That’s. . . kind of brilliant, actually!
Ballsy, but brilliant!
Fines, or Finds?
A friend of a friend did a similar thing with his mobile phone contract… When he went to cancel it after a couple of months, they realised he had crossed out the 24 months part and had to let him go.
Dear God if only this would work in America. But alas, the bank is always right, no matter how wrong.
In Russia, something, something YOU.
People forget a contract is a two way agreement. Some years ago I took on an extra telephone line and within the agreement I made a few changes, mainly get out clauses. I printed off the revised agreement, signed with a covering letter to alert them to the revisions. it was accepted but in the end I kept the line beyond the minimum term anyway but I often think what would have happened if I had to leave early.
I remember many, many years ago a story from TV where a ‘man’ was being pestered by a salesman (possibly double glazing) and in the end signed the order but put ‘subject to loan agreement’ along the top. The company processed the order and came to fit it and he turned them away stating he was unable to get a loan so the contract / order was null and void.
42 thumbs up!
asylum for snowden and a judgement against a BANK…for a PERSON…
come on america…russia isn’t supposed to be the good guys.
movies in the future will have villains with american accents.
Only if there’s someone to negotiate with. We’re all forced to agree to contracts of adhesion when we install software. Good luck even figuring out who to negotiate with, contacting them, and getting an agreement modification on their desk. That’ll never happen if you aren’t a major customer worth a lot of money.
Well, there’s the whole Pussy Riot affair, and the new anti-gay laws. That kind of evens things out, I’d say.
Proof that this whole BBS thing is an experiment. The headline here and the headline at the main site have exactly opposite meanings but vary by only one letter.
That is too weird to be an accident.
I wonder about the judges credit history.
Hmm, sorry, already edited the title before I saw your response!
For the record, it used to be
Court fines for the man…
It was curious, no?
So the court found that the contract is valid & he doesn’t have to pay anything except the actual amount owing on the card. Brilliant.
But suing a lawyered up bank on top of that? I have a feeling that down the line he’ll have wished he quit while he was ahead.
It’s correct, although “finds in favor of” seems more common to me.
Earlier it said “Court fines for man…”
I read it here first and thought it meant fines from the court for the man or “court fines” for the man. Then I went to the main site and it said, “Court finds for the man . . .” and my brain did a double take. I just stopped fishtailing right now. Close one.