9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Guy turns tables on bank

by KingOfContentMarketing
7 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
"The idea of beating the banks at their own game may seem like a rich joke, but Dmitry Agarkov, a 42-year-old Russian man, may have managed it. Unhappy with the terms of an unsolicited credit card offer he received from online bank Tinkoff Credit Systems, Agarkov scanned the document, wrote in his own terms and sent it through. The bank approved the contract without reading the amended fine print, unwittingly agreeing to a 0 percent interest rate, unlimited credit and no fees, as well as a stipulation that the bank pay steep fines for changing or canceling the contract."

Dmitry Agarkov outwits Russian bank by writing own credit card terms
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    That might work in Russia but it wouldn't fly everywhere...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383698].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      That might work in Russia but it wouldn't fly everywhere...
      Why not? That's corporate law - if you sign a document, you are held accountable to meeting the terms of that agreement. It doesn't matter which side of that agreement you are on. Banks can't sign agreements then just say, "oh sorry I didn't read it". Law doesn't work that way - and if it does, it's not actually law you are witnessing, it's the absence of the rule of law (read: fascism).
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383783].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Because what the man sent back was not what the bank was offering. There's more to contract law than "both parties signed it."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383809].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Because what the man sent back was not what the bank was offering. There's more to contract law than "both parties signed it."
      Well then, it was extremely stupid of them to sign a contract that was other than the offer they were making. It's not like there was a bait and switch going on where you sign and they give you different than what you signed for. It was a contract and they signed it. They could have just refused it if it was not what they had offered. You can't just go and sign contracts and then say - oh, never mind - other than the bank could have voided the contract within the normally allotted business days, and apparently didn't.

      That's my take on it anyhow. Where's Brian? He is a lawyer and would know the actual details on how this works.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384073].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Well then, it was extremely stupid of them to sign a contract that was other than the offer they were making..
        Like I said, that might work in some places but not everywhere...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384105].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Because what the man sent back was not what the bank was offering. There's more to contract law than "both parties signed it."
      In contract law, a party IS allowed to make changes before the other party signs.

      They ARE supposed to know about the conditions BUT, as we all know, that is RARELY enforced. STILL, if they didn't charge any interest, that proves that they knew.

      There IS suposed to be consideration, which failed here(The bank got NOTHING in return for the risk) BUT, again, we ALL know that is RARELY enforced.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384501].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        In contract law, a party IS allowed to make changes before the other party signs.

        They ARE supposed to know about the conditions BUT, as we all know, that is RARELY enforced. STILL, if they didn't charge any interest, that proves that they knew.

        There IS suposed to be consideration, which failed here(The bank got NOTHING in return for the risk) BUT, again, we ALL know that is RARELY enforced.

        Steve
        Except that they can also have stipulations that simply say that the conditions of the offer can't be changed without written approval and then the changes are worthless whether they were signed or not. Have you ever looked at the fine print and all of the terms that come with those credit card offers? You might want to look at the next one you get. They may not "CYA" in other places but they sure do in some. Do you really think that scam hasn't been tried in other places at other times and that bigger institutions haven't closed the loopholes that might work in other places?

        It's really not always as easy as "they signed it" if it was then contract law wouldn't be such a huge field here. A simple contract might be easier to enforce that way, in small claims court, but not something as complicated as a credit card contract and a suit for big bucks.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384522].message }}

Trending Topics