Man who created own credit card sues bank for not sticking to terms.
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.
Tinkoff apparently failed to read the amendments, signed the contract and sent Mr Argakov a credit card.
-snip-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
I thought you were going to be the spelling police.
thanks.
What the man did was delish! Don't see how he can lose here. 
Sure hope some first-class lawyers step up to defend him pro bono, because if not the bank's corporate lawyers will tear him to shreds just to make an example out of him. It would seem they have a pretty good case for fraudulent doctoring of legally-binding documents at the very least -- deliberate embezzlement at worst.
I admire the guy for standing up to the bank and making fools out of them, but when you mess with the bull you get the (you-know-what).
It's not a legally binding contract until both parties sign it. The initial contract was unsigned. He was free to send the bank a counter-offer, to which they agreed.
subject line and then repeat it in the body of your post. Why do you think anyone wants their time wasted reading your opinions twice?
No one else on DU is doing what you are doing. It is kind of annoying clicking though to see the rest of your post only to find repeated commentary.
Could you please begin your comment in the subject line and continue it in the message body - like everyone else does? Also, if your comment fits entirely into your subject line, if you add a "n/t" at the end it will let readers know there's no reason to click through to read further because there is "no text" in the body of the post.
Thanks!
Again, English coursework would help with the comprehension level.
Then maybe you could understand the meaning of the word, "Example". And once you've learned it you could apply that to here. These are examples of the same type as the original post meant to emphasize the ridiculousness of this, soon to be imprisoned' scammer.
It's obvious you hate banks. Keep that in mind when you go to get a mortgage. What, you have a mortgage, did you modifiy the mountain of paperwork to go with it in order to screw the man?
Do you support that nutcase Seattle board member who said the machinists should occupy Boeing's plant and produce buses.
Yeah, we don't need engineers, sales folks and QC folks, the machinists will just re-purpose the line to create buses.
Why am I reminded of the Homer.
<img src="
">
And before you say I'm off topic, this is the end result of people who have zero experience in design yet they think they do.
Again, your claim is that it's fraud to make a counter-offer. You also claim to have negotiated many contracts.
How many people have you sent to prison for making counter-offers?
And if you were not so desperately defending your erroneous position, you might realize that not all examples are appropriate.
Miley Cyrus's antics are an example. Doesn't mean it's an example of negotiating a contract.
You keep bringing up situations where the corporation is making an offer, and then does not sign the resulting contract. In those situations, the person signing is saying they agree to the offer as presented by the corporation, but they alter the offer in the text. That's fraud because the person altered the contract while agreeing to not alter the contract.
This is not that situation. The bank signed the resulting contract after the changes. That's because this is Russia, not the US, and the bank must explicitly sign the contract.
Your claim that this is fraud requires that the bank to not agree to the changes. They agreed to the changes by signing the counter-offer. The fact that they did not read the counter-offer does not make it fraud on the customer's part. It makes it negligence on the bank's part. But it's still a valid contract.
No, I hate people who desperately cling to an insanely stupid argument in an attempt to out-last everyone else, and thus not have to admit they made an insanely stupid argument.
But once again, you are trying to run away from the relevant questions in an attempt to deflect from your original error: You are claiming it is fraud to make a counter-offer to a contract.
And you are going to keep throwing anything you can find at this situation in a desperate attempt to hide from that insane argument. Let me help:
In case you can't tell, that's a kitchen sink for you to try and throw at your problem.
Sure seems that way, judging by every single post you've put in this thread. 
There is no law regarding banks (US banks or US laws in specificity) which renders the proffered terms of an unsigned contract valid or enforceable, nor its terms unalterable. He made a counter-proposal that they accepted because they failed to perform due diligence and assumed his returned document was the original proposal with the same terms. As he did not act to conceal his alteration of their terms, he's in the clear.
The inalterability of the original terms is not legally-enforceable by statute but enforceable by negating the pre-approval of the offer by the bank...that went out the window when they issued a card under his terms. He rejected their pre-approved offer. They approved his counter offer by issuing the card. Unlike the offer they sent him, they had no legal obligation to accept the proposal he sent them. They chose to accept his offer.
A US bank would lose this case as clearly as a Russian bank will. What is probably unenforceable is the termination clause however, as onerous (generally considered to be "any"
termination penalties on non-term-limited multi-party contracts for ongoing provision of services are generally not enforceable in US courts. (So said the lawyers of evil mega-corporate bank I worked for.)
Banker. I used to deal with this crap for a living. There's a reason I read fast and accurately. I got used to reading everything before I signed it so that I was not responsible for avoidable losses. You'd be amazed how often these sorts of things happen (when lawyers are involved, such as mortgage signings...constantly) and how often it works. Usually not in such a grand fashion though. Sometimes the counter proposal is even acceptable when caught...we'd rather lose the quarter-point your lawyer shaved in rewriting the terms than lose the sale of a mortgage product.
for once they assumed and did not read the fine print.
Is it a legally binding contract under Russian law?
stuff that happens BEFORE the fact is actually stuff that happens AFTER the fact, and even constitutes FRAUD. Simples, see.
Who said Russia's laws were complicated to understand.
On edit, I guess the Romanovs have also been unexecuted, and the gulags never happened.
