Crassus:
"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it',” said Mr Mikhalevich.

slinkman: i just robbed a pot..

eddiebruk: Some of ya'all just want to comment to feel good, rather you failed to read and understand that the bank actually read the agreement and accepted his conditions knowingly if not they wouldn't have provided him with an Unlimited Credit Card which was one of his terms in that agreement.

Olastep1: BBA=APC

coogar:

alteration of any document = forgery!
he altered the terms of the contract to suit his greed. that should get him about 10 years in prison for fraud!

eddiebruk: Some of ya'all just want to comment to feel good, rather you failed to read and understand that the bank actually read the agreement and accepted his conditions knowingly if not they wouldn't have provided him with an Unlimited Credit Card which was one of his terms in that agreement.

Crassus: Every time the bank failed to comply with the rules, he would fine them 3m rubles (£58,716). If Tinkoff tried to cancel the contract, it would have to pay him 6m rubles. Tinkoff apparently failed to read the amendments, signed the contract and sent Mr Argakov a credit card .

confusion247:
I think we need to call FALANA because Fashola is still busy with issue of deportation.

Kgdavid:


wrong! obviously there was no such clause and even if there was, it would be meaningless. both parties have a right to review a contract before signing and like someone earlier said the amendment to the contract would be viewed not as an amendment to the original contract but as a counter offer to the original contract. therefore, such a clause is completely meaningless except if the amendment was physically made on the original contract agreement. it is absolutely not the responsibility of the offeror to highlight the provisions and clauses of a contract. that is the reason why you are given a contract agreement to read and sign on. ceteris paribus, there is no case against the man.

~ZN~:
He'll be lucky if he doesn't spend some time in jail, that's fraud.

Making the alterations without pointing them out is a clear deceptive attempt.

~ZN~:


Listen up, you. First off, I'll break it down for you in plain words - this was not an open contract. It was more or less an offer with "terms and conditions". If you'd followed the case from the start, you'd know that he received an unsolicited credit card offer (if you're familiar with the ones sent very often by Visa or American Express you'd know what I mean) - he did not walk up to the firm and request for a card.

On a normal basis, by completing and signing the application, he would be applying for a card on the bank's terms. If he did not agree to the terms of the application, the right thing would be to turn it down or express in writing stating whatever terms he wanted.

The trick he played there was 'digitally' modify parts of the terms and conditions in a very sneaky fashion to suit his desires (even changing the website URL showing the terms and conditions), the bank on the other hand might've assumed the application was unaltered, processed it and sent him the card - of course you can blame them for the oversight.

Clearly, the bank was unaware of these changes and assumed it was issuing a credit card 'on their terms', not knowing the T&C of the application sent to him had been altered.

If he was in the UK, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, would've seen this matter over with.

~ZN~:


Apparently, you're very daft if you think they 'knowingly' consented to his terms. Which institution would read, accept and issue a card on such terms? Zero interest, unlimited credit and exemption from fines?

You're obviously retarded....when you fill an insurance form and you're disqualified on a technicality...the excuse given is that it's written there but you don't bother to read it.
A man is sent a copy of an agreement to accept and he sends another one back for the bank to sign which they do without reading it...what else do you want?
How can a whole institution accept an online form and sign it without being certain that the terms there are what they can abide with.
The knife cuts both ways.



The bank clearly issued a card 'on their terms' not knowing they had accidentally confirmed an application on altered terms. This is the bone of contention.

king9952: How dare you charge him with fraud. How is it legally possible, the man drafted his own agreement, he disagreed with terms from bank, and fowarded his own term, whose fault, he only looking out for himself just like the so called banks and credit card companies who have been defrauding people for years with those tiny letter so little only microscopic device can read them with hidden ourageous interest rate, what do yall call that huh,which law prohibits anyone from drafting his or her own terms or negotiating either in words or written, just more like applying a loan and add terms that favours the applicants rather that loan provider, if they sign it, they have agreed with whatever terms he drafted, he did not poit gun at their head to force their signature, i rest my case.

rich_john: @ZN and datz a careless oversight that institution may never recover from
There's no law that says T& Cs can't be altered the challenge here is there's isn't a previous similar case like this! Both sides have valid grounds lets see how it goes anyway
Banks and financial houses are delicate places customers might feel their funds aren't safe anymore if this magnitude of error can occur!
The creditcompany is only swimming in more murky waters if they continue with a legal tussle with this crook!

~ZN~:


Listen up, you. First off, I'll break it down for you in plain words - this was not an open contract. It was more or less an offer with "terms and conditions". If you'd followed the case from the start, you'd know that he received an unsolicited credit card offer (if you're familiar with the ones sent very often by Visa or American Express you'd know what I mean) - he did not walk up to the firm and request for a card.

On a normal basis, by completing and signing the application, he would be applying for a card on the bank's terms. If he did not agree to the terms of the application, the right thing would be to turn it down or express in writing stating whatever terms he wanted.

The trick he played there was 'digitally' modify parts of the terms and conditions in a very sneaky fashion to suit his desires (even changing the website URL showing the terms and conditions), the bank on the other hand might've assumed the application was unaltered, processed it and sent him the card - of course you can blame them for the oversight.

Clearly, the bank was unaware of these changes and assumed it was issuing a credit card 'on their terms', not knowing the T&C of the application sent to him had been altered.

If he was in the UK, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, would've seen this matter over with.

m.esther96:
dunces like ur sisters??


oponu

m.esther96:
sharp guy,dts d type i wl mary
*praying*

~ZN~:


Yes, agreed the oversight is a costly one but let us examine it from this point. . .

The bank sent out what would be an invitational offer (probably some promotional newsletter or so), this type of offer is clearly an adhesion contract.

The bank in this case would be justified in expecting that this application (if completed and signed by the receiver) be returned unadulterated, the invitational offer certainly didn't give him the right to modify the T&C and return it without bringing the modifications to the Bank's attention, it is a take it or leave it offer. It's not like he went to the firm and said to them "Hey, I need a new credit card, let's talk business".

The bank here on receiving a 'returned' application, processed and issues the man a credit card based on the 'initial offer' sent out, only to discover alterations had been made.

If you check closely, he scanned the application into his computer and digitally modified the application to make his 'imposed terms' appear as if it was the original conditions that came from the bank - this is a clear deceptive intent. Why didn't he put his own suggestions/terms in a separate document, or call the bank to discuss terms? I hope you follow?

English law is based on the 'meeting of minds' and 'clean hands', clearly their wasn't a meeting of the minds, and he cannot be seen to have clean hands as he didn't point out the changes.

But of course, I can't speak for the Russian legal system so we'll have to see how it goes.

~ZN~:
^ Quit the long talk, I'm not defending the bank for the careless oversight.

What I'm on about is his suing the bank for 24million for allegedly "breaching his framed up contract". That to me is like pushing his luck too far and it's unlikely he'll pull it off. If he was lucky to get off the hook on the first charges dropped against him - having being told to pay just his balances, he ought to have done that and end it there.

Now that the bank has launched its own legal action, accusing him of fraud, you just watch how things unfold. Perhaps you need to know that the customer is always the subservient party in a bank credit card contract.

I'm in no mood to banter words with ignorant fellows like you.

alpha conde: He shouldn't be intimidated. I assume he re wrote the agreement. Where is it in law that only the bank has the right to write or draw up agreements?