Man who created own credit card sues bank for not sticking to terms - Brilliant!

reply to post by predator0187


I've thought about doing this myself for some time now.
I don't think the banks will be sending out CC applications any time soon.
Fine for me, less junk mail

I would love to amend all those contract (I AGREE) contracts that everyone has to click on.
I don't read them, don't know of anyone who does.
There is a south park episode about it so it's obviously rankling a lot of people

reply to post by VforVendettea


and it should.

if you don't agree to whatever is in the EULA, you don't get to have access to socially relevant information. Not getting the socially relevant information distances you from others, creating a pariah of sorts.

Being social creatures, this is unthinkable to many of us. Those of us who are not concerned with such trivialities tend to be labelled as "fringe", "anti-social", etc.

Most of us are compelled to click "I Agree", so as to maintain our status in the groupthink of humanity.

Yes, I have a thought, Can I alter your employment contract by deception?

Oh, but that wouldn't be funny now would it?

reply to post by MadMax7


No, it wouldn't. Because Texas is a "right to work" state, and typically doesn't employ contracts.

reply to post by Auricom

And the bank doesn't need to read the fine print either? If they would have taken the time to read the contract they sent, they wouldn't be in this problem. It's not our fault that the BANK CAN'T READ contracts coming in, something everyone does before agreeing.

Why would the bank read their own contract, already knowing what was written. I understand why people like this idea of revising a contract to work in their favor, but just because it feels good doesn't make it legal. One can only revise a contract if they do so legally. Will this same mentality work with a prescription, can we change an Rx from 60 to 120 and expect not to be arrested. Maybe the pharmacist won't notice, but it will be found out later, and do we really expect the pharmacist to go to prison because "It's not our fault that the drug stores CAN'T READ."

They would have seen this and simply shredded the contract and sent a declined letter avoiding this hassle. I mean, it's really stupid to not expect people to do this very basic task. Especially when you're a bank.

So-Banks and other institutions should already expect that their contracts are being revised..

This line of thinking is why we have soo many laws in the system already, and why there will never be enough for some people. We have laws that state the owners of buildings have to put a sign up pointing out that a step is in front of you (so you don't trip and hurt yourself), signs on the roadway stating you are going the "wrong way", we have signs and laws that dictate every single thing we can and can't do. But because there is no sign on a contract, some think it's ok to revise said contract and hey, the bank should know better than to have signed their own contract without checking to make sure it hasn't been revised.

No more common sense or personal responsibility - we need signs everywhere stating the need for those two attributes.

reply to post by RobinB022


The bank should read their own contract before accepting a counter-offer to contract - because they are lawfully required to adhere to the contract that is agreed between two parties and signed in wet ink - and this is lawful negotiation.
Ignorance is not a defense and as such, this man will likely win any case in a just court of law.
You speak of personal responsibility - this is a perfect example OF personal responsibility. You're just looking at it from a different perspective.

A contract negotiation can have as many offer/counter-offers as needed to come to an agreement. He absolutely did the correct thing by amending their offer to contract and send it back to them for consideration.

This is about contract law, pure and simple. It is the oldest concept in our current debacle of a law system - it's all contracts - and this is just one example of a wise man getting lucky because the bank is so used to winning it has become careless.
This doesn't need more "laws", what we need is observation of the contract law that we already have.
These things are important so we should treat them like they are - you can bet that a court of law will treat a contract breach seriously!

[It is fair, because they tell you to bend over and use Vaseline, if you want.

reply to post by RobinB022


I don't mean this to sound as mean as it is going to sound, but your mentality is part of what is wrong with the world you are decrying.

Yes, there are signs everywhere directing you where to go and what to do. Know why? Because there are people out there who don't understand the world they live in. Like folks who don't understand that a contract is a negotiable document until such point as both parties sign to it.

Like I said....i regularly modify/amend contracts sent to me by vendors. They will then modify and return for consideration, or sign/accept and it goes into effect.

Please come to understand the yoke that you are burdened with. It will only help you navigate through the minefield of life.

reply to post by trouble_every_day

A contract negotiation can have as many offer/counter-offers as needed to come to an agreement. He absolutely did the correct thing by amending their offer to contract and send it back to them for consideration.

Yes, but each counter would have their own contract, not modify one (in deceitful manner), and without notifying the other party of any changes to their contract.

I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree.. but it's nothing personal. I detest big banks and their greed, so I hope the guy does get away with what he did.. I just don't think he will.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No need to make it personal with a belittling attack on my character. I managed to get where I am in life today (@53) with no legal problems, trouble with the law, or even enemies. Never understood people who can't discuss an issue without managing to put someone else down in some way. I think ego gets in the way for some, but believe me, I don't even want to 'win' this disagreement=I hope the guy gets to keep his zero percent credit card.. but I doubt that will happen.

It's crazy weird how some people can't be more objective in situations such as this one, where people can't see things as they would if the shoe were on the other foot. But because they want the guy to .. I don't know.. get away with what he did, it's ok, but had the bank changed the contract I doubt those same people would feel the same way.

reply to post by predator0187


What a brilliant idea, and pretty daring too. Wonder if it would really work here. I mean they send out so many applications. Hope he wins against the bank, nice to see somebody turning the tables on them for a change.

Originally posted by baburak
Seems brilliant at first look. But he used banks header and logo in his new contract. It makes his actions illegal and he will be convicted of a fraud. Sad, but bank will win this case and he will go to jail.

He should have used his own header and hope that bank will sign it.

The judge already ruled in his favor. Now they are just battling for that cash.

Originally posted by RobinB022
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

No need to make it personal with a belittling attack on my character. I managed to get where I am in life today (@53) with no legal problems, trouble with the law, or even enemies. Never understood people who can't discuss an issue without managing to put someone else down in some way. I think ego gets in the way for some, but believe me, I don't even want to 'win' this disagreement=I hope the guy gets to keep his zero percent credit card.. but I doubt that will happen.

It's crazy weird how some people can't be more objective in situations such as this one, where people can't see things as they would if the shoe were on the other foot. But because they want the guy to .. I don't know.. get away with what he did, it's ok, but had the bank changed the contract I doubt those same people would feel the same way.

LIsten, I told you that i didn't intend for it to sound as rude as it did. I provided what I saw as an honest response to your statement. I in no way have belittled your character....only pointed out that you need to better understand the system you are trying to "beat".

I don't care if he "gets away with what he did" or not. What he did was exactly what is done countless times each day while businessmen negotiate contracts. I have pointed out that I, personally, have done this same type of thing with virtually every vendor I have. It is called "terms", and they are an important facet of business.

Those protective signs get put up when people don't understand the system they work within, and begin to demand protections from it. You don't want more laws added and signs added, then understand and work within the system that currently exists. There is no need for further laws and warnings in a "let the buyer beware" market (which is a foundation of America, way back when our nation had hope and promise).

ETA: in contracts there is no such thing as deceit. It is enumerated in writing, with signatures. If it is not enumerated, then it requires an amendment that both parties agree to (another daily facet of business). If you are "deceived" in a contract, then you are negligent. It is all listed and enumerated before you sign.

I'm baffled that anyone in this thread would advocate or promote this gentleman's clear cut act of criminality.

Say what you will about credit card companies, but ultimately the loser in this scenario is the average Joe stock holder and average Joe credit card holder. Financial losses get passed on to the consumer and shareholders in the end.

It is you and I that get to pay for this gentleman's act of deviant criminality in the form of higher interest rates. So, no, I don't feel a lot of enthusiasm for a criminal actor that makes me pay more interest or higher fees because he scammed the system.

Doctoring legal contracts in a deceitful manner is not only illegal, but highly immoral. Clearly, the bank issued the credit card to this individual in error. You can say the bank was negligent in issuing the credit card, but clearly, the individual here committed a pretty grave act of deception in doctoring the legal contract.

If you don't like credit card companies or banks, that is your own prerogative, and more power to you. You are free to operate in cash, or store your hard earned savings under your mattress. But, for the love of all that is good and moral, please do us all a favor and stop promoting this criminal as some kind of courageous, wise actor that should be imitated. This gentleman rightfully belongs in jail.

reply to post by RobinB022


I'm afraid that's just not true.
There is no requirement for a contract between two parties to be negotiated on two separate contracts, in fact that would be quite unusual in a case like this.
It is standard practice to amend a presented contract during a negotiation.

Do you consider that the bank should not have to negotiate it's contracts in good faith?
Should it be able to just set the terms assume this is the end of the matter?
This is NOT how contract law works, it is your perception.
I can assure you that this is not the perspective that a court will take regarding this matter.

Perhaps you would like to consider this deceitful but in a negotiation between a company and someone who they simply cold-called in an attempt to coerce them into debt, I would probably use a different word.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I'm baffled that anyone in this thread would advocate or promote this gentleman's clear cut act of criminality.

...really?
What exactly do you understand of contract law?
This act is not criminal. It is lawful. The company is negligent in it's contracting - this is not the fault of this man.

Oh, and doctoring a contract would have to take place AFTER it was signed in wet ink and accepted by the other party...If it takes place BEFORE, then it's contract negotiation.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I'm baffled that anyone in this thread would advocate or promote this gentleman's clear cut act of criminality.

Say what you will about credit card companies, but ultimately the loser in this scenario is the average Joe stock holder and average Joe credit card holder. Financial losses get passed on to the consumer and shareholders in the end.

It is you and I that get to pay for this gentleman's act of deviant criminality in the form of higher interest rates. So, no, I don't feel a lot of enthusiasm for a criminal actor that makes me pay more interest or higher fees because he scammed the system.

Doctoring legal contracts in a deceitful manner is not only illegal, but highly immoral. Clearly, the bank issued the credit card to this individual in error. You can say the bank was negligent in issuing the credit card, but clearly, the individual here committed a pretty grave act of deception in doctoring the legal contract.

If you don't like credit card companies or banks, that is your own prerogative, and more power to you. You are free to operate in cash, or store your hard earned savings under your mattress. But, for the love of all that is good and moral, please do us all a favor and stop promoting this criminal as some kind of courageous, wise actor that should be imitated. This gentleman rightfully belongs in jail.

Would you please cite the law that you are using to determine that this is criminal behavior?

And while we wait, mull this over:

You not understanding the power you have to negotiate only adds to the power that whatever boogieman you are afraid of has. If you really think what this guy did is criminal and deceitful, you are lost in the safe harbors of tyranny.

Originally posted by baburak
Seems brilliant at first look. But he used banks header and logo in his new contract. It makes his actions illegal and he will be convicted of a fraud. Sad, but bank will win this case and he will go to jail.

He should have used his own header and hope that bank will sign it.

I think he is not at fault since the bank did sign the contract, If the bank okay'd it then as far as i am concerned, it is legally binding...this is the same thing banks to do us...How do they expect us to read 12-30 pages and then sign the legally binding contract?

Well, i am sorry to say the bank is in a legally binding contract and they should pay him.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by predator0187

 

My favorite part is where they dare accuse him of being "deceptive for intentionally including outrageous terms with the expectation the other party won't read it."

I mean what kind of monster would do that?

Haha! I know right! I love going to some kind of financial institution and they hand me a 150 page document (exaggerating of course) and they tell me to read it in its entirety!

This is very cool, I think. I'd bet in the U.S., though, there'd be some kind of way the bank could weasel its way out of it.

Hope the guy doesn't end up in the bottom of a lake somewhere >.