7 ms·

Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make t

by eksith 13y ago

Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way, but if it doesn't have that, there's nothing really stopping you from doing the same. That said, legal teams for credit card companies and banks are notorious for finding ways to beat you with technicalities and/or drag their feet through the court system so your own bills rack up. They can claim bad faith, and/or fraud (which is a hot button) and add to the mix a DA willing to create a name for him/herself by putting away a scumbag white-collar "criminal" (I.E. Joe, the Photoshop user) and you've got a lot of risk behind it.

IanCal 13y ago
> Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. Yep, which is why he won the first case. The terms are ridiculous though (fee of $200,000 if the bank cancels the card), which is why I would expect it to be deemed excessive and thrown out (same as EULAs that demand someones firstborn).
- eksith 13y ago
  Yeah, thrown out or severely reduced probably. It's pretty obvious he was very confident (and maybe a bit foolhardy) doing this or he wouldn't have put such a large number. I'm curious as to whether he's done something similar previously. Side note: There's a little-known legal provision that lets people sue a tele/direct-marketer if you ask them to take you off their list and they still keep contacting you. You have to take down the company name, get the name of the caller and ask them if they have "do not contact/call" and to put you on it. If they keep calling you after that (I think 3 times is the limit within 30 days or so), you can take them to small claims court.
- gnicholas 13y ago
  A court might not give him everything that he's asking for, but this situation isn't exactly like a EULA. Those are contracts of adhesion: drafted entirely by one party and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to a (generally) less-sophisticated party. Courts have special rules about construing provisions in those situations, but such rules wouldn't necessarily apply here (since the contractual language was the product of joint drafting). Of course, I'm not a Russian lawyer, so my 2 cents are probably worth more like 2 rubles....
  - Elepsis 13y ago
    Given that 1 Ruble is worth about $0.03 at current exchange rates, your 2 cents are actually more like 6 cents.
    - pash 13y ago
      He meant two kopeks.
jlgreco 13y ago
> I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way Couldn't part of your alterations include the removal of that section? Just strike that out, in addition to the other changes you are making.
- eksith 13y ago
  I doubt that would work. Besides, the ones I've seen include a link to the original text on their website as well. Now if I take a screenshot of that (or maybe hit Archive.org for it) at the time of signing and if the text is different, I may be able to claim that the bank is forcing me to follow an agreement different from the one I signed. But that's an extremely long shot and it still needs to rely on the bank fudging the records first.
  - ripter 13y ago
    He changed the url in the contract to point to his own website with his version of the contract.
    - eksith 13y ago
      Ah, touché! I left out that part. I guess then it really only matters that the bank accepted the altered terms.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
This is the less well understood aspect of robo-signing. And a variation in the Russian system, since in the US you don't get back a "signed agreement" instead you either accept the terms or your don't. If you change them you need to go to the bank and have them sign the changes, and that triggers a discussion about "What changes?" and that leads to the Bank saying, "Uh, no, guess you don't want a card, ok." But in organizations where such things are routinely signed by a clerical worker and returned (things like alarm service come to mind) you can make these changes and sometimes get away with them. At least in one case where I asked the clerk at Safeway to sign off on an altered terms and conditions on their loyalty card the manager came over and said that nobody in the store was authorized to sign on Safeway's behalf. Clearly that did not work for the Russian bank which has already had the agreement litigated.
- eksith 13y ago
  That's an interesting point. We take credit card/bank card forms for granted in that nothing is returned to you except another copy of the same (hopefully) agreement, the card and monthly statement. Not the copy of the document you signed with their corresponding signature. I wonder if this case will prompt some changes in the way they conduct their card affairs.
  - Havoc 13y ago
    Round here (ZA) its fairly common to see a party having a copy of the contract signed only by the counterparty. i.e. Each party ends up with a contract signed by the counter party. Technically that makes neither copy a valid contract, but - close enough I guess.
    - mcosta 13y ago
      Here too. And has its sense. You have the proof the other party agreed the contract. I do not need to sign to demostrate I am too. My word right now is sufficient.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      This reminds me of the diplomatic practices of ancient mesopotamia -- when an agreement between two city-kings was finalized, each king got a master tablet listing half the agreement -- all of his own obligations. At no point did a symmetrical tablet listing every clause of the agreement ever exist.
belorn 13y ago
> Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. I was very surprised that the Russian court system found the contract valid. Surreptitious changing a contract prior to signing can make the contract invalid where I live. It might be a question of ill-intent, and that the court did not find it as such in this case.
- scotty79 13y ago
  It works like that. You print an empty contract from internet in two copies. Then you sign both copies, and you send it via mail to the bank. Bank signs both copies as well and sends one back to you. Then it provides the service. Bank just offers you agreement to sign. Guy just offered the bank different agreement and the bank accepted it by signing. Probably that's why in my country banks rather sends you already signed two copies of the agreement and you are supposed to sign both of them and send one back.
scotty79 13y ago
> I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way. How's that supposed to work? Bank offers agreement. You offer totally different agreement although superficially similar. It's not altered. It's new. If bank agrees then I don't see how it could get away. After all they are big supporters of the rule that if you signed something you declared that you agree with it and if you actually don't it's your loss.
leephillips 13y ago
But what if you erase the part that makes "the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way"?
jarrett 13y ago
I'm going to comment as if the same thing hypothetically happened in the US, because I have no idea what Russian contract law is like. Regarding criminal fraud: That might be tough to prove. See, for example, this part of Virginia's fraud law: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-178 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-178 Note that merely obtaining a signature under false pretenses is a crime. Of course, the definition of "false pretenses" is the sticking point. Technically, the customer did not make any false representations. It seems he merely expected the bank not to notice his "proposed" contractual changes. That would not seem to satisfy the elements of the crime, though I wouldn't bet my own freedom on that. Regarding bad faith: It would be interesting to see if the court would find a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It's iffy. Generally, such a breach would arise from either party's conduct outside the signing of the contract itself. I.e. you do something underhanded to thwart the other party's enjoyment of his contractual rights, without breaching any specific term in the contract. Could a breach of the implied covenant arise from the negotiation process itself? In my cursory search, I didn't come across any cases like that, but they could exist. In this case, there does seem to be some willful deception on the customer's part. One could argue, based on the circumstances, that he expected the bank not to notice his alterations. Perhaps this would be considered bad faith. One could also argue that the contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. This can be a difficult case to make when there is a written contract. Nonetheless, in unusual circumstances, which this appears to be, a written contract can be voided for this reason. Here, one could argue that the two parties thought they were signing contracts containing radically different text, and thus there was no meeting of the minds. Note that you can't just claim this any time you want to get out of a written contract. The default assumption is that your signature indicates you read and understood the contract. You have to show some unusual circumstance--such as one party's surreptitious alteration prior to signing--if you want to claim there was no meeting of the minds. And even then, a win is far from guaranteed.
- mcbutterbunz 13y ago
  Could "false pretenses" also include the letter head on the document? If you were to scan the document, change the lettering and produce an exact replica except for the fine print, could that fall under false representation since the bank was not the author of the document.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Document A might have text talking about voiding if you change document A, but that won't do anything to a document B proposing a brand-new contract, not yet signed by the bank.

by eksith 13y ago

IanCal 13y ago

> Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. Yep, which is why he won the first case. The terms are ridiculous though (fee of $200,000 if the bank cancels the card), which is why I would expect it to be deemed excessive and thrown out (same as EULAs that demand someones firstborn).

eksith 13y ago
Yeah, thrown out or severely reduced probably. It's pretty obvious he was very confident (and maybe a bit foolhardy) doing this or he wouldn't have put such a large number. I'm curious as to whether he's done something similar previously. Side note: There's a little-known legal provision that lets people sue a tele/direct-marketer if you ask them to take you off their list and they still keep contacting you. You have to take down the company name, get the name of the caller and ask them if they have "do not contact/call" and to put you on it. If they keep calling you after that (I think 3 times is the limit within 30 days or so), you can take them to small claims court.
gnicholas 13y ago
A court might not give him everything that he's asking for, but this situation isn't exactly like a EULA. Those are contracts of adhesion: drafted entirely by one party and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to a (generally) less-sophisticated party. Courts have special rules about construing provisions in those situations, but such rules wouldn't necessarily apply here (since the contractual language was the product of joint drafting). Of course, I'm not a Russian lawyer, so my 2 cents are probably worth more like 2 rubles....
- Elepsis 13y ago
  Given that 1 Ruble is worth about $0.03 at current exchange rates, your 2 cents are actually more like 6 cents.
  - pash 13y ago
    He meant two kopeks.

jlgreco 13y ago

> I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way Couldn't part of your alterations include the removal of that section? Just strike that out, in addition to the other changes you are making.

eksith 13y ago
I doubt that would work. Besides, the ones I've seen include a link to the original text on their website as well. Now if I take a screenshot of that (or maybe hit Archive.org for it) at the time of signing and if the text is different, I may be able to claim that the bank is forcing me to follow an agreement different from the one I signed. But that's an extremely long shot and it still needs to rely on the bank fudging the records first.
- ripter 13y ago
  He changed the url in the contract to point to his own website with his version of the contract.
  - eksith 13y ago
    Ah, touché! I left out that part. I guess then it really only matters that the bank accepted the altered terms.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

This is the less well understood aspect of robo-signing. And a variation in the Russian system, since in the US you don't get back a "signed agreement" instead you either accept the terms or your don't. If you change them you need to go to the bank and have them sign the changes, and that triggers a discussion about "What changes?" and that leads to the Bank saying, "Uh, no, guess you don't want a card, ok." But in organizations where such things are routinely signed by a clerical worker and returned (things like alarm service come to mind) you can make these changes and sometimes get away with them. At least in one case where I asked the clerk at Safeway to sign off on an altered terms and conditions on their loyalty card the manager came over and said that nobody in the store was authorized to sign on Safeway's behalf. Clearly that did not work for the Russian bank which has already had the agreement litigated.

eksith 13y ago
That's an interesting point. We take credit card/bank card forms for granted in that nothing is returned to you except another copy of the same (hopefully) agreement, the card and monthly statement. Not the copy of the document you signed with their corresponding signature. I wonder if this case will prompt some changes in the way they conduct their card affairs.
- Havoc 13y ago
  Round here (ZA) its fairly common to see a party having a copy of the contract signed only by the counterparty. i.e. Each party ends up with a contract signed by the counter party. Technically that makes neither copy a valid contract, but - close enough I guess.
  - mcosta 13y ago
    Here too. And has its sense. You have the proof the other party agreed the contract. I do not need to sign to demostrate I am too. My word right now is sufficient.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    This reminds me of the diplomatic practices of ancient mesopotamia -- when an agreement between two city-kings was finalized, each king got a master tablet listing half the agreement -- all of his own obligations. At no point did a symmetrical tablet listing every clause of the agreement ever exist.

belorn 13y ago

> Technically, the man did nothing wrong. His bank agreed to the altered terms. I was very surprised that the Russian court system found the contract valid. Surreptitious changing a contract prior to signing can make the contract invalid where I live. It might be a question of ill-intent, and that the court did not find it as such in this case.

scotty79 13y ago
It works like that. You print an empty contract from internet in two copies. Then you sign both copies, and you send it via mail to the bank. Bank signs both copies as well and sends one back to you. Then it provides the service. Bank just offers you agreement to sign. Guy just offered the bank different agreement and the bank accepted it by signing. Probably that's why in my country banks rather sends you already signed two copies of the agreement and you are supposed to sign both of them and send one back.

scotty79 13y ago

> I've seen some credit card and bank card forms that include language which make the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way. How's that supposed to work? Bank offers agreement. You offer totally different agreement although superficially similar. It's not altered. It's new. If bank agrees then I don't see how it could get away. After all they are big supporters of the rule that if you signed something you declared that you agree with it and if you actually don't it's your loss.

leephillips 13y ago

But what if you erase the part that makes "the agreement void if its terms are altered in any way"?

jarrett 13y ago

I'm going to comment as if the same thing hypothetically happened in the US, because I have no idea what Russian contract law is like. Regarding criminal fraud: That might be tough to prove. See, for example, this part of Virginia's fraud law: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-178 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-178 Note that merely obtaining a signature under false pretenses is a crime. Of course, the definition of "false pretenses" is the sticking point. Technically, the customer did not make any false representations. It seems he merely expected the bank not to notice his "proposed" contractual changes. That would not seem to satisfy the elements of the crime, though I wouldn't bet my own freedom on that. Regarding bad faith: It would be interesting to see if the court would find a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It's iffy. Generally, such a breach would arise from either party's conduct outside the signing of the contract itself. I.e. you do something underhanded to thwart the other party's enjoyment of his contractual rights, without breaching any specific term in the contract. Could a breach of the implied covenant arise from the negotiation process itself? In my cursory search, I didn't come across any cases like that, but they could exist. In this case, there does seem to be some willful deception on the customer's part. One could argue, based on the circumstances, that he expected the bank not to notice his alterations. Perhaps this would be considered bad faith. One could also argue that the contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. This can be a difficult case to make when there is a written contract. Nonetheless, in unusual circumstances, which this appears to be, a written contract can be voided for this reason. Here, one could argue that the two parties thought they were signing contracts containing radically different text, and thus there was no meeting of the minds. Note that you can't just claim this any time you want to get out of a written contract. The default assumption is that your signature indicates you read and understood the contract. You have to show some unusual circumstance--such as one party's surreptitious alteration prior to signing--if you want to claim there was no meeting of the minds. And even then, a win is far from guaranteed.

mcbutterbunz 13y ago
Could "false pretenses" also include the letter head on the document? If you were to scan the document, change the lettering and produce an exact replica except for the fine print, could that fall under false representation since the bank was not the author of the document.

Dylan16807 13y ago

Document A might have text talking about voiding if you change document A, but that won't do anything to a document B proposing a brand-new contract, not yet signed by the bank.