jatink129

LMAO!!




Read more:
http://www.minyanville.com/business-...1205?refresh=1

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-to-terms.html

cbn42

Sounds like fraud to me. If someone sends you a contract to sign, you can't change it, especially in a non-detectable manner. Both parties have to sign the same version of the contract for it to be valid.

jatink129

I think so too...But apparently their court doesn't.

You want to go where?

To be contrarian:

The change was as detectable as the terms of the original proposal provided by the Credit Card vendor, undoubtedly why the judge ruled in favor of Agarkov in the first case associated with this contract.

djk7

It appears from the article that both parties did sign the same version of the contract. I know absolutely nothing about Russian law, so can't comment regarding whether fraud was committed.

Sarfa33

+1. It is not as though he modified the contract in invisible ink. Sure, common courtesy and business ethics would say that he should have sent them a version of the contract with the changes highlighted in some way, but if the bank was stupid enough to sign his version without reading it or checking it over in any way, then that is their problem. Caveat emptor (or in this case, caveat vendor).

-S

sk8uno

Fraud? How is this fraud? If someone sends you a contract to sign, you absolutely can change it. It is then up to the original party to accept or reject your changes. In fact, this is fairly common in truly negotiated agreements.

Now, I could understand a fraud claim if he represented to the bank that he made no changes to the contract, but we don't know if he did that (and I doubt he did).

It seems you are assuming the bank signed the contract, then sent it to the customer and asked him to apply for a card. In all likelihood, the bank didn't sign anything until after the customer sent in his application and was approved, so the parties almost certainly did sign the same version of the contract.

cbn42

This is what I have trouble understanding: how does he know that the bank "signed" the revised contract? The article says that "Tinkoff apparently failed to read the amendments, signed the contract and sent Mr Argakov a credit card." Well how does he know that they signed the contract? Credit card companies don't normally sign contracts one by one.

It then goes on to say "The Bank confirmed its agreement to the client's terms and sent him a credit card and a copy of the approved application form". Therefore, they did not send him the contract back (as most credit card companies don't).

I think Mr Argakov is assuming that if they send him a credit card, that constitutes their agreement to his terms. But there is no bank official's signature on the contract that he signed.

sk8uno

I think you are right that this assumption exists, but I don't think there is anything wrong about it. I don't know anything about Russian law, but that assumption would likely be correct under US law. If you apply for a credit card pursuant to certain terms and conditions, and the bank approves the application and sends you the credit card, the agreement would almost certainly be considered executed, regardless of whether or not there was an actual signature anywhere to be found. The bank's issuance of the credit card is its assent to the agreement.

djk7

If the bank just issued a card and didn't send the customer a copy of the signed contract, then I don't see how the court could rule in the customer's favor. I assume he has a copy of the altered contract, but how would he prove that was what he sent to the bank. Anyone could alter credit card application and say that's the one they sent to the credit card company, but then it would just be his word against the CC companies word saying he sent the standard application.

cbn42

But then which terms and conditions would count, the ones the bank sent you or the ones you sent the bank?

sk8uno

The ones you sent to the bank. The bank accepted those terms by issuing you credit.

If you send me an offer to buy a house for 500k, and I send you back an edited offer saying I'll buy the house for 450k, my edited offer is treated as a rejection of your initial offer and a counteroffer for 450k. The 500k offer is dead. The 450k offer is live. So now if you accept my offer, the terms in the 450k contract govern.

xiKiNGix

Interesting.

nas6034

He sends amended/revised contract to CC company. CC company sends him card. He sues CC company. He alleges that this amended contract is the one he signed and sent to the CC company and the CC company agreed to the revised contract by sending him a card. CC company will either) deny (they definitely did in this case without even reading the articleit and then show the contract that he did sign, you know the one with his signature on it, and if they can't disprove his allegation at that point then they have nothing to stand on.

Ragnarok

If my business law professor was right, then general rule in the US is that when a contract is comprised of both a pre-printed form and handwritten or typed modifications, the handwritten or typed material will prevail.

Here's an example, http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...d/250/287.html

See Integrated, Inc. v. Alec Fergusson Elec. Contractors (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 287.