I'm not going to say that that all banks are angelic and innocent. But I would take the long view on this issue, and come down in favor of honesty and transparency in contractual negotiation. You may not like the victim in this case, but what if the same thing were done to a more sympathetic victim by a less sympathetic adversary?

> banks will use stronger language next time

Except that such language could be deleted by the customer. In this case, a customer has demonstrated an ability to make arbitrary changes to the contract. Assuming he is legally savvy, he should be able to alter any terms that would damage his case. This, of course, assumes that the contract is held to be enforceable. I still have strong doubts about that.