Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

[h=1]Man who created own credit card sues bank for not sticking to terms[/h] [h=2]When Dmitry Argarkov was sent a letter offering him a credit card, he found the rates not to his liking.[/h]
But he didn't throw the contract away or shred it. Instead, the 42-year-old from Voronezh, Russia, scanned it into his computer, altered the terms and sent it back to Tinkoff Credit Systems.


Mr Argarkov's version of the contract contained a 0pc interest rate, no fees and no credit limit. Every time the bank failed to comply with the rules, he would fine them 3m rubles (?58,716). If Tinkoff tried to cancel the contract, it would have to pay him 6m rubles.

Tinkoff apparently failed to read the amendments, signed the contract and sent Mr Argakov a credit card.

"The Bank confirmed its agreement to the client's terms and sent him a credit card and a copy of the approved application form," his lawyer Dmitry Mikhalevich told Kommersant. "The opened credit line was unlimited. He could afford to buy an island somewhere in Malaysia, and the bank would have to pay for it by law."

However, Tinkoff attempted to close the account due to overdue payments. It sued Mr Argakov for 45,000 rubles for fees and charges that were not in his altered version of the contract.

Earlier this week a Russian judge ruled in Mr Argakov's favour. Tinkoff had signed the contract and was legally bound to it. Mr Argakov was only ordered to pay an outstanding balance of 19,000 rubles (?371).
"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it',? said Mr Mikhalevich.

But now Mr Argakov has taken matters one step further. He is suing Tinkoff for 24m rubles for not honouring the contract and breaking the agreement.
Tinkoff has launched its own legal action, accusing Mr Argakov of fraud.
Oleg Tinkov, founder of the bank, tweeted: "Our lawyers think he is going to get not 24m, but really 4 years in prison for fraud. Now it's a matter of principle for @tcsbanktwitter."
The court will review Mr Argakov's case next month.



Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

This is an amazing story because dude isn't gonna get sent to jail for fraud. When he sent the altered contract, its going to be considered as a termination of the original contract and a counter-offer. Because the credit company signed off on it it should be considered a contract. There's definitely an offer, acceptance, and consideration here.

Well, in America at least.
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

This is an amazing story because dude isn't gonna get sent to jail for fraud. When he sent the altered contract, its going to be considered as a termination of the original contract and a counter-offer. Because the credit company signed off on it it should be considered a contract. There's definitely an offer, acceptance, and consideration here.

Well, in America at least.

i think it might be interesting deciding if there was consideration or not. with a 0% interest rate what were they getting? some credit card processing fees perhaps, but that is not consideration between them and argarkov.

in the united states, i think argarkov would be guilty of fraud. he altered the document without alerting the bank, with the intent to defraud by sneaking it past them. that makes the contract voidable by the bank (from what i know which isn't always much).
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

i think it might be interesting deciding if there was consideration or not. with a 0% interest rate what were they getting? some credit card processing fees perhaps, but that is not consideration between them and argarkov.

in the united states, i think argarkov would be guilty of fraud. he altered the document without alerting the bank, with the intent to defraud by sneaking it past them. that makes the contract voidable by the bank (from what i know which isn't always much).

It would depend on how it's argued. But you could make a case for dude.
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

It would depend on how it's argued. But you could make a case for dude.

true, it's tough to argue fraud, because nobody other than argarkov can possibly know "why" he did it.

my dad was an attorney and always said more than half of the people in jail were only there because they were dumb enough to admit to something. a different world now with cameras everywhere, but still pretty hard to PROVE stuff...
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

true, it's tough to argue fraud, because nobody other than argarkov can possibly know "why" he did it.

my dad was an attorney and always said more than half of the people in jail were only there because they were dumb enough to admit to something. a different world now with cameras everywhere, but still pretty hard to PROVE stuff...

Very true. It's just funny that the bank didnt read the contract. Banks always use the excuse "dude didnt read the contract." Now it's on them. Hilarious
 

Tto827

EOG Dedicated
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

i think it might be interesting deciding if there was consideration or not. with a 0% interest rate what were they getting? some credit card processing fees perhaps, but that is not consideration between them and argarkov.

in the united states, i think argarkov would be guilty of fraud. he altered the document without alerting the bank, with the intent to defraud by sneaking it past them. that makes the contract voidable by the bank (from what i know which isn't always much).
Pretty sad he might be guilty of fraud because what he is doing is what many banks try and do to customers. They make ridiculous terms and hide it in the fine print. One way is fraud, the other is business as usual....
 
Re: Brock's got NOTHING on this gentleman.... [Must Read Material]

Pretty sad he might be guilty of fraud because what he is doing is what many banks try and do to customers. They make ridiculous terms and hide it in the fine print. One way is fraud, the other is business as usual....

This.
 
Top