Originally Posted by
You want to go where?
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.
The fact that a contract is in "fine print" is not enough to get it voided. There is nothing misleading about putting terms in fine print. There is something misleading about scanning a contract and doctoring it with Photoshop (or a similar program).
Originally Posted by
You want to go where?
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.
That is true, but we don't know whether that is because the law favors the client, or because the judge simply wanted to side with David over Goliath, or because there was a bribe or political pressure involved.