Man who created own credit card sues bank for not sticking to terms - Brilliant!

page: 2
87
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I don't see any reason why this guy won't win. Putting aside claims of deception and fraud (When all it's really about is that the company employed an idiot who didn't check the contract), it's pretty simple:

Say I owned a bank, and I came to you with a contract for a credit card. You agree to signing up for one and I hand the contract to you. While you're reading the contract, you make a few alterations for 0% interest, cross out the fees section and cross out the credit limit part and write "unlimited", along with your own fees if I break my side of the contract. I don't check it, sign it and hand you a copy. Your card arrives in the post two days later. Contract has been created.

It doesn't matter if he printed out a new contract, it doesn't matter if he was deceptive or trying to commit fraud. A contract is a contract is a contract. No-one forced them to sign it, the man just made a few alterations and sent it back. The bank is completely at fault. Once you sign it, you agree to its terms. Simple.




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This is brilliant! Glad it's finally the banks that are being conned out of money rather than the other way around for a change.

And I agree, it is entirely their fault for being so presumptuous that this guy was just going to sign their version of the contract. Maybe this will inspire more people to not just accept what's given to them and will actually develop some kind of bartering of contracts. Maybe not though.

Unfortunately when word of this has inseminated the banks i'm sure they'll get checking those contracts with a very fine toothcomb



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Three page thread, same topic, in case you missed it and want to read.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just makes ya smile, don't it?
edit on 12-8-2013 by lernmore because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EloquentThinker
A contract is a contract is a contract. No-one forced them to sign it, the man just made a few alterations and sent it back. The bank is completely at fault. Once you sign it, you agree to its terms. Simple.



That's what he thinks...

www.youtube.com...

edit on 12-8-2013 by ForteanOrg because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by White Locust
 


He can always pay the attorney fees with his Tinkoff Credit Card.

J



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


One thing you said bugs me,

"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 competition, but cooperation that drives progress"..

It is easy for me to point my finger at the different corporations and say, It is all your fault.
And, I have done this, for many years. But then, it dawned on me that the corporations only do what they are allowed to do by Governments. All big corporations have a compliance department to make sure they are not breaking any laws. The real blame lies on the shoulders of the corrupt politician who created the loopholes,
(for a promise of money, or simply put, a bribe), that allows crooked business practices by corporations.

The corporations do what any of us would do, they take advantage in every opportunity that the different governments afford to them.
True Capitalism is made or broken in the market place. Your goods are desired, or they are not.
The market decides your fate.

The capitalism of today is hinged upon speculation in futures. This climate of speculation allows for those who can throw weight around, to do so. Even so far as to tamper with some product or service in order to throw things in their monetary favor later on. Consider the recent plunge of Gold. It is said that one family does control the price of Gold. And now they are on a buying spree. It is also said that this families cash intake amounts to $11 Billion/Daily.(and I am not even considering the hidden tax of inflation here, by the brute force attacks on Gold Prices).
I will not mention their name. You either know who they are, or you do not.
I will go as far to say they loaned money to Rockefeller and Carnegie, and among others, Governments.
Crooked Politics put these people in power, so, it is not the fault of the corporations,
nay, it is the fault of very corrupted governments and politicians.

Now, not to sway too far from the topic, even though he did use the Banks Logo, they should have checked the application for relevancy. Being that they did not check it before signing, it is now a signed contract, and here's to giving it back to them in the end...



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
Three page thread, same topic, in case you missed it and want to read.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just makes ya smile, don't it?
edit on 12-8-2013 by lernmore because: (no reason given)


THIS is how you inform a thread that there is already another thread on this topic.

Thank you lernmore.....an example for all of ATS to follow.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by baburak
Seems brilliant at first look. But he used banks header and logo in his new contract. It makes his actions illegal and he will be convicted of a fraud. Sad, but bank will win this case and he will go to jail.

He should have used his own header and hope that bank will sign it.


Why does it make it fraudulent? He made amendments to a contract, an agreement between two parties, and they (without knowing) agreed to it. Does it matter whose header was on the top of the paper. And if the bank use the defence of him tricking them because they did not read the small print, as a poster above said, can we take our credit card companies to court, and accuse them of the same thing?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Where is Isaackoi when you need him?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


I'm hope this guy gets them for all they're worth, but I bet it doesn't work out that way. I wonder if the document is copyrighted or something...that could be a loop hole for the CC company. Even if not, some smart lawyer/legal team will find some law, some where that technically makes this an invalid contract.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Not clever if you ask me, its forgery, all the CC people have to do is prove that he adjusted the document that was sent out. Its no different from getting your CCbill by post, scanning and altering the payment amount and paying the revised amount at the bank, it does not match the original sent out document.

The CC company will get a firm wrap on the knuckles for not checking the details but at the end of the day its forgery and fraud..

If he had sent the form back and said sorry the terms are too high here's MY requested figures and they signed that of then its all very different.
edit on 12-8-2013 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This isn't remarkable at all. what is remarkable is that people believe, or KNOW that all contracts are one way. They are not.

If I sent him a contact to mow his lawn, which stated I would be paid 3 million dollars and he sent one back saying, only 3 dollars, this would not only be "legal" but perfectly acceptable. It happens everyday, a million times a day.

The bank's offer is an OFFER TO CONTRACT and that offer can be: A. Accepted. B. Rejected or C. MODIFIED!!!!

He simply modified it. It was incumbent upon the BANK to do due diligence and determine the changes were acceptable to them. Because they ignored his changes means they accepted. They changes were not hidden but clear for them to read. That offer is not a Constitution, it does need an act of congress of the CEO to change, it is simply a suggestion.

I'm mystified why folks simply follow the sheeple line concerning contracts with large corporations: YOU ARE FREE TO NEGOTIATE. I suggest some of you sheeple start demanding changes to every contract you sign, changes that favor you! Ask, request, demand, and stop simply believing that every contract coming from the phone company or the bank is written in stone.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeoThom
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 

The corporations do what any of us would do, they take advantage in every opportunity that the different governments afford to them.


Not all of them. There are many non-profit and not-for-profit organisations. And even the 'for profit' organisations aren't all corrupt, many really try to offer decent products and sevices at reasonable costs. Also, not all shareholders are money-hungry fascists, some of them actually are real investors, that want to make a reasonable profit, but not at all costs. Even the more corrupt cooperations occasionally show decent behaviour, due to the fact that there are regular people working there. If you scale down to the level of individuals, the overwhelming majority are decent, social people, that only take as much as they need and try to give what they can. Afer all, it is our willingness to cooperate, to work together, our disgust when we have to witness poverty and illness, that motivates our actions, not our greed. Not too many people like greed, and the poor fools that do are never satisfied, no matter who much they steal from others.

In short, it is my firm belief that humans are NOT the greedy, self-centered bunch they think they are



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I agree this is brilliant. Most credit card agreements are unilateral contracts (it is a one way street and it is all their way . . . kinda like adhesion contracts with an insurance company). But I think this fella might win if done in the United States, since the bank accepted the revised version of the contract and issued a credit card after receiving and accepting the contract.

It would be interesting to test it in a US Court, say with . . . Citi Bank, Wells Fargo et.al. As for legal fees a customer has standing to sue, and does not need a lawyer to bring an action in a State District Court. A contract is a contract and should be enforceable. Perhaps, all solicitations by credit card companies should be "revised" and mailed back to those companies as was done by this Russian.

Remember, a "real contract" exists here in America and a court will decide the outcome. Screw the lawyers, most citizens have standing to sue or bring an action in Small Claims or District Court in this country. However, remember to also alter the "jurisdiction" section of the agreement (which is usually Delaware) to your state of residence, so the action by or against the credit card issuing bank will be brought in your state. Love this! Good luck. John



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Under US law, it is not fraud. Not at all.

I have modified every business contract I have signed in the last 3 years.

The only way it would have any fraudulent basis would be if the contract form expressly stipulated that the contract could not be modified, and that modifications would render the contract null/void.

Then it still wouldn't fraudulent. It would be a null/void contract.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


I couldnt agree more LOL.

Their line of work is debt. NOW. They are the ones in dept LOL.

Veangence is sweet.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I'm going to try this lol



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Heh Heh Heh! I have been laughing all morning! I think both arguements are right. He should win as the credit card company entered into a binding agreement, that they failed to read. If the credit card company wins this one, it seems only fair that all credit users can claim they didn't read the fine print and are not liable. Oh what a web we weave when at first we practise to decieve.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Dis Russian guy uuuuh, what's his ,,,,,,,Argakov ats it! I love dis friggen guy aeegh eegh egh.
Ahh dose Russian guys can always find away, to break one offin yas aeeegh eeegh egh.
Hey Tony ! See if you can get dis, dis. dis uhh,,, Argakov guy on aphone will ya ? I gotta
talk to dis guy aeeegh eegh.

I tell ya, it takes a rare combination of brains and big brass ones, to infringe upon the big boys
right to a double standard.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


And the bank doesn't need to read the fine print either? If they would have taken the time to read the contract they sent, they wouldn't be in this problem. It's not our fault that the BANK CAN'T READ contracts coming in, something everyone does before agreeing.

They would have seen this and simply shredded the contract and sent a declined letter avoiding this hassle. I mean, it's really stupid to not expect people to do this very basic task. Especially when you're a bank.





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join