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