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

Source

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."

Man is this a brilliant idea!

Banks getting a taste of their own medicine. Next time I get a application by mail, I am so going to do this. I will make sure and keep record of everything and document it all.

I suggest we all try this and see what happens.

I might have put this is in the wrong forum, if I did mods feel free to move it accordingly.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

Oh, BTW, thread #700! Yay!

reply to post by predator0187

I was reading about this a couple of days ago. It really is brilliant.

My favorite part is where they dare accuse him of being "deceptive for intentionally including outrageous terms with the expectation the other party won't read it."

I mean what kind of monster would do that?

This is pretty brilliant and I honestly hope the guy wins his case! Will be watching this one for sure.

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.

reply to post by predator0187


Wonder if there is a way to do this electronically to amend software and service agreements with the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft.

This is amazing. I wonder how many people will attempt to duplicate his activities if he wins this case.

I for one will enjoy watching how this case unfolds.

reply to post by predator0187


so smart

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.

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.

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.

Hey, he has an unlimited credit card, he can use the banks money to sue them :-D

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.

Lenders often trap people with small print and will hold them to contracts regardless - it's the fault of the borrower for failing to read and understand the terms of a contract before signing and returning it, right? Right.

This credit card company stepped in it's own trap and was caught with it's pants down, and has now found itself in the same shoes as most of the borrowers on the planet.

We should all keep a very close eye on the outcome of this because if this company wins, it will mean everyone who ever signed a legal and binding loan document without reading it properly, can bring the same complaint to court against their lenders - just use the same words it uses.

This credit card company should just pay up, suck it up and learn from it, like the rest of us would have to.

This is awesome, i just love it and the ironic line of defense from the credit card owner guy is priceless (unfortunately lol)

Good luck to Mr Argakov, if he goes to prison for this there will be a pretty serve public out cry. Bank got out banked by one guy, give him, pay him as per the signed contract and start reading your own mail for once Mr Bank.

I love this guy!!

I would say if the bank signed the contract and provided the card, sucks to be them and they should pay up imo.

I cant say if he will win this case or not with any certainty, I can say this though, if he wins his case, the government will make a new law in no time to avoid this happenning again. There will likely not be a repeat of this situation.

Still love it though!

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

Ya gott'a know, the processors of t5his bulk junk loans/business /etc. are your next door neighbors kids, just 18 and getting paid minimum wage, they have no clue, nor could they take the time to read it, it goes to bins, to different departments and the same clods, until it gets to the one big scammer.

This ought to work for a short while, before these guys start checking what their potential customer is hip to, and fixes. They will be warry about signing .

reply to post by Plotus


I would LOVE to see a bank use its own poor training and low wage employees as a way to get round this. can you imagine?

"That contracts not fair nor valid because the new guy inexperienced guy we put in charge of contracts, didn't know what he was doing" Oh how id laugh, i mean, im already laughing a lot at this so why not! hahahahhahahaha

He is home. They sent him a copy of the revised contract Yeah? If so he will win by using the law to its full extent.

If only contract law was compulsory for school students, what a shift in power we would have in just one generation.

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."

So it's fraud if the card holder alters the agreement and the bank agrees to the terms. But it's ok for banks to rape their customers with high interest rates and multiple fees.

How is that fair in a court of law?

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

Oh so good that finally banks have someone who can voice their worrisome

Dude you realize that you're talking about sharks and morons that have made our existence impossible, right? There is no action against them that is not right action in my book. Plain and simple. Kudos to the guy who screwed the bank up and kudos to whoever else attempts to do the same.

Bravo! Leave it to a Russian to use a simple yet effective method to get the job done.