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

reply to post by White Locust

He has the credit card for the bank, so he can afford an army of laywers, with their money
_javascript:icon('')

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If that's the case, let's hope the contract didn't explicitly stipulate a prohibition on modifications...this man's stroke of brilliance shall not go down in vain.

It shall indellibly leave its mark in history, a symbol for man's ingenious individuality.

Originally posted by adrianosun01
reply to post by White Locust

 

He has the credit card for the bank, so he can afford an army of laywers, with their money

_javascript:icon('

')

Don't forget he still must pay back the money - it's just that it won't compound interest ;o)

The banks dish out those lengthy contracts in microscopic font in the giant wall of text, with the deceptive intentions that the customer won't bother to read it. It's exactly how they operate and it's brilliant the tables are turned on them.

I really hope he wins his case.
The bank can make the person who signed it back to him the fall guy.

...really? What exactly do you understand of contract law? This act is not criminal. It is lawful. The company is negligent in it's contracting - this is not the fault of this man. Oh, and doctoring a contract would have to take place AFTER it was signed in wet ink and accepted by the other party...If it takes place BEFORE, then it's contract negotiation.

The contract that the credit card company issues is not negotiable. It is standard one-way text, and is not designed to be tampered or doctored in any way. This criminal borrower doctored the legal contract, and the credit card company processed the contract in err.

Sure, you can blame the credit card company and say that they were negligent in not "catching" the criminal in his act of deception. I think a judge will determine that the borrower committed a criminal act by tampering with the contract. And, yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I believe that the the borrower did not engage the contract in good faith, and quite clearly acted deceitfully.

He might win on technical grounds, but that doesn't mean that what he did was ethical or even remotely moral.

You not understanding the power you have to negotiate only adds to the power that whatever boogieman you are afraid of has. If you really think what this guy did is criminal and deceitful, you are lost in the safe harbors of tyranny.

Nonsense. The credit card company issues the fine print contract as a 1 way text, a non-negotiable instrument. This was not a real estate transaction, or a car sale. This was a 1 way credit card contract, and the borrower doctored the terms. The credit card company processed the contract in err.

To applaud this criminal's act of deception is patently ridiculous.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

To applaud this criminal's act of deception is patently ridiculous.

To continue calling him a criminal while being unable to cite the law that was violated is even more ridiculous.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Your language is very strong considering your apparent knowledge of contract law.

Of course the contract "appears" to be a one-way instrument but sir, a credit contract does not meet the legal definition of a non-negotiable instrument.

You are lawfully allowed to negotiate almost every part of a credit contract with your provider and they may just as lawfully decline your kind offer to contract.
If they accept and there is a lawful contract signed in wet ink then this stands under law.
Opinions about what a naughty boy he has been in your eyes, do not.

Calling him a criminal is just libelous since he already won the case.

He's after damages as well which is why the company is trying to counter with their own suit but calling him morally wrong or unethical is getting it backwards sir.

That guy is my hero.

He deserves a medal of some kind.

Like I read somewhere give'm the Nobel Prize

Originally posted by violet
The banks dish out those lengthy contracts in microscopic font in the giant wall of text, with the deceptive intentions that the customer won't bother to read it. It's exactly how they operate and it's brilliant the tables are turned on them.

I don't believe you are right: banks do this because they employ lawyers. Lawyers are constantly looking for loopholes in the Law, to help their customers get off the hook. They hence know there are many loopholes in the Law which could be used by other lawyers to help their customers get off the hook too. So, they create contracts that try to prevent others from using loopholes in the Law. Given there are many loopholes and many lawyers that look for them and take pride in finding these, the contracts are lengthy. And because indeed almost nobody actually reads these contracts, they are provided on paper in small print - simple economics.

Now, a "normal" person is most certainly not looking for exquisite loopholes in the Law, he or she needs say a loan and hence needs to sign a contract to get it. As long as he/she gets the money and the main issues (interest rates, number of payments etc.) are clear to him, he goes along. And in practice, that's sufficient. The entire system works because in practice almost nobody will ever use the fine print, nor reads it. Nor do you really: if you feel mistreated by a bank, you should take them to Court. I'm not sure about the American system, but in my country you can expect the judge to look at the bigger picture instead of at the fine print of the contract.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


The credit card company should just regard the contract as void, let the man go without any fees and just pay damned attention next time.

The person that signed on the CC company end, should not have done so as it was already invalid, but then neither should the person altering the contract - aka void. void. void.

Poor guy.

System wins again.

I think this Toothpaste For Dinner comic sums it up nicely…

reply to post by RobinB022


Why would the bank not allow someone (that they plan to exploit) to negotiate the terms of their exploitation?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

The contract that the credit card company issues is not negotiable. It is standard one-way text, and is not designed to be tampered or doctored in any way. This criminal borrower doctored the legal contract, and the credit card company processed the contract in err.

Sure, you can blame the credit card company and say that they were negligent in not "catching" the criminal in his act of deception. I think a judge will determine that the borrower committed a criminal act by tampering with the contract. And, yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I believe that the the borrower did not engage the contract in good faith, and quite clearly acted deceitfully.

He might win on technical grounds, but that doesn't mean that what he did was ethical or even remotely moral.

You not understanding the power you have to negotiate only adds to the power that whatever boogieman you are afraid of has. If you really think what this guy did is criminal and deceitful, you are lost in the safe harbors of tyranny.

Nonsense. The credit card company issues the fine print contract as a 1 way text, a non-negotiable instrument. This was not a real estate transaction, or a car sale. This was a 1 way credit card contract, and the borrower doctored the terms. The credit card company processed the contract in err.

To applaud this criminal's act of deception is patently ridiculous.

I believe you are quite mistaken... all contracts are negotiable. but don't take my word for it...

The opened credit line was unlimited," says Argarkov's lawyer. "He could afford to buy an island somewhere in Malaysia, and the bank would have to pay for it by law." Argarkov resisted the temptation to go crazy, however, and had just a $575 balance when the bank tried to shut down the card after two years because of overdue fees, reports the International Business Times. When Argarkov refused to pay, the bank sued, and a judge gave Argarkov a partial victory: It ruled he owed only the $575, but not the fees because they weren't in his amended contract

www.newser.com...

However, after two years of active use, the bank decided to terminate Agarkov's credit card because of overdue payments. In 2012, the bank sued Agarkov for 45,000 rubles ($1,363) - an amount that included the remaining balance, fees, and late payment charges, which violated the actual agreement. The court decided that the agreement Agarkov crafted was valid, and required him to settle only his balance of 19,000 rubles ($575).

rt.com...

After his success, Argakov is now suing Tinkoff for 24 million rubles ($727,000) for violating the amended credit card agreement. Tinkoff is hitting back, accusing the Russian man of fraud.

www.bankrate.com...

A judge has already ruled the contract valid. If there is reasonable expectation of the consumer reading all pages and fine print of a contract, that same expectations apply to the banks...

I foresee him winning this lawsuit

As far as I was aware it was legal to modify a contract and was up to both parties to revise and agree to both sides of the then modified contract, so surely was up to the bank to then re-modify the contract and approach the man again to sign etc.

Possibly the only act of fraud on the guy's part was to not accompany his revised contract with a letter making it clear as such.

I am a DoD Missile Defense contractor and when the gov gives out projects to us, our bids go back as a contract which then usually gets negotiated (changed by gov; then by us usually etc.) and then signed. That is not illegal. When the government does there DoD contracts you better believe WHATEVER is contained within at the time of signing of both parties it becomes binding law. End of story.

I don't understand how he was deceitful. He didn't use invisible ink, or put a little curtain with a rope to pull on the fine print. What he did was unusual not deceitful.

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.

He can just charge all the costs to his credit card... Ha.

reply to post by predator0187


And people say there is no God

To continue calling him a criminal while being unable to cite the law that was violated is even more ridiculous.

Credit card fraud.

If they accept and there is a lawful contract signed in wet ink then this stands under law.

The bank will claim they never knowingly accepted the contract. It's quite possible Argakov had a friend or colleague that doctored the credit "approval" at the credit card company.

Calling him a criminal is just libelous since he already won the case.

Not over yet. The court will review Mr Argakov's case next month.

He's after damages as well which is why the company is trying to counter with their own suit but calling him morally wrong or unethical is getting it backwards sir.

Credit card fraud is not ethical.

I believe you are quite mistaken... all contracts are negotiable. but don't take my word for it...

Are you licensed to practice law in Russia?

Since we are talking legalese, there is no "consideration" for the credit card company to issue a credit card at 0% interest. There has to be something of value for the credit card company to enter into the contract for the contract to be valid. In this case, there was no benefit for the credit card company. Hence, the contract is invalid.

I foresee him winning this lawsuit

People win lawsuits all the time. But that doesn't mean that they acted morally or ethically. In this particular case, the imposter not only appears to have committed credit card fraud, but apparently he is a deadbeat as well.

WHATEVER is contained within at the time of signing of both parties it becomes binding law.

At least in the U.S., it's a one way contract. There is no "negotiation" of terms. The credit card company says, "These are our terms." The borrower either agrees, or doesn't get the credit card. The borrower can't doctor the contract under false pretenses.

In this case, he took the existing contract, scanned it into his computer, then doctored the contract. It's pretty clear cut that this doctoring of the contract was an act of deception, and not an ongoing "negotiation" between two parties.