PDA

View Full Version : Man Changes Terms on Credit Contract, Bank Signs Without Reading




BarryDonegan
08-14-2013, 01:21 PM
http://silverunderground.com/2013/08/man-changes-terms-on-credit-contract-bank-signs-without-reading/

"Upon receiving a mailer with an unsolicited credit card offer with undesirable terms from Tinkoff Credit Systems, Dmitry Agarkov got mad and decided to get even. He amended the provided application and contract with modified terms, granting himself an unlimited credit line with no interest and no fees. He also added in a contract cancellation penalty worth $182,000, with additional penalties costing the bank $91,000 for each affront to the contract’s terms.

He mailed the contract in, and the bank certified it and issued him a card. After using the card, he refused to pay fees above and beyond his balance, and the bank sued. The bank’s lawyers complained in court that the company didn’t read the contract before certifying it. The judge found in favor of Dmitry Agarkov. Now, Agarkov is suing the bank for $727,000, citing its lawsuit as a violation of the bank’s contract."

youngbuck
08-14-2013, 03:48 PM
One of the coolest stories ever.

willwash
08-14-2013, 03:54 PM
Unfortunately, even if he wins any money, the bank will just pass the loss onto everyone else, as well as the extra costs associated with increased scrutiny of returned spam. Hello higher interest rates and fees.

willwash
08-14-2013, 03:54 PM
This being said, I still hope he rakes that bank across the coals.

Flugel89
08-14-2013, 04:03 PM
Sounds like the original offer got him really Tinked Off.

I'll leave now.

Christian Liberty
08-14-2013, 04:14 PM
OK, I can't defend the banks for being that stupid, and I can't defend him for committing what is essentially (At least morally, if not legally) fraud.

pcosmar
08-14-2013, 04:19 PM
OK, I can't defend the banks for being that stupid, and I can't defend him for committing what is essentially (At least morally, if not legally) fraud.

How is it Fraud?
Fiat Money is Fraud.. Changing the terms of an offer is negotiation.

HOLLYWOOD
08-14-2013, 04:22 PM
Didn't the Bank read the "fine print" of the contract? Shoe-Other-Foot

How do you like those Apples

Christian Liberty
08-14-2013, 04:24 PM
How is it Fraud?
Fiat Money is Fraud.. Changing the terms of an offer is negotiation.

I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure. Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

RickyJ
08-14-2013, 04:26 PM
Didn't the Bank read the "fine print" of the contract? Shoe-Other-Foot

How do you like those Apples


The only thing surprising about this is the Judge's decision. Most Judges hardly ever make a ruling against those in power.

69360
08-14-2013, 04:28 PM
I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure. Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

Of course his intent was to trick the bank. The banks don't try to trick us with contract terms?

Acala
08-14-2013, 04:28 PM
Hahahahahahaha!

A Son of Liberty
08-14-2013, 04:29 PM
How is it Fraud?
Fiat Money is Fraud.. Changing the terms of an offer is negotiation.

Exactly right.

The bank took it as given that Tinkoff signed the agreement as submitted. Tinkoff negotiated using the EXACT SAME TACTICS as the bank. That's the bank's tough luck. Just as it would have been Tinkoff's tough luck if he would have found himself in debt trouble according to the terms of the original proposal.

Final score: Tinkoff - 182,000 / Bank - 0

The takeaway is that banks will, presumably, now amend credit offers to include a clause which states that any amendments and/or counter-offers shall render the original offer null and void... so don't go getting any ideas, gang... as tasty a morsel as this may seem. Legal departments all over New York pounced on this like rats, rest assured.

Acala
08-14-2013, 04:30 PM
I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure. Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

Banks have buildings full of lawyers. If they didn't read the contract before signing it, they deserve what they get. You and I wouldn't get away with that defense in most cases.

A Son of Liberty
08-14-2013, 04:32 PM
I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure. Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

The bank set the terms of the negotiation.

Any contract is a negotiation, regardless of whether the offering party presumes to hold all the cards or not. You are a dumb rube who signed a contract if you find you don't care for onerous interest rates as a consequence of missed payments. Should've read the fine print, kid. Tough luck.

Tinkoff had no obligation to return the application signed as delivered. He counter-offered, and they didn't read the fine print. Tough luck, kid.

This is negotiating 101. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Occam's Banana
08-14-2013, 04:53 PM
Unfortunately, even if he wins any money, the bank will just pass the loss onto everyone else, as well as the extra costs associated with increased scrutiny of returned spam. Hello higher interest rates and fees.

It's not that simple. Sellers cannot simply jack up their prices with impunity.
If the bank increases its prices, it will lose custom to banks that do not.

BarryDonegan
08-15-2013, 12:32 AM
It's certainly not fraud to modify a contract before signing it. That's negotiation. Everyone is free to make changes to a contract before signing it and returning it to the person offering the contract. How would that be considered fraud?

Origanalist
08-15-2013, 09:00 AM
This belongs in the feel good thread.

better-dead-than-fed
08-16-2013, 08:45 PM
I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

Problem, like, people should go to prison for writing and hoping?

FrankRep
08-16-2013, 08:46 PM
Welcome to Russia?

jjdoyle
08-17-2013, 06:09 AM
Banks have buildings full of lawyers. If they didn't read the contract before signing it, they deserve what they get. You and I wouldn't get away with that defense in most cases.

Exactly. He followed basic business law when signing a contract from what I can see. When banks make "mistakes" and show up and foreclose on the "wrong" house, which does happen, little to nothing happens to them, while making the lives of the innocent miserable.

Cap
08-17-2013, 06:28 AM
The concern I have is that it's probable some low level clerk who has no authority other than stamping the credit card contracts more than likely lost their job over this.

jjdoyle
08-17-2013, 06:55 AM
The concern I have is that it's probable some low level clerk who has no authority other than stamping the credit card contracts more than likely lost their job over this.

Which would show why the company's policies are stupid if they have an "automatic" approval system. Which should be a reflection of management and training at the company, not a low level clerk, unless it can be proven they had proper training and didn't follow it.

Danan
08-17-2013, 07:02 AM
Unfortunately, even if he wins any money, the bank will just pass the loss onto everyone else, as well as the extra costs associated with increased scrutiny of returned spam. Hello higher interest rates and fees.

If they are the only bank on the planet they might want to do that, yeah.

Bern
08-17-2013, 08:01 AM
In Russia, credit card companies pay you!

Cap
08-17-2013, 08:09 AM
Well, regardless of the circumstances, collateral damage is not right. For the record, I hate banks.

osan
08-17-2013, 08:20 AM
OK, I can't defend the banks for being that stupid, and I can't defend him for committing what is essentially (At least morally, if not legally) fraud.


You apparently hold no right concept of "fraud".

osan
08-17-2013, 08:27 AM
I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure.

And yet you felt free to declare his action "fraud".

Word to the wise: this is the sort of careless error that can get your ass in a load of trouble. Defame the wrong person with the right heeling and you could literally find yourself in courts for the next 20 years or more. Get someone pissed enough who is capable and they could well corn-hole you just because they CAN and you managed to piss them off.

But go ahead and play the odds if it pleases you - even I do it at times, but it's never that smart.




Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

More words to the wise: stop digging. The hole is only getting deeper. You took a wrong turn. Do a 180 and get out before you're too far gone to recover.

Snew
08-17-2013, 08:50 AM
like a boss.

Cleaner44
08-17-2013, 08:57 AM
+rep to the bank slayer!

Christian Liberty
08-17-2013, 09:02 AM
And yet you felt free to declare his action "fraud".

Word to the wise: this is the sort of careless error that can get your ass in a load of trouble. Defame the wrong person with the right heeling and you could literally find yourself in courts for the next 20 years or more. Get someone pissed enough who is capable and they could well corn-hole you just because they CAN and you managed to piss them off.

And you don't see anything screwed up about that?

Regardless of anything else... libel isn't an act of aggression.



More words to the wise: stop digging. The hole is only getting deeper. You took a wrong turn. Do a 180 and get out before you're too far gone to recover.

Assuming good faith on his part, I was wrong, yes.

\

better-dead-than-fed
08-17-2013, 01:55 PM
Assuming good faith on his part, I was wrong, yes.

And when you advocated imprisoning people for writing and hoping. When you advocated Stalinist ideology, and when you did this on a forum bearing Ron Paul's name.

satchelmcqueen
08-17-2013, 04:15 PM
and the banks have never tried to trick you or anyone else with their contracts?
I agree with you on fiat money. It seems to me like the intent was obviously to trick the banks rather than to actually negotiate, but I'm not sure. Which, I'm not a fan of the banks... but my point was, I guess, I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

osan
08-17-2013, 07:02 PM
And you don't see anything screwed up about that?



I'm sorry - perhaps I was not clear - I was speaking in purely positive terms, not normative. It is the current reality. I would also note that I have been personally acquainted with a small number of people who would simply black bag you, your remains never to be seen again. That, too, is screwed up, but that doesn't prevent some people from acting anyway. Just be careful is all I am suggesting. Shit, the guys at Tonio's in Hell's kitchen where we'd hang out and watch movies once in a while loved us, but had we crossed them they would have killed us in a heartbeat. They were no shit, real deal mafiosi, but to look at them you'd never tell they anything but regular guys.



Regardless of anything else... libel isn't an act of aggression.

This is arguable, actually. If through your libelous assertions my career is ruined, I do believe a strong case could be made for aggression - certainly cause of loss.



Assuming good faith on his part, I was wrong, yes.

\

Good on you for that.

purplechoe
08-17-2013, 07:52 PM
Hahahahahahaha!

http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FKX/0YTK/FB7FYD1U/FKX0YTKFB7FYD1U.LARGE.gif

heavenlyboy34
08-17-2013, 08:27 PM
Love it. Such a feel-good story. I wish Agarkov was an RPFer so's I could +rep the snot out of him. :D :cool:

Christian Liberty
08-17-2013, 09:55 PM
And when you advocated imprisoning people for writing and hoping. When you advocated Stalinist ideology, and when you did this on a forum bearing Ron Paul's name.

When did I do that?


and the banks have never tried to trick you or anyone else with their contracts?

Of course they have, do two wrongs make a right?


I'm sorry - perhaps I was not clear - I was speaking in purely positive terms, not normative. It is the current reality. I would also note that I have been personally acquainted with a small number of people who would simply black bag you, your remains never to be seen again. That, too, is screwed up, but that doesn't prevent some people from acting anyway. Just be careful is all I am suggesting. Shit, the guys at Tonio's in Hell's kitchen where we'd hang out and watch movies once in a while loved us, but had we crossed them they would have killed us in a heartbeat. They were no shit, real deal mafiosi, but to look at them you'd never tell they anything but regular guys.

That's true, fair enough.





This is arguable, actually. If through your libelous assertions my career is ruined, I do believe a strong case could be made for aggression - certainly cause of loss.


It could be argued, but I'm surprised to see you of all people arguing it. Especially considering your typical absolutist attitude on liberty in general.

I agree with Walter Block's take, expressed here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/12/walter-block/sue-for-libel/



Good on you for that.

In this case, I simply assumed that there was deliberate deception, but at the end of the day, there's no good reason for that assumption. Acknowledged.

better-dead-than-fed
08-17-2013, 10:10 PM
When did I do that?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424308-Man-Changes-Terms-on-Credit-Contract-Bank-Signs-Without-Reading&p=5179487&viewfull=1#post5179487

Christian Liberty
08-17-2013, 10:13 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424308-Man-Changes-Terms-on-Credit-Contract-Bank-Signs-Without-Reading&p=5179487&viewfull=1#post5179487

You're the one who brought up prison. I don't even believe in prisons.

I'm not sure if the contract should be enforceable.

better-dead-than-fed
08-17-2013, 10:17 PM
I have a problem with creating a long contract and then hoping undesirable terms will slip through unnoticed. I have a problem with that in general.

Problem, like, people should be exiled or executed for writing and hoping?

better-dead-than-fed
08-17-2013, 10:19 PM
I'm not sure if the contract should be enforceable.

How would you decide which contracts should and shouldn't be enforceable?

libertariantexas
08-18-2013, 03:40 PM
This belongs in the feel good thread.

Not really.

All that will come of it is another line of legalese at the end of every credit card offer.

The money that the bank will lose isn't even a rounding error.

The real winners here are the lawyers...

Christian Liberty
08-18-2013, 03:47 PM
How would you decide which contracts should and shouldn't be enforceable?

I'm not sure.

Let me ask you a question: We know that in most cases, long contracts are signed without being read. That's not good, but its what it is. If I slipped "You will be my slave for life" in the middle of a 100 page contract, and you signed it, not realizing it was there, should that be binding? I don't think so.

better-dead-than-fed
08-18-2013, 04:16 PM
Let me ask you a question: We know that in most cases, long contracts are signed without being read. That's not good, but its what it is. If I slipped "You will be my slave for life" in the middle of a 100 page contract, and you signed it, not realizing it was there, should that be binding? I don't think so.

I think it should be binding, assuming I am not forced to sign it. I would even have the option of telling you, I am not signing anything this long, make me a shorter proposal if you want to make a deal. I would not accuse you of intent to deceive, because it was clear that the contract was a long one.

In DOJ-custody, I was forced to sign dozens of documents, none of which should be binding, because they were forced. But no bank has ever forced me to sign anything, nor have I ever forced a bank to sign.