, hats off to you sir.

joe_the_user• 13 years ago

I only know a small amount about the current Russian regime but I would assume that this man isn't just anyone but someone with connections to the state and the mafya.

primelens• 13 years ago

In Soviet Russia ...

Eh?

jcl• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Smirnoff#Russian_reversal

tghw• 13 years ago

This is a good reminder, especially to contractors and freelancers, that when you receive a contract, it's just the beginning of a negotiation, not a sign-and-send situation.

bengrunfeld• 13 years ago

Firstly, he is a legend. Having the guts to pull off a move like that is admirable and unique.

I think it's a shame that regardless of if he wins or loses, many people believe that "fine print" is a tool that only big institutions like banks or insurance companies are allowed to use in their favor.

dschiptsov• 13 years ago

There is something to be understood about modern Russian culture - being successful cheater and uncaught thief considered a virtue, praised in a folklore with an iconic characters as Ostap Bender or, on a lower level, untouchable criminals, so-called Thiefs-Above-Law.

The unprecedented level of corruption in Russia is in a large extent due to this cultural beliefs. Being a successful bureaucrat or corrupted official is a dream of millions, be it a student of Academy of Government Service, or just a novice applied for a job of a traffic cop.

Most of so-called businesses are based on a fraud, designed and set up with the fraud in mind, as an exit strategy, based on exploitation of minorities, cheating of naive and uneducated and banal brute force.

Of course, such thing happen all over the US or other countries, the difference is the percentage. In Russia cheating and fraud are dominant strategies due to lack of any real economy or production.

The dream of easy money makes us the world largest porn producer, malware manufacturer (nothing very clever, just primitive deception) and a world's leader in drugs usage. We are deliberately copying, adapting and sometimes creatively enhancing all the possible ponzi schemes, corporate frauds found in US, without trying to mimic anything decent.

So, nothing to see here, yet another punk inspired by the cult books about Ostap Bender.

btw, these cards of Tinkoff Credit Systems was a nice cheating in itself - in a small print there was whopping 35% interest rate, huge fees for cancellation and inability to pay back ahead of schedule.)) So, they worth each other.

gdy• 13 years ago

Please don't make such sweeping generalizations based on your own character and ones of your friends.

CmonDev• 13 years ago

"folklore with an iconic characters as Ostap Bender"

That's a last century's character - too modern to be folklore. Now let me get my 'balalaika' and go dance with some bears - this would fit very nicely in the image you are trying to enforce.

kzrdude• 13 years ago

There is something to be understood about modern Russian culture - being successful cheater and uncaught thief considered a virtue, praised in a folklore with an iconic characters as Ostap Bender or, on a lower level, untouchable criminals, so-called Thiefs-Above-Law.

This appears many in unequal or unjust countries in the world (for example North Africa), and it is easy to understand: When the powers that be are not seen as just, it's easy to motivate cheating against their rules.

Sarien• 13 years ago

This story shows exactly what is wrong with EULAs.

yashg• 13 years ago

The court did hold the agreement valid when the bank sued him, so the bank will have to pay up as per the terms of the contract.

Pitarou• 13 years ago

I've no idea about Russia, but this WOULD NOT WORK in the Anglo-Saxon legal system.

Legally, the signed contract is simply the physical manifestation of something deeper: the consensus ad idem or both sides agreeing to the same thing. Tricking a busy clerk into signing an altered document does not constitute acceptance of the contract.

The court generally chooses not to reward such dishonesty, and therefore allows the honest party to choose which version of the contract should hold.

Fuxy2• 13 years ago

Haha now that's funny. The man did nothing wrong that's how negotiations are done between lawyers all the time. He presented new terms, the bank agreed so now they have to honor the contract they agreed to.

ds9• 13 years ago

I did something similar (USA here).

I asked for an automatic debit for a student loan, and got a form to fill out. Among other terms it specified that the lender could change the amount taken from my account, unilaterally!!!

So I crossed out this part, specified literally the current amount in dollars and cents, and said that any change would require separate written consent from me.

And sent it back with a signature. As others pointed out above, if they failed to notice the change, it is their own fault and their own problem, just as they would argue that it was my fault and my problem if I signed without reading all their self-serving, tiny-font, lawyer-crafted language.

And they started debiting the account - which has no legal justification other than that piece of paper, therefore they have agreed to the terms. It has not come to a court case, but if they ever withdraw more than the specified amount I'll sue.

Would I win? Maybe not, but if not it wouldn't be because of any flaw in my approach. Rather it would be because of the defacto two-tier legal system, where corporations have rights in proportion to their wealth and individuals can't afford to enforce any theoretical rights they supposedly have. I wish I could find the well-written rant on this topic (historical separate court systems for aristocrats and peasants) - Falkvinge maybe.

nickkyit2• 13 years ago

Updated the story with the pic of the guy: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articl...

zenith20372• 13 years ago

In my eyes, that man won and outplayed the system.

nickkyit2• 13 years ago

Further developments in the story: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articl...

Russian Man Changes Small Print in Credit Card Agreement, Then Sues

Related Stories