Speaker A
A bank mailed a guy in Russia a credit card offer, so he rewrote the fine print. 0% interest, no fees, no limit, and sent it back. The bank signed it.
A Russian customer rewrote his bank's credit card fine print to 0% interest and no fees, the bank signed it, and a court ruled his version valid.
Key Takeaways
- Contract terms are enforceable when both parties sign, even if one party modified the original offer.
- Banks bear responsibility for clear communication of terms, and fine print discrepancies can work against them.
- Reading and understanding contract details, including referenced documents and links, is critical.
- Courts may enforce the signed document rather than the bank's original advertised terms.
What the video covers
- In 2008, a Russian bank mailed him a credit card offer advertising 12.9% interest, but the fine print said 45%.
- He scanned the form and rewrote the terms himself: 0% interest, no fees, no credit limit, plus penalties of 3 million rubles per unauthorized term change and 6 million rubles if the card was canceled.
- He swapped the web address for the full terms with a near-identical URL leading to his own website hosting his terms.
- He mailed the form back, and the bank issued a card along with an application copy it had signed.
- The bank later called it a one-time technical glitch, but he used the card for two years paying back only what he spent.
- After the bank canceled the card and sued him for 45,000 rubles, he presented the signed contract in 2012.
- The judge ruled the contract legal, so he owed only the 19,000 rubles spent, about $600, with no interest or fees.
- He then counter-sued for 24 million rubles (about $727,000) for breach of his terms.
- The bank's billionaire founder publicly complained on Twitter, claiming the customer should face fraud charges.
- Less than a week later, both sides settled privately, and the bank's president acknowledged banks need to explain their terms better.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
And when the bank found out and eventually took him to court, the judge said his version counts. He'd been burned before. Years earlier, he says he signed up for a credit card without reading the terms, got burned in
Speaker A
interest, and lost every court case. So, he learned how these contracts worked. In 2008, a Russian bank mailed him an offer. This time, he read every word. He says the booklet promised 12.9% interest, but the fine print said 45%.
Speaker A
So, he scanned the form and rewrote the fine print himself. 0% interest, no fees, no credit limit. And he added penalties. Every time the bank charged his terms without asking, it owed him 3 million rubles. And if it ever canceled
Speaker A
his card, it owed him another 6 million, which turns out to be about $182,000.
Speaker A
There was one more trick. The form said the full terms were on the bank's website. So, he swapped in a web address that looked almost the same. It led to his own website with his terms on it. He
Speaker A
mailed it back. Soon after, his card showed up along with a copy of his application signed by the bank. The bank later called it a one-time technical glitch. For 2 years, he used that card and only paid back what he'd spent.
Speaker A
Then, the bank canceled it saying he'd missed payments and then sued him for 45,000 rubles with interest and fees.
Speaker A
So, in 2012, he showed the judge the contract, the one the bank had signed.
Speaker A
And the judge ruled it was legal. He had every right to write his own terms, and the bank had agreed to all of them. All he owed was that he'd spent. 19,000 rubles, about 600 bucks. No interest, no
Speaker A
fees. Then he flipped the contract over and went after the bank for breaking his terms. He demanded 24 million rubles, about 727,000 The bank's billionaire founder went on Twitter. He said his lawyers figured this guy was getting 24 million. He was
Speaker A
getting four years in prison for fraud instead, he said. Less than a week later, both sides dropped everything and kept the deal private. And the bank's president said the customer had a point.
Speaker A
Banks need to explain their terms better. Usually, not reading the fine print is your problem. This time, it was the bank's.
Topics:credit cardfine printcontract lawbank fraudRussiabusiness historyconsumer rightsloopholecourt casebanking
