5 ms·
I would be surprised if it did not work out well in the USA, to be perfectly honest. There is nothing illegal in the extra terms he added to the contract, and
by betterunix 13y ago
I would be surprised if it did not work out well in the USA, to be perfectly honest. There is nothing illegal in the extra terms he added to the contract, and the bank is not in any position to claim that it failed to read the contract. More likely, however, is that the news of this case has led every bank on the planet to institute a "check all paperwork" policy to prevent this from happening.
- castis 13y agobecause what the world needs, is a slower banking process.
- sb057 13y agoI'd be fine with a slow banking process that exclusively involves junk mail offers.
- olalonde 13y agoPerhaps it will give an incentive for banks to write shorter contracts. Also, it could probably be automated with OCR software.
- krasin 13y agoI would rather say: no paper contracts and use digital cryptographic signatures everywhere.
- aquadrop 13y agoThat's actually is easily fixable. He changed the link to bank's website where copy of the contract's text located. So all "bank people" need to do is to check the link isn't altered. Or ad some other form of text sealing like "The text of this contract includes 2132 words, 4543 letters 'a' ..." and check for that seal only.
- mathattack 13y agoI can't see a bank in the US accepting (and signing) an altered contract. It would have to happen by an accident. They would then find it worthwhile to spend $7 million in legal fees to avoid the $700K cost, just to have precedent for the next person that tried it.