Kgdavid:

listen up you! what are you saying?? is there any contract that does not have terms and conditions whether under that title or in the form of clauses stop spouting off your opinion as if it is fact. he was sent a contract, he read it didn't like it altered it and sent it back to them as a counter offer. is there a law against making modifications to contracts?? absolutely not! this is done a lot in the business world, the only thing he did that was out of the ordinary was not to notify them of his changes which he cannot be legally held responsible for as it remains their responsibility to read through every contract. they didnt read through because they assumed that no one would modify their contract but the fact remains that the modification was legal. fraudulent? yes, but legal as well? yes! thats what we call exploiting loopholes mister


regardless of whether the bank intended for the offer to be absolute, they made an offer, a counter offer was made and they signed off on it. thats all.

~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~:


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~:


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.

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