It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
"The Bank confirmed its agreement to the client's terms and sent him a credit card and a copy of the approved application form," his lawyer Dmitry Mikhalevich told Kommersant. "The opened credit line was unlimited. He could afford to buy an island somewhere in Malaysia, and the bank would have to pay for it by law."
Originally posted by White Locust
Funny and all, but I hope he has money for lawyers if he expects a fight.
People talk about getting a patent to protect intellectual property, but it is very expensive to enforce a patent! I do give this guy credit for creativity but the bank will win unless this guy has money to burn.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by predator0187
A vendor once sent us a .pdf contract. It included dozens of spelling errors along with at least a dozens variances on what we had agreed to. So I converted it to .doc, corrected all the spelling errors, and amended all the agreed upon items to align with what we had actually agreed upon. I then signed it and sent it back to them in a scanned .pdf format.
It is our current operating contract. Obviously they weren't happy that I busted them. They were less happy that I "tricked" them. I didn't trick them at all. I even stated in the email I attached the scan to that I had amended the contract to match the agreed upon terms.edit on 12-8-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: .pdf changed to .doc
Oleg Tinkov, founder of the bank, tweeted: "Our lawyers think he is going to get not 24m, but really 4 years in prison for fraud. Now it's a matter of principle for @tcsbanktwitter."
Originally posted by ForteanOrg
Of course, it's for the Court to decide if he legally did something wrong. However, I don't think it's a very clever thing to do - in the end it will cost us all.
See, there is a reason the banks feel they have to draft these lengthy and unreadable contracts. They feel they are at risk and try to mitigate that risk. If their method of mitigation is not to our liking, we can simply refuse to sign the contract, or try to amend the contracts by engaging in a dialogue with the bank. Has he even tried that?
Maybe many of us feel that the banks draft far too lengthy and far to unreadable contracts. In that case we might try to change all that by making our Laws more complex to include much of what is now in those contracts, in the hope it will make the banks feel safer so they do not need these illegible documents any more. We might even forbid them to put in contracts what has been regulated by Law. And, of course, in the good old American tradition, Individuals could also refuse to sign the contracts and take their business elsewhere.
On a sidenote: isn't it funny how all capitalists keep telling us that competition is key to a healthy market - but in the meantime the big companies all cooperate to make it useless for us, customers, to take our business elsewhere, because they all use the same conditions and pricing? Seems that good old Kropotkin had it right when he observed that it is not competion, but cooperation that drives progress..
Anyway, this won't trigger a change of Law. And even a child can understand that, might he win the case, the banks would simply add a new clause to the contract to prevent this. It can be done: there are technical means that could be used to ascertain that the document was not changed e.g. hashing the text, signing it with the bank's private key, convert it to readable text and make the hash part of a clause of the contract. Actually, I use similar techniques to allow others to ascertain the veracity of certificates I issue - certificates as in a pieces of paper that proof that you attended a course, sat the exam and passed.
I guess that only a few people will benefit from all this: lawyers and possibly IT-consultants. The banks might even use a positive ruling for the customer as an excuse to raise their prices, saying they now have to make more costs to prevent this in future. Customer will have to read a longer contract (which may contain stuff that is indeed hard to read, hashes aren't really meant for human consumption).
All in all, this is something we might find amusing, but in the end it will just will make life a little bit more miserable for all of us.edit on 12-8-2013 by ForteanOrg because: clarification