Always read the SMALL PRINT!

Banjo String

Ever been on the wrong end of a dispute about a contact you signed, be it from a bank, credit card company, phone company etc etc, because you didn't read the 'small print'?

This Russian man played one organisation at their own game when he altered the fine print on a pre approved credit card that was sent to him.

Seems the company involved didn't read the small print themselves.

In Soviet Russia , banks pay customers' bills. Or, at least, one might.

 An interesting case has surfaced in Voronezh, Russia, where a man is suing a bank for more than 24 million Russian rubles (about $727,000) in compensation over a handcrafted document that was signed and recognized by the bank. DmitryAgarkov said that in 2008 he received a letter from Tinkoff Credit Systems in his mailbox. It was a credit card application form with an agreement contract enclosed, much like the applications Americans receive daily fromVisa ( V ), Mastercard ( MA ), American Express ( AXP ), or Discover ( DFS ).Agarkov filled in the form and returned the signed application, though what he sent back was not exactly the same document the bank had sent him.


Agarkov changed some parts for his own benefit -- most notably, the small print. He opted in for a 0% APR and no fees, and added that the customer "is not obliged to pay any fees and charges imposed by bank tariffs." He also changed the URL of the site where the terms and conditions were published fromwww.tcsbank.ru to tcsbank .at.ua . Additionally, he added a special clause that would protect him should the bank break the agreement in a unilateral manner. For each unilateral change in the terms provided in the agreement, the bank would be asked to pay the customer (Agarkov ) 3 million rubles (about $91,000), or a cancellation fee of 6 million rubles ($182,000). 



Agarkov then sent his updated agreement to the bank, and shortly thereafter received the bank's signed and certified copy, as well as a credit card. 


However, after two years of active use, the bank decided to terminate Mr. Agarkov's credit card in 2010 because he was late paying the minimum required amounts. In 2012, the bank suedAgarkov for 45,000 roubles ($1,363) - an amount that included the remaining balance, fees, and late payment charges. The court decided that the agreement Agarkovcrafted was valid, and requiredAgarkov to settle only his balance of 19,000 rubles ($575). 



Despite the apparent victory,Agarkov fought back: On August 1, the Kominternovsky District Court of Voronezh launched hearings aboutAgarkov 's countersuit against the bank . As Tinkoff Credit Systems had not honored eight clauses in the agreement,Agarkov now wants the bank to pay amends of 24 million rubles ($727,000) total. The law firmKonsultant , which is representingAgarkov , says that the bank's decision to terminate the agreement cannot be lawful because his client was not paid 6 million rubles, as per terms of the amended agreement.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then-sues-now-settles-cm267708

Small print works both ways.

Fair play to him.

Prodgey

Welcome to two weeks ago.

syklops

Nearly breaking news presented by SamHall. Bringing you last weeks stories today!

Banjo String

Didn't see a thread on it.

What's the weather like in 2 weeks time guys?

Dravokivich

SamHall wrote: »

Didn't see a thread on it.

What's the weather like in 2 weeks time guys?

Shíte

Super-Rush

Welcome to After Hours.

Not using the search function since day one.

Menas

I love a story like this, the little man outsmarting a big corp.

AND it is news to me. Cheers OP.

Dravokivich

Trigger Happy wrote: »

I love a story like this, the little man outsmarting a big corp.

AND it is news to me. Cheers OP.

It isn't at all, it's intent to deceive. This guy should not get away with it.

Menas

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't at all, it's intent to deceive. This guy should not get away with it.

The bank signed a contract without reading the small print. They assumed it was their standard contract but this assumption was incorrect.
If the shoe was on the other foot they would have taken him for every ruble.

Dravokivich

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The bank signed a contract without reading the small print. They assumed it was their standard contract but this assumption was incorrect.
If the shoe was on the other foot they would have taken him for every ruble.

They should be right to assume it was unmodified. There was no clear indication from that guy to them, that he had made amendments. If you send something for someone to sign, prior to you signing alongside it, you should rightfully assume that what they've signed is what you presented, no more, no less.

Annasopra

Dravokivich wrote: »

They should be right to assume it was unmodified. There was no clear indication from that guy to them, that he had made amendments. If you send something for someone to sign, prior to you signing alongside it, you should rightfully assume that what they've signed is what you presented, no more, no less.

No way

You shouldnt assume anything about something you sign

Dravokivich

mango salsa wrote: »

No way

You shouldnt assume anything about something you sign

You, as a consumer.

The provider shouldn't have to re-read their T&Cs.

hatrickpatrick

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't at all, it's intent to deceive.

Implying banks don't engage in this on a daily basis?

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/storm-over-banks-dirty-tricks-on-tracker-loans-29182682.html

Annasopra

Dravokivich wrote: »

You, as a consumer.

The provider shouldn't have to re-read their T&Cs.

They should check they haven't been amended

kneemos

mango salsa wrote: »

They should check they haven't been amended

Who pays for all this rechecking?

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

Who pays for all this rechecking?

Noone The company would be paying someone to sign it anyway -

Dravokivich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Implying banks don't engage in this on a daily basis?

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/storm-over-banks-dirty-tricks-on-tracker-loans-29182682.html

Just because they were researching something, to see if they could move their customer base from one product to another, does not mean they were looking to deceive their customer base unknowingly.

mango salsa wrote: »

They should check they haven't been amended

It really is a bit ridiculous to suggest that. They've probably sent out the same thing to hundreds of people beforehand. They would have had their legal team write it up in the first place. They should not need to have their legal team review every submission of the T&Cs they receive back.

Otherwise you'll be looking at that in all forms of contracted services, not just financial.

Annasopra

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just because they were researching something, to see if they could move their customer base from one product to another, does not mean they were looking to deceive their customer base unknowingly.



It really is a bit ridiculous to suggest that. They've probably sent out the same thing to hundreds of people beforehand. They would have had their legal team write it up in the first place. They should not need to have their legal team review every submission of the T&Cs they receive back.

Otherwise you'll be looking at that in all forms of contracted services, not just financial.

I never suggested a legal team review it - I suggested whoever is signing should check it hasn't been amended. If it has then don't sign - it's very simple!!

Dravokivich

mango salsa wrote: »

I never suggested a legal team review it - I suggested whoever is signing should check it hasn't been amended. If it has then don't sign - it's very simple!!

The only people in a company in a position to review such documentation, would be a legal team of some form.

wil

Prodgey wrote: »

Welcome to two weeks ago.

Good morning. Welcome to boards.ie:rolleyes:

The One Who Knocks

$737,000? That could only mean one thing.....

Walter White.

No Pants

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't at all, it's intent to deceive. This guy should not get away with it.

Not much intent, since he wrote it all down and then sent it to the bank.

Banjo String

kneemos wrote: »

Who pays for all this rechecking?

The same person who pays all the other fees.

Charge for using AIB ATM: 40c
charge for using non AIB ATM: 40c



As far as I can see. The only thing a bank doesn't charge for is lodging cash into an account (giving them money)

When I want access to my cash though. I pay.

Electronic transaction, visa debit, direct debit, bank teller, ATM machine.......... All have charges attached.

Menas

Dravokivich wrote: »

The only people in a company in a position to review such documentation, would be a legal team of some form.

A lackey could review a document and tell if it has been modified. If it has then it gets thrown in the bin or referred elsewhere.

But it is still the company's responsibility to ensure that the contract they are signing is the one they think they are signing. That is Contract law 101.

Ken.

How could we get to page 2 without:
In Soviet Russia bank owes you.

Banjo String

ken wrote: »

How could we get to page 2 without:
In Soviet Russia bank owes you.

Hi Ken. .

It's the very first sentence in the quoted article.

In Soviet Russia , banks pay customers' bills. Or, at least, one might.

Ray Palmer

Here is the kicker it likely had a barcode on the form to be auto processed.

If he altered the document but not the barcode he deceived the computer system. Fraud plain and simple.

People saying the bank signed this agreement may notice that the bank doesn't sign these after you. They sign it first "technically" by issuing it to you.

It won't stand on appeal and they guy may very well may end up in jail.

Feathers

I thought the whole point of contracts in duplicate is that you pre-sign them - send the consumer two copies with your signature. He signs one & sends back for your records, keeps the other for his own.

If he sends you something with his signature & requests you to sign & send back, of course that should set alarm bells ringing.

Banjo String

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It won't stand on appeal and they guy may very well may end up in jail.

It's already been settled by both parties. Undisclosed, but your man definitely wasn't jailed from what I read.

In fact I think it may have ended in his favour.

UPDATE:

The dispute between Agarkov and Tinkoff Credit Systems escalated when the bank's chairman, Oleg Tinkov, took to Twitter to respond to media interest in the case. (See: Russian Bank Chairman Comments on the Fine Print Case: 'Nobody Will Win Anything From Us.' )

Then, on August 14, both sides announced a settlement on undisclosed terms.

"The conflict is counterproductive, so we agreed to settle it by withdrawing our mutual complaints," said Oliver Hughes, president of Tinkoff Credit Systems.

"This started as a joke in 2008... but the joke has gone too far," said Agarkov.

"Of course I won't recommend other people do what I did. Before you opt in for credit, you must think multiple times and carefully study your bank's terms. But if you agree, you'll have to stick to it."

NuckingFacker

Tough on the banks. I've signed one credit agreement in my life - for a new van. I usually just buy them outright. I signed up for H.P, so i could pay it off early if I wanted to. When I went to do just that, after a year, they informed me that I'd actually signed up for a lease..oh no I didn't...oh yes you did,. check the small print...so, they'd pulled a fast one. Quell surprise.

Didn't work though as I used that ancient legal principle of "go f**k yourself with a large vegetable". Which, happily, they did. Banks can be sneaky when it suits them, if they get sneakied back, tough tulips.

Banjo String

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Tough on the banks. I've signed one credit agreement in my life - for a new van. I usually just buy them outright. I signed up for H.P, so i could pay it off early if I wanted to. When I went to do just that, after a year, they informed me that I'd actually signed up for a lease..oh no I didn't...oh yes you did,. check the small print...so, they'd pulled a fast one. Quell surprise.

Didn't work though as I used that ancient legal principle of "go f**k yourself with a large vegetable". Which, happily, they did. Banks can be sneaky when it suits them, if they get sneakied back, tough tulips.

Don't forget this beauty either.

Knowingly and willingly deceived hundreds of thousands.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/flood-of-ppi-claims-now-awaited-after-settlement-29297490.html


Poor banks. Angels they are.:cool:

No Pants

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Here is the kicker it likely had a barcode on the form to be auto processed.

If he altered the document but not the barcode he deceived the computer system. Fraud plain and simple.

How is a consumer meant to understand what's contained in the barcode?