Not sure how this constitutes fraud? Since when can't you alter the terms of a contract? It's not his fault they didn't read it. They sure hold other people accountable when they don't read theirs.
In this case its reasonable to suggest that by submitting his altered contract without drawing the banks attention (e.g. by putting at the front "here are my proposed terms") then not only does the bank not have to abide by them, but he was guilty of deception by trying to trick the bank into signing up to them.
Normally these rules are used to protect consumers from fine print proffered by suppliers. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfoto_Picture_Library_Ltd_... established that unusual or onerous terms cannot be hidden in a page of fine print and still be enforceable. But the rules apply the other way around too.
EULAs were inflicted on the rest of the world by US (which has common law system) and are of questionable legality in many countries.
You made an agreement with the retailer- software sales are final. You make the EULA with the publisher/manufacturer/etc- you seek compensation with them.
In some cases where the software is bundled with the hardware you can only reject the EULA by returning the entire system.
A few years ago (>|decade?) music sales and video games were final at my local BB because they assumed you just burned yourself a copy.
Most places I've shopped just say something to the effect of no returns on opened merchandise. No mention of why. I assume you're assuming what they're assuming.
Probably not. However, if you read a EULA, you will notice most of them have a clause to the effect of "if you disagree with this EULA, you can return the software" and AFAIK its usually with the company with whom the EULA is and not with the retailer (eg if you buy Microsoft software, the EULA (and therefore the return if you disagree with the EULA) is with Microsoft and not Best Buy).
For software acquired from a retailer. Microsoft provides limited support
services for properly licensed software as described at (aka.ms/mssupport).
If you purchased the software from a retailer and are seeking a refund, and
you cannot obtain one where you acquired the software, contact Microsoft for
information about Microsoft’s refund policies. See (aka.ms/msoffices), or in
North America, call (800) MICROSOFT or see (aka.ms/nareturns).If Tinkov gave him the unlimited line of credit that he asked for, then didn't they by their conduct consent to his variation of the terms?
https://www.rt.com/business/tinkoff-bank-agarkov-credit-299/ <- says here they approved his unlimited line of credit
The bank then only noticed the changes in the form (since they have to input it to their systems anyway), and didn't notice the changes to the contract (since it's a contract of adhesion, and thus not supposed to be modified).
Contract of adhesion: Wow very interesting point. If Tinkov's offer is construed as a unilateral offer, acceptance was only possible by performance (signing and returning the offer).
It is not the receiving party's responsibility to determine if something they receive is another party's form letter, or other spam-like.
It seems like you are requiring some out-of-band signalling? What should the specs be for that other signalling mechanism?
My guess is that he filled out the application forms, set the terms of the contract how he desired them, left a note on top of it all to the effect of, "BTW, I changed the terms, lol. You should probably read them.", stuffed it in an envelope and mailed it to the bank. A bank clerk probably received the envelope, looked to make sure the application form was filled out and the contract signed, then marked in the bank's database that the requisite documents had been received.
From the article it's not entirely clear to me what form his modifications took:
> [He] scanned it into his computer, altered the terms and sent it back to Tinkoff Credit Systems.
By this do they mean he did something like "photoshop" the scanned contract, producing a result that looks as similar as possible to the original, but with some parts digitally modified? That would be a bit more misleading, if so.
In the UK for instance, if you're changing credit card terms, you'd be expected to send a notice of variation looking something like this (https://www.hsbc.co.uk/content_static/en/pdfs/en/nov_general...)
Don't make the classic programmer's mistake of expecting everything in the law to need to be as well defined as things are in mathematics. Judges will quite happily decide what a term means on the fly, consistent with precedent and reasonableness, to stop you getting away with anything completely ridiculous.
But in fact there is so much subtlety and nuance to it that I don't understand how computers could ever do it. I mean, you're trying to persuade a human being that your version of the facts is more compelling than your opponents. Last time I checked computers were not very persuasive orators or writers....
You only have to notify people of a change, if it's already signed (and generally that's because your contract will have some form of amendment system that involves notification).
I've been through many B2B negotiations, many of them reaching awful levels of yelling, but the lawyers always red-lined their changes as they undid other side's changes dozens of times.
Akamai's abuse on this front is the reason that we stopped trusting 'track changes' and started doing full-text diffs.
I'm sure it happens. This says nothing about whether these actions would hold up in court, though.
Less extreme is reprinting contract to look as close as possible to the original but with added extremely one sided terms. It's debatable how much that side intended for those new terms to be overlooked.
Life is a spectrum. That is why we have courts to argue where on that spectrum a particular example lies.
Contracts aren't deals with the devil. They are never meant to support "haha I tricked you now you are fucked" deals. They are legal support for an agreement between two cognizant and willing participants. Further more, at least in US, unsophisticated parties are protected from contracting away certain rights and from contracts which are wholly one-sided.
This is a complete and accurate description of every contract I've ever been asked to sign. My apartment lease, my phone bill, etc were all written such that in practice I have no choice but to sign them blindly.
I'm guilty of just clicking through in the general case but I've always read apartment leases. My wife's first apartment she just signed without reading and then when we went to move in together discovered there was no clause in the contract for early termination (apart from the required stuff for Reservists who are called up). The office's stance was quite literally: "sure, you can get out of your lease early - by paying us all the remaining rent or putting your name on this subleasing waitlist and waiting for someone to take your spot."
At the very least, find that part of the leasing contract and read it.
Edit: abonnement -> subscription, thanks to @taejo.