25 ms·

They're not putting millions in a $246 box, they're putting millions in a bank. The same way you might put all your savings in a bank account that not only cost

They're not putting millions in a $246 box, they're putting millions in a bank. The same way you might put all your savings in a bank account that not only costs you nothing, the bank actually pays you for it (via interest). So if tomorrow your life savings disappear would the "what did you expect from a service you were paid to receive?" question seem reasonable? Lobby and interest groups are strong enough that laws that actually look after the customer rather than the corporation are few and far between.

tialaramex 7y ago
The money is different because you're actually lending it to the bank. The government guarantees you'll get it back (up to some limit) in most countries, but that's why they can afford to operate this business. You are not loaning the valuables in a safe deposit box to the bank, they're just storing them, which is why it costs money. Maybe it should cost more money.
hannob 7y ago
I don't own millions, but I guess if I did then no matter if I'd put money worth millions on the bank or jewelry worth millions I'd have someone with a legal degree reading the ToS for me to tell me if it's an appropriate offer for that amount of money.
- close04 7y ago
  Yes and no... The only valid answer anyone with a law degree and experience could ever give you when dealing with a bank is "you're on your own with anything that could conceivably happen even if it's not in the document you sign". Otherwise you will never assume the conditions can change without prior notice (none that they can prove anyway, signature on receipt is too cumbersome for the bank it seems), that the risk you're taking comes from the bank, that the bank can drill the safe and take everything inside, or that the bank can take your stuff "by mistake", no notice, and get to keep it. It's common sense. The courts disagree. They see all this as perfectly legal because it is. That's what lobbies buy you. > Banks typically argue - and courts have in many cases agreed - that customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms, even if they leased their box years or even decades earlier. > And the scant protections offered by state laws are often simply ignored If you want to see how ridiculous it sounds when applied to another industry with slightly shallower pockets imagine this: after paying all your premiums for insurance the insurance company changes the conditions to say "covers 0% of the damage" then steals your car and keeps it.

tialaramex 7y ago

The money is different because you're actually lending it to the bank. The government guarantees you'll get it back (up to some limit) in most countries, but that's why they can afford to operate this business. You are not loaning the valuables in a safe deposit box to the bank, they're just storing them, which is why it costs money. Maybe it should cost more money.

hannob 7y ago

I don't own millions, but I guess if I did then no matter if I'd put money worth millions on the bank or jewelry worth millions I'd have someone with a legal degree reading the ToS for me to tell me if it's an appropriate offer for that amount of money.

close04 7y ago
Yes and no... The only valid answer anyone with a law degree and experience could ever give you when dealing with a bank is "you're on your own with anything that could conceivably happen even if it's not in the document you sign". Otherwise you will never assume the conditions can change without prior notice (none that they can prove anyway, signature on receipt is too cumbersome for the bank it seems), that the risk you're taking comes from the bank, that the bank can drill the safe and take everything inside, or that the bank can take your stuff "by mistake", no notice, and get to keep it. It's common sense. The courts disagree. They see all this as perfectly legal because it is. That's what lobbies buy you. > Banks typically argue - and courts have in many cases agreed - that customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms, even if they leased their box years or even decades earlier. > And the scant protections offered by state laws are often simply ignored If you want to see how ridiculous it sounds when applied to another industry with slightly shallower pockets imagine this: after paying all your premiums for insurance the insurance company changes the conditions to say "covers 0% of the damage" then steals your car and keeps it.