Originally Posted by
cbn42
The difference is that he actively took steps to conceal the changes he made to the contract. If he had simply typed up a new one and sent it in, it would have been different. But he scanned it into his computer and altered the terms, presumably in the same font. Therefore, the bank can argue that there was intentional misrepresentation. Customers who fail to read the contract can't use that justification.
In one case I remember studying, a merchant has a sign saying that refunds will be given for 30 days after purchase, but the fine print on the contract says "no refunds". Contract is void because the merchant actively misled the customer as to the content of the contract.
Ah, but one could argue that by putting the terms in fine print, the bank itself is trying to misrepresent their contract with the customer, even if there aren't clauses which are directly contradictory on their face. Regardless of where common law comes out, based on the first decision in this case, it seems that Russian law seems to be leaning in favor of the client rather than the bank.