So as the Wells Fargo CEO, a document admitting all guilt and promising full restitution by selling his organs, even though the signature is forged, is binding?
Photoshop FTW 
3 Likes
Yes, the signature on the back of a credit card is not a form of ID. It is proof that the card owner has accepted the terms of the contract with the card issuer.
FWIW the reason merchants are prohibited from asking for ID is because the card issuers want the cards to be as easy to use as cash and cash does not require ID. They accept the fraud from people using stolen cards as a cost that is outweighed by the additional revenue from people using their cards because of the convenience.
7 Likes
I assume that he is operating on a variant of the “I can’t have done a bad thing; because I’m the good guy.” logic; where his fraud is necessarily more authoritative than your fraud because he’s a trusted and reputable organization, ergo his fraud must be more credible, rather than making him and his organization less credible.
If you omit such ‘logic’, yeah, by his argument it would appear that whoever can forge a signature fastest can dictate whatever terms they want; sort of a legal quick-draw contest.
2 Likes
I’d also say that you simply can’t blanket sign away your right to sue someone. Signing away your right to sue someone over the matter that the contract relates to, okay, but signing away your right to take someone to court would be akin to signing away your right to quit your job. I think access to the remedies under the law has to be held as so inalienable that you can’t even give it up since it is requirement to be able to defend your other rights. I also might argue that you can’t sign away your right to sue someone for damages in the event that they commit a crime against you.
There’s a lot of things two people can’t legally agree to do between themselves. Fraud should be one of them (and not just because that’s a tautology), and I’d wager heavily there is precedent for this kind of argument (for other crimes, if not fraud).
13 Likes
I assumed that was the actual argument, because it isn’t totally nonsensical, just the usual, “You agreed to arbitration, so that includes any additional, unrelated things we do!” argument from corporations. I.e., the usual bullshit.
1 Like
That should be the direction of reform, but current law allows for these one-sided “agreements.” The argument I suggested is one that would work, albeit to the point where Wells Fargo might settle behind the scenes rather than having a discussion that displays their contempt for binding signatures – a basis of the current system – appearing on the public record. Then again, they might not give a damn anymore.
4 Likes
But this would still be according to their favoring arbitration body.
Sure. Just like if they’ve ever agreed to medical treatment- they’ve agreed to whatever medical treatment their dr’s want to give them.
Time for your prostatectomy sir.
3 Likes
Or, you know, if you agreed to medical treatment then you can’t sue the doctor for wrongful death for shooting your cousin.
10 Likes
Was it Mr. Ask F. Id? I hear he is related to Mr. Null and Little Bobby Tables.
8 Likes
Best joke in the thread! 
4 Likes
Just feeds my theory that the types who claw their way into CEO positions tend to be psychopaths. And not all that smart.
4 Likes
The only useful thing about signatures is that it requires affirmative fraud in order to falsely show that someone signed a document. They can’t say I signed something I didn’t sign without somehow faking something.
4 Likes
Of course they’re not. It grinds my gears when people misrepresent things when it’s not needed. The unadulterated facts are enough here.
Still ballsy to claim that because you have one legal account this agreement would transfer to accounts opened illegally on your behalf by their employees.
I’ve forgotten, please remind me. Why do we hate wall street?
3 Likes
But, see, that’s not really substantively any different. It certainly isn’t “better”.
1 Like
Wells Fargo: inspiring consumer confidence exactly like the Ponzi Securities Exchange Company doesn’t.
In fact, who’s for coining a new term: Stumpf and Tolstedt Scheme. After all, Ponzi was a piker compared to them.
1 Like
Sociopaths, more specifically, and yes, that’s been verified pretty thoroughly by several studies (as well as middle managers and police). Positions of power tend to attract 'em like flies.
3 Likes
For the same reason, I leave mine unsigned. It’s not much insurance, but if a bad guy tried to use them, there’s at least a chance he’d be asked for ID. (Based on experience, a 1% chance, but it’s better then nothing.)
Wouldn’t the bad guy just sign them?
5 Likes
Why is Wells Fargo allowed to keep doing business right now?
If I was caught making thousands of fraudulent bank accounts with identity theft, all my assets would be frozen. This bank is being held to a lower standard of justice and “personal responsibility” than a human being. That’s completely unacceptable. But it seems like no matter how I vote, and how I campaign people just don’t care that a legal fiction can ruin your life consequence-free. Apparently corporations are better than people because they have more rights and less responsibility in practical terms than a real person.
15 Likes
