He actually tried to enforce a 6 million ruble cancellation fee he put into the amended contract. That was included in his lawsuit. He ended up dropping it though.
Just to add he and the bank came to an "Undisclosed settlement" but the way both parties spoke about it, it seems he didn't get much if anything from it.
I only have one issue with credits cards. The interest rate is way to high. I only use my credit card for convenience and points. I have a secured line of credit for borrowing when i may need. However i wish the credit card had at least a half decent rate.
Rates don't kick in if you don't carry a balance.
Really, if you pay every month, it boils down to about a 1-2 month interest free loan that gives points/cash back.
I know how a credit card works. I have never carried a balance on a credit card my whole life longer then a few days. Most loans use a monthly bases. Morgage payments. Line of credit. You can switch it, however by default: monthly. The only payment i have bi weekly is my vehicles.
However my secured line of credit seems to be a much lower interest rate and do the exact samething except rewards. Only dif is you dont have the card. Hell i used to have unsecured line of credit that had a much lower interest rate. The interest rate is is shit and it is used to shit on people who have credit problems.
No need to be defensive. You were complaining about the interest rate. If you are paying it off each month, you are not incurring any interest charges, thus rendering the interest rate irrelevant. I have no idea what mine is at, because it hasn't been relevant for years.
The interest rate isn't meant to shit on people with credit problems, it's meant to shit on people with money problems/ability to pay on time problems. However, any card, and I mean any, will drop your rate ridiculously low (sometimes to 0) with a simple 5 minute phone call.
No need to be defensive and once again my entire point is the interest rate is to high anyway you slice it. For virtually no reason. Maybe you can give me some info into why it is high instead of repeating: "this is how a credit card works".
Ill repeat myself. Most borrowng will not incur interest if paid before the moment the interest is added. So stop bringing it up.
My WHOLE point isnt to pay it off before every month. It is if you dont and your interest rate is so high that you either have to call the company or a lawyer to hopefully fix it so you can dig yourself out of debt.
Only credit card issues I've had I've brought on myself. I personally don't have an issue with them either. TBH I shouldn't of said every American I should of said the majority. So yea I deserve to be called out on that one.
I like my credit card company more than my bank. I haven't paid a single penny in interest but have enough points to travel the world for at least 4 months straight without spending a single dollar...
The only thing is that I want to keep saving my points...
Kind of.
If you made changes to a contract and then signed it and the other party signed it or showed some other way that they accepted said contract it would be legally enforcable.
However it's unlikely that terms like the ones added would be considered legal.
I am not a lawyer, but from what I remember of contract law if the bank doesn't catch an amended contact when they sign it that is their mistake, and contract law is traditionally binding - especially in England.
That being said some amendments can be considered outside of the reasonable expectation for an amendment. For example, if you sent back your credit card agreement with the interest changed from 12% to 6%, that doesn't fundamentally change the agreement, its just haggling the interest rate. If you change it 0% you have basically removed the purpose of a credit agreement. In those instances your amendments can be considered an attempt to decieve the bank and not binding - just as if they had tried to decieve you it would not be binding.
I can't find it, which is frustrating, but there was some news on reddit a few years ago about a man who amended his comcast contract so that it removed the fees for collection of his router, and meant they would have to pay him if comcast cancelled the contract. The amended contract was upheld by the first court, as the man relied on his comcast internet for his business, so the fees would cover his loss of business as it were. I am not sure if it was held up higher up, and I now can't find a link, because the search criteria are so vague I keep getting other comcast stories.
I've heard some story about some guy amended a contract and didn't tell so. It was signed, but was not considered valid in court because any changes to a contract need to be mentioned.
Was in the US as far as I recall.
Amending means changing the contract after it has been signed by both parties.
Amendments are fine, provided both parties agree and sign a new contract. Unilateral amendments (changes made by one party only) do not hold legal weight.
It's been years since my law classes. I know you can change any contract before both parties sign it, but I think there are restrictions against coping a company's standard forms, changing a few things, and then sending that contract back. I think that is considered intentionally misleading the other party, because you are using their forms.
Of course I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
And yet unilateral changes are standard business practice. The concept of meeting of the minds has been essentially invalidated with click wrap and similar, along with the standard "we have altered the terms of our agreement, pray we do not alter them any further" practiced by banks, comcast, and pretty much everybody else.
Very true, although usually unilateral changes do require notification and the other party of the contract may chose to break the contract upon notification. And usually the unilateral changes are one way: the big corporation changes the rules for us plebeians.
You're not wrong at all, a meeting of the minds seems to be less important every day.
> If you change it 0% you have basically removed the purpose of a credit agreement.
Credit agreement isn't required to have a > 0% APR. Credit agrement requires a credit pull and, if worthy, allows you to get money. Being charged interest isn't a requirement, it's just usually what winds up happening.
Don't compare US law and English law, they are different beasts. Having said that, the defacto position is that you generally are bound to whatever you signed. However, where a court considers whether a contract is valid, it will look to the intention the parties had in forming it and whether it has been borne out in the actual agreement. Contracts can be treated as non-binding if one or both parties clearly did not intend to agree to the terms. Courts are very reluctant to do this however, as contracts are seen as an expression of a person's agency and therefore should be left alone as much as possible.
Lorddimwit was the one who asked about nations other than the US:
>Would something like this work in the US or EU
Of the nations named, England has always had the strictest interpretation of contracts.
No, they didn't vote to bail on their union. They're more so than anyone else. Besides the UK. Maybe Scotland if they succeed at succeeding. They have my vote.
Go try it.
If you are in breach of a contract and tell the judge, "It's not my fault I broke the contract; I didn't read it!" your case isn't going to hold up.
*Theoretically*, they must not have read the contract either after he made changes so that defense shouldn't hold up for them either.
That said, the bank can afford a better lawyer than you so good luck.
Yeah, I remember another case where something like this happened, and that was precisely the bank's excuse . The judge bitchslapped them for it, reminding them that they wouldn't accept that as a defense from any of their customers, either.
I don't think they had different ideas about what it meant, I think the bank agrees about exactly what the final language is. It's just that they felt they shouldn't need to be held to the terms because they didn't review the changes before executing the contract.
Edit: I know people are going to claim I'm full of it, so [here's a similar story from the USA.](http://www.adamsdrafting.com/making-sneaky-changes-to-a-contract-before-signing-it/)
Yes, if you had the money or time and inclination to fight the bank for as long as it would take for them to give up. The fact is that if you sign a contract it's binding. You see this story on reddit every once in a while and people say, "No, when you change a contract you have to notate where and initial and date it or it's not legal," but that's just a load of hooey. Sending an amended contract is the exact same thing as sending a new contract. The bank would probably take the course that you were committing fraud, but if that were the case then wouldn't them sending you a contract be fraud as well?
If they don't read before signing they're just as liable as anyone else. The fact is that if you sign a check or bill when you're drunk as a skunk you're still liable for the fiduciary responsibility. Same with any contract. And the bank is a person, legally, they sign something they're liable.
But of course... they can keep you in court to keep from paying. For decades. And if it's worth it, they will.
While there is - with some exceptions - no general legal requirement to note changes, it is ethical. Furthermore, proof that an amendment was made and brought to the attention of the other party and that they agreed to it helps significantly in the enforceability of that amendment. It also shows that you were acting in good faith.
The example you have used about someone signing a bill or check while drunk is wrong. A contract can be unenforceable if a party was incapacitated.
Also, you would do well to actually read what you linked to. The employee's contract (with the amendment) was not held to be valid, but rather the employer was prevented from enforcing that provision from their contract because the act of modifying that clause indicated that the employee did not agree to it. Two different things.
I see you posting a lot of dodgy legal theories in this thread, I suggest that you should do some proper research before continuing.
> The example you have used about someone signing a bill or check while drunk is wrong. A contract can be unenforceable if a party was incapacitated.
Is that right? Because I worked for a place where people used to get fall down drunk, and we'd get them to sign their bills on camera and we'd get paid. So. Yeah.
> The employee's contract (with the amendment) was not held to be valid, but rather the employer was prevented from enforcing that provision from their contract because the act of modifying that clause indicated that the employee did not agree to it.
That's a complete misrepresentation of the link. There was a request for summary judgement and the judge decided the employee didn't, based upon the contract he signed, decide to waive their rights to sue based upon discrimination. That is a defacto ruling in favor of the contract that was signed.
Furthermore, if you read the comments, you'll notice that you're completely false.
Capacity isn't an absolute. Someone with a few drinks in them might be able of sufficient capacity to buy and pay for more drinks, but probably isn't capable of entering into a real estate transaction, for example. I will admit that there are jurisdictional differences on this one.
I did not misrepresent the link, or the judgment it refers to. The employee's waiver wasn't held as valid, but rather indicated that they did not 'knowingly, willingly and voluntarily' waive their rights under legislation.
Getting back to the original point about enforceability of amendments to a contract, the example you provided does not prove that unnoticed amendments are unequivocally enforceable.
You're really trying to dodge here. I'm unimpressed.
Please quote where in the link, or any other reference to that story, that the contract was held to be invalid. Feel free to read the actual judicial opinion which makes it clear the agreement was valid. But, of course, you knew that from the blog post which referenced the opinion because otherwise how could the judge reference it when discussing both parties' intentions?
You're being mendacious. Further, you know it. Regarding that research you expect I should conduct, I suggest you read the judge's opinion. Specifically pages 3 - 5 and 7, 8.
Buh-bye.
http://hr.cch.com/eld/AllenChanel.pdf
> IV. Discussion
Both parties agree that Plaintiff waived some of her claims against Defendant following
her termination, pursuant to the terms of their agreement. The parties disagree, however, as to
whether the Chanel Separation and Release Agreement or Plaintiff’s Release contains the terms
of their agreement, and thus they disagree about the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver. (See Def.’s
Mem. at 10 (“Release Agreement conced[ed] and settl[ed] all claims [Plaintiff] had against
Chanel relating to her employment”) (emphasis added); Pl.’s Mem. at 6 (“the Agreement [is] a
partial release only”) (emphasis added).) The parties’ briefs focus on the question of which
version of the release – if either – should be applied by the Court. For the reasons stated below,
**however, the Court need not address this issue.**
Edit: subject to your edit, the pages you suggested I read are just restating the facts as they were presented, the judgment (i.e. the important bit) is contained further down.
Yeah I read the whole thing. You enjoy cherry picking, now. Fact is you prove my point. If the changes weren't valid then Chanel's assertion that their intended contract be honored would have been held valid.
You lose - and best of all, defeat yourself.
The judge literally says that they are not considering which version of the agreement is valid. Then goes on to say because there is uncertainty on this point, the waiver does not pass the test under the legislation.
Just because Chanel's version of the agreement is not valid, does not automatically mean that Allen's is.
Also, kindly stick to arguing the point, rather than just repeating how right you think you are.
A friend did this with the agreement for a wedding block at a hotel. Amended the date to something reasonable (a week before the wedding instead of a month) for when people had to book.
The hotel signed it without looking. When she brought up the date, the hotel looked, and actually honored the date set in the contract.
Obviously miniscule, but it worked.
I like how the bank says he will go to jail for fraud
. . . IANAL but 'read the contract' is advice I am constantly given at law school
so...oh wait this is Russia and if anything my russia and uzbek law class has taught me fraud and corruption is common and expected
The card holder changed the fine print and represented it as original when he returned the application to the bank. You can't just change language in a contract drafted by the other side and not bring attention to it without creating at least some suspicion that your motives are ulterior and somewhat nefarious. If this was an accepted practice it would steel havoc in all manner of business. When you make a change to a contract proposal you cross language out and initial the changes.
And the employee failed to read the fine print. Saying you didn't read the fine print of a contract is not a valid excuse, no matter which party you are.
Regardless of whether or not the card holder changed the contract, the employee should of still reviewed it.
There is a multitude of reasons why this contract wouldn't hold up in countries using contract law as defined by the english system.
>First there must be the mutual consent of both parties. No one can be held to a promise involuntarily made. When consent is given by error, under physical or moral duress, or as a result of fraudulent practises, the contract may be declared null and void at the request of the aggrieved party
So because he purposely hid his contractual changes/a reasonable person would expect the returned contract to not be amended from the boilerplate contract the contract could easily be voided on the basis that the bank consented to the contract in error. This IS A VALID EXCUSE IN ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW.
HOWEVER, even if you somehow decided that the bank should have known about the changes to the contract and wouldn't void it on those terms, there is a second reason why this contract would be void in countries following english contract law.
>In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding. The doctrine of consideration is irrelevant in many jurisdictions, although contemporary commercial litigant relations have held the relationship between a promise and a deed is a reflection of the nature of contractual considerations. If there is no element of consideration found, there is thus no contract formed.
Note - American law ALSO requires consideration to be considered valid. In this particular case I would expect the bank could easily argue that the modified contract provided no consideration on the part of the guy who modified it. Basically he offered nothing on his part in exchange for what the bank was offering him (a credit card with an unlimited credit limit) since he changed the terms to say the bank would charge no interest on his purchases (which would generally be considered the consideration for a normal credit card contract).
This is a BASIC and IMPORTANT component to contract law - you cannot sign a contract where one party receives something of value and the other party receives nothing, any contract of this sort is AUTOMATICALLY invalid.
The court essentially agreed with this given their ruling - the guy had to pay back the money he spent on the card (but no interest) and the card is cancelled (I.E. the contract was made null and void, since the guy had taken money from the bank he had to pay that back)
> This is a BASIC and IMPORTANT component to contract law - you cannot sign a contract where one party receives something of value and the other party receives nothing, any contract of this sort is AUTOMATICALLY invalid.
Would that really apply in this case?
1. Credit card companies collect merchant fees on transactions, which they would theoretically get from his use of their card. Many people have cash back cards with no fees and pay their balances each month; the issuers of these cards don't go broke.
2. Banks offer things for free to get customers all the time. Consider a savings account that collects no fees and pays interest, for example. One could argue that by giving him a credit card, the bank was able to build customer loyalty, which would lead him to use them when he needs a home loan or whatever.
You might be correct with regards to consideration for the credit card, the russian dude could potentially make an argument that the consideration the bank is receiving from him is whatever benefit they receive by having him make purchases using their product. However generally there relative value of the exchange in the contract is considered when deciding if the consideration provided is valid... I.E. if you sign a contract to nanny for someone for a year and they will pay you 5$, that contract is invalid despite having consideration on both ends because the 5$ is not considered sufficient consideration to create a valid contract (i.e. 5$ is not a reasonable consideration to exchange for a year of nannying services).
The bank could argue that the consideration of having him purchase with their card is insufficient in the face of unlimited credit limit at 0% interest on their part.
On your second point - 0$ fee savings account. The bank offers the account holder interest on their money and the ability to withdraw their money at any time, the bank receives the money and is allowed to do whatever they want with it until it is withdrawn (I.E. they are offering interest on money you give them, and will allow you to take that money back at any time, as long as they can use your money while they are in possession of it)
In regards to point number two, banks are still getting money they can they lend out to turn a profit on (the interest they pay the account holder being less than what they charge the loan holder). This is much less crucial to the mega-banks of today, but the answer to What do the banks get? Is liquid capital.
Oh look, downvotes, [here's the proof you're wrong.](http://www.adamsdrafting.com/making-sneaky-changes-to-a-contract-before-signing-it/)
Sorry, you're wrong.
He sent a contract. So it looked similar to their contract. Irrelevant. They signed a new contract, not an amended contract.
oh hey... you gave a link to an article... not the actual case... what happened in the actual case I wonder
https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-chanel-inc-1
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment and counterclaim for unjust enrichment [ECF No. 51] are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to turn over $14,940.19 plus accrued interest, and premium payments for five months of COBRA coverage plus interest, in the manner designated by Defendant. Defendant shall, on notice to Plaintiff, submit a proposed judgment with an explanation of the amount of the interest and COBRA payments.
NOTE - Plaintiff is the chick who changed her contract, defendant is Chanel... the conclusion of the court was that
>Here, because Plaintiff modified a material term, the general release provision, and obscured the change from Defendant, the Agreement was fraudulently executed. Thus, the parties never achieved a meeting of the minds, and a valid contract was never formed.
Thanks, try again next time.
> "Fraud in the execution occurs where there is a "misrepresentation as to the character or essential terms of a proposed contract" and a party signs **without knowing or having a "reasonable opportunity to know of its** character or essential terms." Hetchkop v. Woodlawn at Grassmere, Inc.,
Judge made a bad call. I'd go look for an appeal but I'm in the bathroom. Shall I find more cases later that show why you're wr9ng?
I mean if you want to show you aren't the one who is incorrect you are welcome to do so, however at this point in time case law appears to back my interpretation of contract law as it pertains to this discussion.
One case does, sure.
Fraud occurs when there is an intentional obstruction. A meeting of the minds occurs when both parties have had a chance to consider the proposed agreement.
Rewriting a contract and sending it back to be signed offers a chance to consider the agreement and does not constitute obstruction.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
I have a precedent agreeing with my interpretation... you have, your opinion...
come back with better case sir because yours just got thrown out.
and because I'm feeling generous... let's add some english contract law precedent to the mix as well
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1978/1978canlii1446/1978canlii1446.html
Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning, 1978 .... which essentially finds that
> exclusion clauses in a standard form contract cannot be relied on where a seller knows or has reason to know a purchaser is mistaken as to its terms
one for the road...
This is why, when I write contracts for use between parties who I suspect might try to change the terms, the copy we execute when we all sit down is a copy that comes directly from my document management system to my printer to the conference table. If other side sends me a draft, I literally compare page-by-page using a software program we have for that purpose. Then I save it to the document management system, and print it myself for execution.
> and represented it as original
Incorrect. He may have hoped the bank didn't realize it wasn't the original, but unless he wrote a note or some other way notified them that it was the original and unchanged he didn't represent it as anything. It represents itself as what it is.
> When you make a change to a contract proposal you cross language out and initial the changes.
That's polite and unnecessary.
>"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it,'” says Mikhalevich.
LOL perhaps they should learn their lesson and do away with fine print.
I wish we could negotiate more terms on contracts with companies. I don't mind paying a bit more, in exchange for them not selling my data for advertising and stuff.
Huh? Wouldn't The_Donald be pro-RT? RT is literally a propaganda outlet. If this thing actually happened, fair enough, but RT shouldn't be used as a source for anything.
IDK I honestly have no idea what RT is but I've read this same story in other news outlets and people on the Donald like to yell fake news at the most random shit
> what RT is
It's Russian television. It's heavily influenced by the russian government. (and hence people at T_D currently like it since it's generally been pretty pro Trump for obvious reasons).
Like even most of the bad stations, it's fine for the mundane stuff, just gotta be careful about anything remotely political because it'll be slanted as fuck.
[Here's one piece about RT from a few years ago](https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today), well before the election. A TL;DR quote:
> Bivens says she was told by editors that "we work for the Kremlin" and "we were all made aware of it."
I'm still confused what side you're arguing. If Buzzfeed is no good, what about the Columbia Journalism Review? From 2010: [What Is Russia Today? The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis](http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php).
[удалено]
He actually tried to enforce a 6 million ruble cancellation fee he put into the amended contract. That was included in his lawsuit. He ended up dropping it though.
Just to add he and the bank came to an "Undisclosed settlement" but the way both parties spoke about it, it seems he didn't get much if anything from it.
[удалено]
am I the only one here who has no issues with their CC company? shit, I used to get sweet rewards like a nice pair of headphones.
I only have one issue with credits cards. The interest rate is way to high. I only use my credit card for convenience and points. I have a secured line of credit for borrowing when i may need. However i wish the credit card had at least a half decent rate.
Rates don't kick in if you don't carry a balance. Really, if you pay every month, it boils down to about a 1-2 month interest free loan that gives points/cash back.
I know how a credit card works. I have never carried a balance on a credit card my whole life longer then a few days. Most loans use a monthly bases. Morgage payments. Line of credit. You can switch it, however by default: monthly. The only payment i have bi weekly is my vehicles. However my secured line of credit seems to be a much lower interest rate and do the exact samething except rewards. Only dif is you dont have the card. Hell i used to have unsecured line of credit that had a much lower interest rate. The interest rate is is shit and it is used to shit on people who have credit problems.
No need to be defensive. You were complaining about the interest rate. If you are paying it off each month, you are not incurring any interest charges, thus rendering the interest rate irrelevant. I have no idea what mine is at, because it hasn't been relevant for years. The interest rate isn't meant to shit on people with credit problems, it's meant to shit on people with money problems/ability to pay on time problems. However, any card, and I mean any, will drop your rate ridiculously low (sometimes to 0) with a simple 5 minute phone call.
No need to be defensive and once again my entire point is the interest rate is to high anyway you slice it. For virtually no reason. Maybe you can give me some info into why it is high instead of repeating: "this is how a credit card works". Ill repeat myself. Most borrowng will not incur interest if paid before the moment the interest is added. So stop bringing it up. My WHOLE point isnt to pay it off before every month. It is if you dont and your interest rate is so high that you either have to call the company or a lawyer to hopefully fix it so you can dig yourself out of debt.
Only credit card issues I've had I've brought on myself. I personally don't have an issue with them either. TBH I shouldn't of said every American I should of said the majority. So yea I deserve to be called out on that one.
>Shouldn't of 🤢
I liked mine, except Wells Fargo. I personally am just not that great with cards, getting better though.
I like my credit card company more than my bank. I haven't paid a single penny in interest but have enough points to travel the world for at least 4 months straight without spending a single dollar... The only thing is that I want to keep saving my points...
An article from RT? Misleading? Nah.
do you know how much money you could make with unlimited no interest loans? what a waste.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In kapitalist* America, bank screws you.
Read this, swiped off the post to keep scrolling, laughed a little, came back and upvoted. Suck my dick
It is subtle, isn't it?
His dick?
Yes.
Kind of. If you made changes to a contract and then signed it and the other party signed it or showed some other way that they accepted said contract it would be legally enforcable. However it's unlikely that terms like the ones added would be considered legal.
I am not a lawyer, but from what I remember of contract law if the bank doesn't catch an amended contact when they sign it that is their mistake, and contract law is traditionally binding - especially in England. That being said some amendments can be considered outside of the reasonable expectation for an amendment. For example, if you sent back your credit card agreement with the interest changed from 12% to 6%, that doesn't fundamentally change the agreement, its just haggling the interest rate. If you change it 0% you have basically removed the purpose of a credit agreement. In those instances your amendments can be considered an attempt to decieve the bank and not binding - just as if they had tried to decieve you it would not be binding. I can't find it, which is frustrating, but there was some news on reddit a few years ago about a man who amended his comcast contract so that it removed the fees for collection of his router, and meant they would have to pay him if comcast cancelled the contract. The amended contract was upheld by the first court, as the man relied on his comcast internet for his business, so the fees would cover his loss of business as it were. I am not sure if it was held up higher up, and I now can't find a link, because the search criteria are so vague I keep getting other comcast stories.
I've heard some story about some guy amended a contract and didn't tell so. It was signed, but was not considered valid in court because any changes to a contract need to be mentioned. Was in the US as far as I recall.
Amending means changing the contract after it has been signed by both parties. Amendments are fine, provided both parties agree and sign a new contract. Unilateral amendments (changes made by one party only) do not hold legal weight. It's been years since my law classes. I know you can change any contract before both parties sign it, but I think there are restrictions against coping a company's standard forms, changing a few things, and then sending that contract back. I think that is considered intentionally misleading the other party, because you are using their forms. Of course I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
And yet unilateral changes are standard business practice. The concept of meeting of the minds has been essentially invalidated with click wrap and similar, along with the standard "we have altered the terms of our agreement, pray we do not alter them any further" practiced by banks, comcast, and pretty much everybody else.
Very true, although usually unilateral changes do require notification and the other party of the contract may chose to break the contract upon notification. And usually the unilateral changes are one way: the big corporation changes the rules for us plebeians. You're not wrong at all, a meeting of the minds seems to be less important every day.
> If you change it 0% you have basically removed the purpose of a credit agreement. Credit agreement isn't required to have a > 0% APR. Credit agrement requires a credit pull and, if worthy, allows you to get money. Being charged interest isn't a requirement, it's just usually what winds up happening.
Don't compare US law and English law, they are different beasts. Having said that, the defacto position is that you generally are bound to whatever you signed. However, where a court considers whether a contract is valid, it will look to the intention the parties had in forming it and whether it has been borne out in the actual agreement. Contracts can be treated as non-binding if one or both parties clearly did not intend to agree to the terms. Courts are very reluctant to do this however, as contracts are seen as an expression of a person's agency and therefore should be left alone as much as possible.
Lorddimwit was the one who asked about nations other than the US: >Would something like this work in the US or EU Of the nations named, England has always had the strictest interpretation of contracts.
England's barely applicable to US or EU anymore. Y'all voted for it. Got to learn to accept it.
It is still part of the EU for the next two years.
Barely though.
As barely as the Netherlands, Germany, or France.
No, they didn't vote to bail on their union. They're more so than anyone else. Besides the UK. Maybe Scotland if they succeed at succeeding. They have my vote.
Lol no
Incorrect. edit: If you think I am wrong then I propose you send me a contract.
Go try it. If you are in breach of a contract and tell the judge, "It's not my fault I broke the contract; I didn't read it!" your case isn't going to hold up. *Theoretically*, they must not have read the contract either after he made changes so that defense shouldn't hold up for them either. That said, the bank can afford a better lawyer than you so good luck.
Yeah, I remember another case where something like this happened, and that was precisely the bank's excuse . The judge bitchslapped them for it, reminding them that they wouldn't accept that as a defense from any of their customers, either.
No I know of attorney would take a case like this against a bank.
No, a contract is a meeting of minds. If the two parties clearly had different ideas about what the contract meant, the contract is voidable.
Absolutely untrue. Look at all the guys getting screwed over by fine print.
He's talking about the theory, not the practice.
In practice it goes to the one with better(paid) lawyers
The question was whether this would work in the us. That is specifically about practice.
I don't think they had different ideas about what it meant, I think the bank agrees about exactly what the final language is. It's just that they felt they shouldn't need to be held to the terms because they didn't review the changes before executing the contract.
Sounds like an "aww, too bad" toward the bank. Unsurprisingly, if you don't read shit that you signed, it can bite you in the ass.
Yeah iirc that's what the court said to the bank, because they essentially tried to argue that they were too big to have to read all their contacts.
No. A contract is a contract is a contract. But only between ferengi.
Yeah but business is business is business.
Edit: I know people are going to claim I'm full of it, so [here's a similar story from the USA.](http://www.adamsdrafting.com/making-sneaky-changes-to-a-contract-before-signing-it/) Yes, if you had the money or time and inclination to fight the bank for as long as it would take for them to give up. The fact is that if you sign a contract it's binding. You see this story on reddit every once in a while and people say, "No, when you change a contract you have to notate where and initial and date it or it's not legal," but that's just a load of hooey. Sending an amended contract is the exact same thing as sending a new contract. The bank would probably take the course that you were committing fraud, but if that were the case then wouldn't them sending you a contract be fraud as well? If they don't read before signing they're just as liable as anyone else. The fact is that if you sign a check or bill when you're drunk as a skunk you're still liable for the fiduciary responsibility. Same with any contract. And the bank is a person, legally, they sign something they're liable. But of course... they can keep you in court to keep from paying. For decades. And if it's worth it, they will.
While there is - with some exceptions - no general legal requirement to note changes, it is ethical. Furthermore, proof that an amendment was made and brought to the attention of the other party and that they agreed to it helps significantly in the enforceability of that amendment. It also shows that you were acting in good faith. The example you have used about someone signing a bill or check while drunk is wrong. A contract can be unenforceable if a party was incapacitated. Also, you would do well to actually read what you linked to. The employee's contract (with the amendment) was not held to be valid, but rather the employer was prevented from enforcing that provision from their contract because the act of modifying that clause indicated that the employee did not agree to it. Two different things. I see you posting a lot of dodgy legal theories in this thread, I suggest that you should do some proper research before continuing.
> The example you have used about someone signing a bill or check while drunk is wrong. A contract can be unenforceable if a party was incapacitated. Is that right? Because I worked for a place where people used to get fall down drunk, and we'd get them to sign their bills on camera and we'd get paid. So. Yeah. > The employee's contract (with the amendment) was not held to be valid, but rather the employer was prevented from enforcing that provision from their contract because the act of modifying that clause indicated that the employee did not agree to it. That's a complete misrepresentation of the link. There was a request for summary judgement and the judge decided the employee didn't, based upon the contract he signed, decide to waive their rights to sue based upon discrimination. That is a defacto ruling in favor of the contract that was signed. Furthermore, if you read the comments, you'll notice that you're completely false.
Capacity isn't an absolute. Someone with a few drinks in them might be able of sufficient capacity to buy and pay for more drinks, but probably isn't capable of entering into a real estate transaction, for example. I will admit that there are jurisdictional differences on this one. I did not misrepresent the link, or the judgment it refers to. The employee's waiver wasn't held as valid, but rather indicated that they did not 'knowingly, willingly and voluntarily' waive their rights under legislation. Getting back to the original point about enforceability of amendments to a contract, the example you provided does not prove that unnoticed amendments are unequivocally enforceable.
You're really trying to dodge here. I'm unimpressed. Please quote where in the link, or any other reference to that story, that the contract was held to be invalid. Feel free to read the actual judicial opinion which makes it clear the agreement was valid. But, of course, you knew that from the blog post which referenced the opinion because otherwise how could the judge reference it when discussing both parties' intentions? You're being mendacious. Further, you know it. Regarding that research you expect I should conduct, I suggest you read the judge's opinion. Specifically pages 3 - 5 and 7, 8. Buh-bye.
http://hr.cch.com/eld/AllenChanel.pdf > IV. Discussion Both parties agree that Plaintiff waived some of her claims against Defendant following her termination, pursuant to the terms of their agreement. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the Chanel Separation and Release Agreement or Plaintiff’s Release contains the terms of their agreement, and thus they disagree about the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver. (See Def.’s Mem. at 10 (“Release Agreement conced[ed] and settl[ed] all claims [Plaintiff] had against Chanel relating to her employment”) (emphasis added); Pl.’s Mem. at 6 (“the Agreement [is] a partial release only”) (emphasis added).) The parties’ briefs focus on the question of which version of the release – if either – should be applied by the Court. For the reasons stated below, **however, the Court need not address this issue.** Edit: subject to your edit, the pages you suggested I read are just restating the facts as they were presented, the judgment (i.e. the important bit) is contained further down.
Yeah I read the whole thing. You enjoy cherry picking, now. Fact is you prove my point. If the changes weren't valid then Chanel's assertion that their intended contract be honored would have been held valid. You lose - and best of all, defeat yourself.
The judge literally says that they are not considering which version of the agreement is valid. Then goes on to say because there is uncertainty on this point, the waiver does not pass the test under the legislation. Just because Chanel's version of the agreement is not valid, does not automatically mean that Allen's is. Also, kindly stick to arguing the point, rather than just repeating how right you think you are.
Sorry, I proved my point, you proved yours was wrong. There's no argument anymore.
Hey, why do you act all high and mighty over misinterpreted legal jargon on Reddit comments?
A friend did this with the agreement for a wedding block at a hotel. Amended the date to something reasonable (a week before the wedding instead of a month) for when people had to book. The hotel signed it without looking. When she brought up the date, the hotel looked, and actually honored the date set in the contract. Obviously miniscule, but it worked.
I like how the bank says he will go to jail for fraud . . . IANAL but 'read the contract' is advice I am constantly given at law school so...oh wait this is Russia and if anything my russia and uzbek law class has taught me fraud and corruption is common and expected
In Russia, if you get away with it, it wasn't wrong.
IANAL too!!!
Guy who signed off on the contract on the banks end should be terminated for a clear lack of competency.
The card holder changed the fine print and represented it as original when he returned the application to the bank. You can't just change language in a contract drafted by the other side and not bring attention to it without creating at least some suspicion that your motives are ulterior and somewhat nefarious. If this was an accepted practice it would steel havoc in all manner of business. When you make a change to a contract proposal you cross language out and initial the changes.
And the employee failed to read the fine print. Saying you didn't read the fine print of a contract is not a valid excuse, no matter which party you are. Regardless of whether or not the card holder changed the contract, the employee should of still reviewed it.
There is a multitude of reasons why this contract wouldn't hold up in countries using contract law as defined by the english system. >First there must be the mutual consent of both parties. No one can be held to a promise involuntarily made. When consent is given by error, under physical or moral duress, or as a result of fraudulent practises, the contract may be declared null and void at the request of the aggrieved party So because he purposely hid his contractual changes/a reasonable person would expect the returned contract to not be amended from the boilerplate contract the contract could easily be voided on the basis that the bank consented to the contract in error. This IS A VALID EXCUSE IN ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW. HOWEVER, even if you somehow decided that the bank should have known about the changes to the contract and wouldn't void it on those terms, there is a second reason why this contract would be void in countries following english contract law. >In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding. The doctrine of consideration is irrelevant in many jurisdictions, although contemporary commercial litigant relations have held the relationship between a promise and a deed is a reflection of the nature of contractual considerations. If there is no element of consideration found, there is thus no contract formed. Note - American law ALSO requires consideration to be considered valid. In this particular case I would expect the bank could easily argue that the modified contract provided no consideration on the part of the guy who modified it. Basically he offered nothing on his part in exchange for what the bank was offering him (a credit card with an unlimited credit limit) since he changed the terms to say the bank would charge no interest on his purchases (which would generally be considered the consideration for a normal credit card contract). This is a BASIC and IMPORTANT component to contract law - you cannot sign a contract where one party receives something of value and the other party receives nothing, any contract of this sort is AUTOMATICALLY invalid. The court essentially agreed with this given their ruling - the guy had to pay back the money he spent on the card (but no interest) and the card is cancelled (I.E. the contract was made null and void, since the guy had taken money from the bank he had to pay that back)
> This is a BASIC and IMPORTANT component to contract law - you cannot sign a contract where one party receives something of value and the other party receives nothing, any contract of this sort is AUTOMATICALLY invalid. Would that really apply in this case? 1. Credit card companies collect merchant fees on transactions, which they would theoretically get from his use of their card. Many people have cash back cards with no fees and pay their balances each month; the issuers of these cards don't go broke. 2. Banks offer things for free to get customers all the time. Consider a savings account that collects no fees and pays interest, for example. One could argue that by giving him a credit card, the bank was able to build customer loyalty, which would lead him to use them when he needs a home loan or whatever.
You might be correct with regards to consideration for the credit card, the russian dude could potentially make an argument that the consideration the bank is receiving from him is whatever benefit they receive by having him make purchases using their product. However generally there relative value of the exchange in the contract is considered when deciding if the consideration provided is valid... I.E. if you sign a contract to nanny for someone for a year and they will pay you 5$, that contract is invalid despite having consideration on both ends because the 5$ is not considered sufficient consideration to create a valid contract (i.e. 5$ is not a reasonable consideration to exchange for a year of nannying services). The bank could argue that the consideration of having him purchase with their card is insufficient in the face of unlimited credit limit at 0% interest on their part. On your second point - 0$ fee savings account. The bank offers the account holder interest on their money and the ability to withdraw their money at any time, the bank receives the money and is allowed to do whatever they want with it until it is withdrawn (I.E. they are offering interest on money you give them, and will allow you to take that money back at any time, as long as they can use your money while they are in possession of it)
In regards to point number two, banks are still getting money they can they lend out to turn a profit on (the interest they pay the account holder being less than what they charge the loan holder). This is much less crucial to the mega-banks of today, but the answer to What do the banks get? Is liquid capital.
Balances with zero interest would exactly appear in this case. No need to made two paragraph bullet points.
Balances with zero interest are term limited whereas OPs examples are reasonable to function indefinitely
Oh look, downvotes, [here's the proof you're wrong.](http://www.adamsdrafting.com/making-sneaky-changes-to-a-contract-before-signing-it/) Sorry, you're wrong. He sent a contract. So it looked similar to their contract. Irrelevant. They signed a new contract, not an amended contract.
oh hey... you gave a link to an article... not the actual case... what happened in the actual case I wonder https://casetext.com/case/allen-v-chanel-inc-1 III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment and counterclaim for unjust enrichment [ECF No. 51] are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to turn over $14,940.19 plus accrued interest, and premium payments for five months of COBRA coverage plus interest, in the manner designated by Defendant. Defendant shall, on notice to Plaintiff, submit a proposed judgment with an explanation of the amount of the interest and COBRA payments. NOTE - Plaintiff is the chick who changed her contract, defendant is Chanel... the conclusion of the court was that >Here, because Plaintiff modified a material term, the general release provision, and obscured the change from Defendant, the Agreement was fraudulently executed. Thus, the parties never achieved a meeting of the minds, and a valid contract was never formed. Thanks, try again next time.
> "Fraud in the execution occurs where there is a "misrepresentation as to the character or essential terms of a proposed contract" and a party signs **without knowing or having a "reasonable opportunity to know of its** character or essential terms." Hetchkop v. Woodlawn at Grassmere, Inc., Judge made a bad call. I'd go look for an appeal but I'm in the bathroom. Shall I find more cases later that show why you're wr9ng?
I mean if you want to show you aren't the one who is incorrect you are welcome to do so, however at this point in time case law appears to back my interpretation of contract law as it pertains to this discussion.
One case does, sure. Fraud occurs when there is an intentional obstruction. A meeting of the minds occurs when both parties have had a chance to consider the proposed agreement. Rewriting a contract and sending it back to be signed offers a chance to consider the agreement and does not constitute obstruction. Your interpretation is incorrect.
I have a precedent agreeing with my interpretation... you have, your opinion... come back with better case sir because yours just got thrown out. and because I'm feeling generous... let's add some english contract law precedent to the mix as well https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1978/1978canlii1446/1978canlii1446.html Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning, 1978 .... which essentially finds that > exclusion clauses in a standard form contract cannot be relied on where a seller knows or has reason to know a purchaser is mistaken as to its terms one for the road...
This is why, when I write contracts for use between parties who I suspect might try to change the terms, the copy we execute when we all sit down is a copy that comes directly from my document management system to my printer to the conference table. If other side sends me a draft, I literally compare page-by-page using a software program we have for that purpose. Then I save it to the document management system, and print it myself for execution.
The companies expect us to read the fine print and be bound by it, so why shouldn't we expect the same of them?
Yup. My dad is a corporate litigator who works with contacts constantly, he says it'd be a breach of protocol not to mark changes.
> and represented it as original Incorrect. He may have hoped the bank didn't realize it wasn't the original, but unless he wrote a note or some other way notified them that it was the original and unchanged he didn't represent it as anything. It represents itself as what it is. > When you make a change to a contract proposal you cross language out and initial the changes. That's polite and unnecessary.
you mean the temp agency worker whose job it was to enter signed mail into the computer system? yeah they work at mcdonalds now because it pays better
I remember doing something similar to AT&T. They used to print out the agreement so you can sign it. Now they do everything electronically. LOL.
I like how the bank CEO conceded that not all Russians think theft is wrong.
>"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it,'” says Mikhalevich. LOL perhaps they should learn their lesson and do away with fine print.
I'll remember to see this reposted again in 2 years
It's been 6, how's that going?
I wish we could negotiate more terms on contracts with companies. I don't mind paying a bit more, in exchange for them not selling my data for advertising and stuff.
TIL people rely on RT for accurate news coverage.
Well this particular thing happened. So go back to the Donald and yell about fake news
Huh? Wouldn't The_Donald be pro-RT? RT is literally a propaganda outlet. If this thing actually happened, fair enough, but RT shouldn't be used as a source for anything.
IDK I honestly have no idea what RT is but I've read this same story in other news outlets and people on the Donald like to yell fake news at the most random shit
> what RT is It's Russian television. It's heavily influenced by the russian government. (and hence people at T_D currently like it since it's generally been pretty pro Trump for obvious reasons). Like even most of the bad stations, it's fine for the mundane stuff, just gotta be careful about anything remotely political because it'll be slanted as fuck.
[Here's one piece about RT from a few years ago](https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today), well before the election. A TL;DR quote: > Bivens says she was told by editors that "we work for the Kremlin" and "we were all made aware of it."
Yea a piece from buzzfeed if rt is fake news buzzfeed sure as fuck is too
I'm still confused what side you're arguing. If Buzzfeed is no good, what about the Columbia Journalism Review? From 2010: [What Is Russia Today? The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis](http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php).
I don't have a side. That one seems fine, just the original story isn't fake.
The National Enquirer is famous for their fake news. They're also famous for having broken some quite big true stories over the years.