Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Don't like the terms of a credit card offer you got in the mail? Just change them to what you want, sign it, and send it back to the bank. FARK: and sue their asses when they don't honor them   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Amusing, credit cards, Kommersant, credit limit  
•       •       •

11785 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Aug 2013 at 12:41 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-09 11:39:48 AM  
I hope he wins
 
2013-08-09 12:13:03 PM  
"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it'," said Mr Mikhalevich.

 Ha- you're farked, Bank.
 
2013-08-09 12:16:08 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-09 12:21:53 PM  
That's a borderline [HERO] tag article, subby. I love it!
 
2013-08-09 12:29:15 PM  
Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans
 
2013-08-09 12:42:19 PM  

Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans


Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.
 
2013-08-09 12:42:32 PM  
I hope he wins
 
2013-08-09 12:44:26 PM  

Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans


Actually, and I'm speaking strictly out of my rectum here, I don't think it would.

The bank in this case made him an offer of credit.  He didn't like their terms, so he modified the contract, signed it,  and sent it back.  They then approved the contract as modified.The fact that they didn't read the updated terms of the contract isn't his fault, it's the fault of the bank.

Seems like pretty basic contract law to me.Bank shouldn't get a pass simply because they were too lazy to check the terms before reading it.

Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.
 
2013-08-09 12:46:38 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.


I can only hope that I've clicked so many EULAs in my life that the courts would take forever to determine which company owns my immortal soul and first born child.
 
2013-08-09 12:47:00 PM  
This justice is so sweet, it gave me diabetics!
 
2013-08-09 12:48:40 PM  

dittybopper: Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.


Biggest change I had to make was that the bank farked up the amount to be financed to the tune of $8000 more than the actual amount:  They had inserted the *PURCHASE* price for the amount financed.  I then had to fix all the subsequent calculations.
 
2013-08-09 12:51:01 PM  

Fano: Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.

I can only hope that I've clicked so many EULAs in my life that the courts would take forever to determine which company owns my immortal soul and first born child.


It's Apple. See: South Park - "The Human CentiPad"
 
2013-08-09 12:51:06 PM  
It seems like the banks can arbitrarily change the terms of the contract after you've signed up for a credit card. At least this guy gave them the chance to see the changes before they agreed to them.
 
2013-08-09 12:51:43 PM  

Fano: Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.

I can only hope that I've clicked so many EULAs in my life that the courts would take forever to determine which company owns my immortal soul and first born child.


imgs.xkcd.com

Got you covered.
 
2013-08-09 12:53:44 PM  

Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans


Well, once the bank signed it (or even implicitly agreed by issuing the card) it is no longer a unilateral change.

The bigger issue is if he did not properly indicate the changes (if he just edited it and sent it back without notice that it was changed or anything) then he would face issues. The completely unreasonable terms will also be a potential issue as it removes any possibility that the bank knowingly accepted them.

When you sign back a counteroffer, you should stroke out the original terms and write in the new ones as it makes the changes clear, or provide notice as to what changes were made.

Most likely he would get hit with a claim that he knowingly and intentionally misled the bank and lose.

On the other hand, if you sent it back, with some fees or the interest rate reduced with a notice explaining it was a counteroffer and it was agreed to by the bank (either explicitly by signing or implicity by issuing the card) you would have a pretty good case.
 
2013-08-09 12:54:41 PM  

Gig103: That's a borderline [HERO] tag article, subby. I love it!


There's nothing borderline about it. That's some David and Goliath stuff right there.
 
2013-08-09 12:55:12 PM  

dittybopper: dittybopper: Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.

Biggest change I had to make was that the bank farked up the amount to be financed to the tune of $8000 more than the actual amount:  They had inserted the *PURCHASE* price for the amount financed.  I then had to fix all the subsequent calculations.


Huh, the mistake was in THEIR favor? Color me surprised!
It's like when they used to do those hidden camera price checks in grocery stores, and a decent percentage of the prices charged would be different than the marked prices. The stores of course said, "Oh, those were just labeling mistakes," but in almost every case there were many more items they charged too much for than charged too little. In Statistics, that's what it termed "fishy."
 
2013-08-09 12:55:25 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Actually, and I'm speaking strictly out of my rectum here, I don't think it would.

The bank in this case made him an offer of credit.  He didn't like their terms, so he modified the contract, signed it,  and sent it back.  They then approved the contract as modified.The fact that they didn't read the updated terms of the contract isn't his fault, it's the fault of the bank.

Seems like pretty basic contract law to me.Bank shouldn't get a pass simply because they were too lazy to check the terms before reading it.

Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.


It certainly sounds like it; they even sent him a copy of the modified contract, signed by the bank.
 
2013-08-09 12:56:24 PM  
Fraud in the execution? If he scanned the document and made these changes surreptitiously, the bank would have no reason to believe the document signed was not the one originally presented.

Although who knows what the deal is under Russian law.
 
2013-08-09 12:58:11 PM  
The issue here is that he issued the counter-offer on a letterhead that looked identical to that of the bank.  If there was a bank logo on it they could even claim he violated their trademark by copying their letterhead.
 
2013-08-09 12:58:16 PM  

swahnhennessy: Gig103: That's a borderline [HERO] tag article, subby. I love it!

There's nothing borderline about it. That's some David and Goliath stuff right there.


it's also Russia, so all I have to say is, good luck to him. The bank has a lot more money with which to bribe the appropriate agency for a favorable outcome.
 
2013-08-09 12:58:46 PM  

Fano: Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.

I can only hope that I've clicked so many EULAs in my life that the courts would take forever to determine which company owns my immortal soul and first born child.


Generally, it would be the one that is first in time.
UCC Article 9.312
 
2013-08-09 01:04:48 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Actually, and I'm speaking strictly out of my rectum here, I don't think it would.

The bank in this case made him an offer of credit.  He didn't like their terms, so he modified the contract, signed it,  and sent it back.  They then approved the contract as modified.The fact that they didn't read the updated terms of the contract isn't his fault, it's the fault of the bank.

Seems like pretty basic contract law to me.Bank shouldn't get a pass simply because they were too lazy to check the terms before reading it.

Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.


In the United States of America, banks are never accountable for anything, even when they are demonstrably at fault.
 
2013-08-09 01:05:59 PM  

Gig103: That's a borderline [HERO] tag article, subby. I love it!


I concur.
 
2013-08-09 01:09:05 PM  

show me: dittybopper: dittybopper: Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.

Biggest change I had to make was that the bank farked up the amount to be financed to the tune of $8000 more than the actual amount:  They had inserted the *PURCHASE* price for the amount financed.  I then had to fix all the subsequent calculations.

Huh, the mistake was in THEIR favor? Color me surprised!
It's like when they used to do those hidden camera price checks in grocery stores, and a decent percentage of the prices charged would be different than the marked prices. The stores of course said, "Oh, those were just labeling mistakes," but in almost every case there were many more items they charged too much for than charged too little. In Statistics, that's what it termed "fishy."


In all fairness, that's the only possible way that mistake could happen, as the purchase price was higher than the amount financed.

If you only have two amounts, X (purchase amount), and X-8000 (purchase amount minus down payment and other considerations), then the only possible mistake is on in their favor.
 
2013-08-09 01:09:40 PM  

dittybopper: dittybopper: Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.

Biggest change I had to make was that the bank farked up the amount to be financed to the tune of $8000 more than the actual amount:  They had inserted the *PURCHASE* price for the amount financed.  I then had to fix all the subsequent calculations.


But did you make entirely unreasonable changes (such as 0% interest rate) and do it surrepticiously as the article seems to indicate this guy did?
 
2013-08-09 01:10:03 PM  
My when my dad started working for a background music company know for shenanigans *cough*Muzak*cough* towards the employees they gave him a no-compete contract to sign. He printed up an entirely new one from scratch that slightly changed everything stating he couldn't compete against them if he left. (This would have stopped him from working anywhere in the field for 3 years). Well he got tired of their crap and started his own company. Of course the owner called him and told him he had his no-compete contract in his hand and was going to sue him. Dad told him to read the contract and get back with him. He never called back.
 
2013-08-09 01:10:27 PM  

JRaynor: Fano: Warlordtrooper: Magorn: Woudn't work in the US,  there are UCC (uniform commerical code) rules that prevent these sorts of unilateral shenanigans

Doesn't seem to stop companies from doing it to consumers though.

I can only hope that I've clicked so many EULAs in my life that the courts would take forever to determine which company owns my immortal soul and first born child.

Generally, it would be the one that is first in time.
UCC Article 9.312


Load up several at once, click them all at the same time.
 
2013-08-09 01:13:34 PM  
***Offer not valid in the United States, Puerto Rico & Guam***
 
2013-08-09 01:14:11 PM  

dywed88: dittybopper: dittybopper: Hell, I had to make changes in my original mortgage contract before I signed it because the person who wrote up the contract farked up a few things.

Biggest change I had to make was that the bank farked up the amount to be financed to the tune of $8000 more than the actual amount:  They had inserted the *PURCHASE* price for the amount financed.  I then had to fix all the subsequent calculations.

But did you make entirely unreasonable changes (such as 0% interest rate) and do it surrepticiously as the article seems to indicate this guy did?


First, the guy didn't do it surreptitiously.  He made pretty open changes to the contract.  It was there in black and white for anyone who wanted to read it.

Second, reasonableness isn't the standard.  A contract can be pretty damned unreasonable and as long as it doesn't violate some law, it could still be valid.
 
2013-08-09 01:17:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Although who knows what the deal is under Russian law.


The court finds against the party that passes out first during a vodka-drinking contest.
 
2013-08-09 01:17:56 PM  
This man is a hero.
 
2013-08-09 01:19:16 PM  
That wouldn't work in the western world because the laws, I assume, state that the credit card provider may shaft you (dry or lubed) with the incursion of a $95 thrusting fee (payable per provider fist*).

*Accidental** removal of fist and the subsequent re-insertion would result in the duplication of all charges.

**Whether fist removal was accidental will be decided by  the fister, and is subject to arbitration***.

***Arbitration services will be provided by Blood, Hammer, and Robb LLC****.

****A subsidiary of Piracy Credit Services, PO BOX 666, Mogadishu, Somalia.
 
2013-08-09 01:19:51 PM  
CSB:
My contract law professor got most of his house for free this way.  There was a bank he hated in Virginia vehemently due to past shenanigans / problems.   So when he bought his last house he included a clause that the mortgage would be forgiven if was ever sold to this bank.

So what happened a year down the line?  The bank that wrote him the mortgage sold it to the bank that he hated.  He took them to court and won.
 
2013-08-09 01:20:32 PM  

dittybopper: First, the guy didn't do it surreptitiously. He made pretty open changes to the contract. It was there in black and white for anyone who wanted to read it.


This is all happening in Russia, so I don't think any of us fake TF Esq. can even pretend to know the ins and outs. But if it happened in the U.S., because he scanned and modified the contract, instead of striking out and modifying the terms, a U.S. bank might be able to weasel out of it.  Of course, time and time again banks have proven that they don't keep copies of paperwork, so in the U.S. he might win a default judgement if he has the copy he sent them.
 
2013-08-09 01:22:15 PM  

bingethinker: It seems like the banks can arbitrarily change the terms of the contract after you've signed up for a credit card. At least this guy gave them the chance to see the changes before they agreed to them.


They can do that because people are dumb enough to sign contracts that give them the right to do that.
 
2013-08-09 01:22:46 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: So what happened a year down the line? The bank that wrote him the mortgage sold it to the bank that he hated. He took them to court and won.


That's awesome, because I'd want to do that if my mortgage was ever sold to Bank of America. In fact, when I was refinancing I checked with USAA to find out what banks they work with, to ensure BoA wasn't on the list. Not that they couldn't sell it anyway, but it would be unusual to go outside their provider network.
 
2013-08-09 01:27:26 PM  
Brilliant
 
2013-08-09 01:28:42 PM  

MythDragon: Dad told him to read the contract and get back with him. He never called back.


In many states, no-compete clauses are unenforceable anyway. So are a lot of liability waivers (in many states, you cannot sign away your right to sue). This is as it should be.
 
2013-08-09 01:28:56 PM  
I've always wanted to do something like that (other than a CC offer). Glad he did it, I hope he wins.

/it's Russia
//wonder what would happen in the US
 
2013-08-09 01:32:08 PM  

Gig103: Satanic_Hamster: So what happened a year down the line? The bank that wrote him the mortgage sold it to the bank that he hated. He took them to court and won.

That's awesome, because I'd want to do that if my mortgage was ever sold to Bank of America. In fact, when I was refinancing I checked with USAA to find out what banks they work with, to ensure BoA wasn't on the list. Not that they couldn't sell it anyway, but it would be unusual to go outside their provider network.


So you could have added a clause to that effect for the banks that you know they do business with? Interesting....
 
2013-08-09 01:32:13 PM  

t3knomanser: In many states, no-compete clauses are unenforceable anyway. So are a lot of liability waivers (in many states, you cannot sign away your right to sue). This is as it should be.


NOT ANYMORE! At least, not according to the supreme court! You can absolutely sign away your right to sue and be forced to used binding arbitration.
 
2013-08-09 01:34:30 PM  

Felgraf: NOT ANYMORE! At least, not according to the supreme court! You can absolutely sign away your right to sue and be forced to used binding arbitration.


Well, according to the Supreme Court, there's no constitutional restriction or Federal prohibition. Some states still have more restrictive laws.
 
2013-08-09 01:36:02 PM  

radiumsoup: swahnhennessy: Gig103: That's a borderline [HERO] tag article, subby. I love it!

There's nothing borderline about it. That's some David and Goliath stuff right there.

it's also Russia, so all I have to say is, good luck to him. The bank has a lot more money with which to bribe the appropriate agency for a favorable outcome.


There would be no bribery in the USA.

The appropriate agency would already be bought and paid for.
 
2013-08-09 01:40:29 PM  

Langston: I hope he wins


I hope so too.  Negotiating a contract is not a crime.  Issuing the credit card shows that the bank did indeed accept his new contract.  The fact that they didn't read it is not an excuse.  It certainly isn't when the roles are reversed.
 
2013-08-09 01:42:01 PM  

HighZoolander: Gig103: Satanic_Hamster: So what happened a year down the line? The bank that wrote him the mortgage sold it to the bank that he hated. He took them to court and won.

That's awesome, because I'd want to do that if my mortgage was ever sold to Bank of America. In fact, when I was refinancing I checked with USAA to find out what banks they work with, to ensure BoA wasn't on the list. Not that they couldn't sell it anyway, but it would be unusual to go outside their provider network.

So you could have added a clause to that effect for the banks that you know they do business with? Interesting....


From what he explained in class:
It's basic contract law.  He signed a contract with the bank to provide x amount of money to purchase y property and he'd repay them z amount a month.    Now, in most/all states banks are allowed to sell/transfer this the mortgage contract over unilaterally.  He put in a clause that put restrictions on the banks ability to change the contract without his permission.

It helped that he was a lawyer for several decades and had a lot of freaking relevant degrees.

Really enjoyed his classes, wish I had the opportunity to have him for more.  Was getting a business minor at the time.
 
2013-08-09 01:47:46 PM  
I dip my hat to you Mr. Dmitry Argarkov.
 
2013-08-09 01:48:24 PM  

utah dude: This man is a

n hero.
There, fixed.
 
2013-08-09 01:57:21 PM  

t3knomanser: MythDragon: Dad told him to read the contract and get back with him. He never called back.

In many states, no-compete clauses are unenforceable anyway. So are a lot of liability waivers (in many states, you cannot sign away your right to sue). This is as it should be.


There is also the principle that all contracts require compensation on both sides.

If a new employee is hired, they can be required to sign a non-compete clause, the compensation to them for doing so, is that they get a job.

If the employer gets a bug up his butt, and asks existing employees to give up their right to change jobs, then he owes them compensation for that.  Continued employment, isn't considered compensation.  If he suggests he will fire you for not signing, that is coercion, which would also be grounds for breaking the non-compete.

/had a boss who got a bug up his butt.
 
2013-08-09 01:58:02 PM  
(to the credit company): BBWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH......(breath).....HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report