Re:Russian Man Changes Small Print in Credit Card Agreement,...
by krichman on Thursday August 08, 2013 @12:00AM
(#6177268)
Slipping in an extra paper is not the same at all; you are adding terms to the contract that the signer could not possibly have seen. By changing the small print you are being sneaky, but they had a chance to fully examine what they were agreeing to and were lax in that.
Re:Russian Man Changes Small Print in Credit Card Agreement,...
by mrweasel on Thursday August 08, 2013 @04:31AM
(#6177849)
>The argument is not that you shouldn't read the small print - the bank lawyers know what the small print means - the argument is that they can't look for tiny changes in known small print if they're reasonably expecting it to be identical to what they sent.
Doesn't this case show that they cannot reasonably expect the contract to be identical to what they sent, in respect to all future contracts?
Re:Russian Man Changes Small Print in Credit Card Agreement,...
by zenith2037 on Thursday August 08, 2013 @01:46PM
(#6180545)
The difference is that this.
1 - The bank signed a copy then gave one to the customer to sign. If the customer changed the print at this point, it would no longer be valid.
2 - What this guy did, the bank gave him a copy, he modified it, then signed it, then sent it back, to which the bank approved. Which is still technically valid.
That's like I would initiate a contract with you and after we read it together and you agree it's what you want to sign I covertly slip a page into the pack that completely changes the terms and trick you into signing it without you actually knowing it's there. You can reasonably claim you intended to sign the original one, not the one I secretly modified - and I expect the court be more sympathetic to you than to my claims "you should have watched my hands all the time!" Of course, it'd require you proving that I did this, but if you can, your case sounds pretty strong to me.